Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/23/1998 HEARINGPp. INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS HELD July 23, 1998 1 Appl. No. 4579-EDWARD & AUDREY CIELATKA 5 Appl. NO. 4581-JOSEPH LEBKUECHER 5 Appl. NO. 4583-BRETT & MARIA MELLINGER 8 Appl. NO. 4585-ISKENDER EREY & ANGELICA BENGOLEA 17 Appl. No. 4586-LISA McELROY 27 Appl. NO. 4588-MICHAEL PISACANO 30 Appl. NO. 4544-MARTIN ROSEN (Owners:Booker & ano) DRAFT Transcript of Public Hearings July 23, 1998 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 6:40 P.M. - Appl. No. 4579 - EDWARD & AUDREY CIELATKA This is a request for a Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31B-13 to establish Accessory Apartment Use in conjunction with residency of the owner, all in the principal building of the owner-applicants. Location of Property: 260 Cedar Road (at intersection with Summit Road), Southold, N.Y.; 1000-78-9-29 (Bayside Terrace). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the placement of the house which is directly in the center of the lot facing Summit Road. The Board has inspected the premises, we are aware of what exists there and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area and we'd like to ask the Cielatkas if they would like to say something. Would you like to use the mike and we could ask you a couple of questions, either one. For the record this is Mr. Cielatka. MR. CIELATKA: I'm Edward Cielatka. the apartment size. I got the figures here and MR. CHAIRMAN: OK, great, do you want to give that to us? MR. CIELATKA: Yes. 600 sq.ft, living space and the house living space is 1220. MEMBER TORTORA: Say that again. I'm sorry I didn't hear you. The accessory apartment is going to be how much? MR. CIELATKA: 600 sq. ft. as it measures right now. MEMBER TORTORA: And the house is? MR. CIELATKA: 1220. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: where you live in would be 1220. No, you mean your apartment Page 2 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Where you live is 12207 MR. CIELATKA: Yes. That'll give me a total of 1820 and that will leave me the 32.9% for the apartment and they say 40%. We need 40%. MR. CHAIRMAN: OK, so it's just under 40%? MR. CIELATKA: · Yes, we save 2 points. MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright. MEMBER TORTORA: 32.9? MR. CIELATKA: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: While your standing there lets just briefly research what we've done so far. We went down and inspected,, we asked you to get an evaluation from an engineer. MR. CIELATKA: I did. MR. CHAIRMAN: You hired Mr. Fischetti. Mr. Fischetti gave you a whole-laundry list of things that would have to be done. Right, me and Mr. Fischetti went over it, right. Alright, hopefully you haven't done any of them MR. CIELATKA: MR. CHAIRMAN: yet. MR. CIELATKA: MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. CIELATKA: Not yet. That's good, OK. I'm waiting to make sure I'll get a Building Permit for the windows and stuff. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, oK. Now remember if we give you a favorable decision, it's condition upon your getting the Building Permit from the Building Department for the entire project. MR. CIELATKA: OK. MR. CHAIRMAN: OK, the entire project. MR. CIELATKA: Right, OK. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll start with Mr. DINIZIO. Any questions of Mr. & Mrs. Cielatka? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. Page 3 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. CIELATKA: MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. CIELATKA: can put there. MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: The parking spaces? MR. CIELATKA: I've got enough there for two, three cars. MEMBER TORTORA: I saw your plan where you have on the parking on the ( ). How many cars can you park in the garage? MR. CIELATKA: One car garage. MEMBER TORTORA: So you have one in the garage and then three in the driveway, is that right? I can put 5 in the driveway. He has like a circular driveway off to the one side. Yes, a circular driveway. You have five cars you That's where the tenant parks anyway is in the circular because I parked in front of her the day we were down there. MR. CIELATKA: .Right, that's right. MEMBER TORTORA: The question I asked, is there sufficient room so that the cars can get out without having to back out into Summit Road? That's my question. MR. CIELATKA: Yes, it's a circular driveway. It's a circular driveway so that they can pull in and go right around out the opposite side. MEMBER TORTORA: questions. OK. I think you have answered all of my CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We hope to get to you tonight. If we don't we will get to you on the 5th of August. We thank you for complying with everything we've requested and we hope that we will do favorably. Page 4 - Hearing Tru,lscripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. CIELATKA: Thank you. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 5 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals 6:48 P.M. - Appl. No. 4581 - JOSEPH LEBKUECHER - Applicant does not comply w/CH. 58. Canceled hearing. 6:49 P.M. - Apr1. No. 4583 - BRETT AND MARIA MELLINGER This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Sectio~ 100-30A.3, based upon the Building Inspector's May 21, 1998 Notice of Disapproval for a Building Permit to construct deck addition and attaching the existing accessory pergola with its existing side yard setback (at less than 15 ft. necessary for a principal building). Location of property is 440 Midland Parkway, Southold; 1000-88-2-12.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the pergola approximately 5 feet from the property line and which is attached to a proposed deck which would be attached to the house and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. The survey issued mentioned is a May 2, 1986 survey and these are pinned in arrears on that survey. Would someone like to be heard? MR. MELLINGER: Good evening I'm Brett Mellinger. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do Sir? MR. MELLINGER: Thank you for inviting me to attend. We bought the property last winter and it had the existing pergola which is really close to the house and we had wanted to put in a deck. I could show you if your interested the way it looks where the deck would go. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MR. MELLINGER: This is the property right here showing the pergola and the structure. We didn't know of course when we bought the property that it was too close to our neighbor's property according to the Code. So we also have a drawing of the deck, it's not very protrusive of the deck, it doesn't actually join the house with the pergola. But, we want to build a nice deck because we entertain a lot and want to take advantage of the open space. The deck will go away from all our neighbors into our sideyard. So, we're hoping to get a variance so that we can build a deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is your opinion of the definition of the word pergola? MR. MELLINGER: I understand, that the word pergola is a deck that has sought of a covering sought of trellis to it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. MELLINGER: with a trellis. That's basically how we can describe it, a deek Page 6 - Hearing Tr~scripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not trying to get cute. My concern is that it remain that way assuming the Board has the interest in going and approving this application. MR. MELLINGER: Oh, we like the a just, my wife loves the pergola the way it is. We want to keep it the way it looks so ( ) structure in the deck to find - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because if it was an enclosed building - BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It wouldn't be a pergola. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It wouldn't be a pergola, no, but it would be a you know, it would be relatively close to your neighbor and I think that that would totally change the entire philosophy of what we have before us. MR. MELLINGER: I agree. It's not our intention to even consider it as a enclosed structure. It's perfect the way it is. I just want the deck to join the two together, open up the space a little bit more. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: way. Mr. Homing? It's a beautiful piece of property by the MEMBER HORNING: Please. Can you clarify on the survey, lots 1 and 2, or formally 11 and 127 Are they legally merged? MR. MELLINGER: We are a, we've had Mr. A1 Fickeissen from our building represent us on a lot of matters here. We submitted that we will merge the two properties together as single property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to explain that Mr. Fickeissen? MR. FICKEISSEN: Yes, a letter was given to the assessors requesting that the lots be merged. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So as a matter of this application you don't have any objection to our saying that that is going to be the case? MR. FICKEISSEN: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. For the record again, that was Mr. A1 Fickeissen. Thank you Sir. Anything else Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: All set. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? Page 7 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Just to pursue I had the same question in mind about the lots having been merged. Am I reading the survey, I just want confirmation that I'm reading your survey drawing correctly. With the lots merged about 90% of the width of that pergola is backing up against your own property that is now part of all one lot and there's only a small tip of the pergola that in fact is a mere 5 feet away from a neighbor's property? MR. MELLINGER: That's the way I interpret it too, yes. MEMBER COLLINS: with the - Yes, OK, I mean that's how I read the survey MR. MELLINGER: Yes, it's not that much that we're actually embodying this property. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, OK. MR. MELLINGER: Can I make one more statement? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MR. MELLINGER: When we sent out the notices as required as certified we did not get a green return receipt from one individual, Mr. Martin and Mr. Hero, residents of Forest Hills. We didn't get a return receipt on that individual. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, I wanted to thank you for putting stakes out showing where the deck would go. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: I have nothing, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have no questions? OK, we thank you Sir, we'll see what else develops at the hearing. Oh, by the way, the deck will remain totally unroofed? MR. MELLINGER: That's correct, Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 8 - Hearing Tr~.ascripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I should point out to the publie that we do haVe a block of time which is quickly approaching which is going to be from approximately 7:00 'o'clock or so to about 7:30, so we may be making some decisions at that time. We don't know. Those two hearings have been postPoned~ 6:58 p.M. - Appl. No. 4585 - ISKENDER EREY AND ANGELICA B ENGOLEA This is a request based upon the Building Inspectorts May 21, 1998 Notice of Disapproval for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B for a deck addition and alteration which will be located within 75 feet of a bulkhead adjacent to a tidal water body (Gardiners Bay), at 680 South Lane, East Marion; 1000-38-6-7. The subject property is nonconforming in size and is located in the R-40 Low Density Residential Zone District. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have one letter of objection. I have a survey dated 1996, Ro. derick VanTuyl showing 15,680 sq. ft. The nature of the application is an extension of the deek to almost the upper most retaining wall on the westerly side of the property and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir? Can you state your name for the record? MR. LACROZE: Yes, my name is Eduardo Laeroze. for the owner and the architect. I am the agent CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: for us. Great, Would you spell your last name MR. LACROZE: Lacroze. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: tell us? Thank you Sir. What would you like to MR. LACROZE: Basically I kind of start from the possibility of an objection. Since we filed this plan we learned of a adjacent neighbor, Mr. O'Neill, in the sense that he, you know, that he' might not be too happy with the layout, that the deck was being intended in the sense that it might obstruct some of his side lines and taking that into account we've taken the liberty and I don't know if this is you know, appropriate procedure or not, but we've taken the liberty to produce an alternative plan so as to address their concerns and try to resolve them. The need for the deck, that would be the first step that we'd like to address is, has basically to do with the use of the raise of the property, the rather awkward configuration of the wedging of the front lawn between the retaining wall and the house that narrows down to a 12 foot on one end and against the O'Neills on the eastern most side as a give or take 19 foot width from the house to a retaining wall. There is an existing deck with its a proper CO at the Town and so on that doesn't really fulfill any proper use. It's basically a stepping Page -9 - Hearing Tr~scripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals stone from the house down to the only stretch of land that they could basically use as outdoors. The reason to propose a deck extension is to make that a usable portion of outdoors and having to ( ) outdoor window space in which they could actually fulfill some kind of usage there. The stretch of lawn are between the house and the retaining wall has a drop in elevation that would make any attempt to use a non grade use require some kind of grading leveling and so on that would introduce a more substantial or permanent alteration of the actual site, plus a, in our view a sort of a collision with a character of the house .and the construction itself. There's a drop in grade of about between 24 and 30 inches between the living grade of the house, the actual floor elevation and the most adjacent grounds which makes any use of a exterior space at grade level cumbersome in the sense that it' would always be a 30 inch grade a drop to deal with and that's where the deck came in play as a more adequate way to transition that problem. The area requested approximately 290 to 300 sq. ft. that basically doubles in size the existing deck would actually allow to fulfill the flow patches required plus they use for (), basically would be a couple of recliners and an outdoor table for, you know, outdoor dining, fresco dining situations. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why would you opt to do that rather than put a, rather just to cement slab or something in there? I mean I understand that you have a floor away from the house to the retaining wall but could that be just leveled and put a base cement slab in which wouldn't - MR. LACROZE: Well, we felt that there already is a deck there, the shingle style of the house although it's not architecturally relevant, it's fairly good view with the existing adjacent house. There's a retaining timber wall plus the bulkhead which also are grade timbers, there's an existing deck that's already tied into the house and the introduction aid of a concrete structure we just felt that it was more appropriate to have a floating structure on wood piers and that would be the least a, put the least stress on any of the existing structures. The bearing lines of the piers would be set back from the timber retaining wall, the only vertical loads with no natural loads into the retaining wall whatsoever. There would be no need to ( ) of existing ground and the actual use of that exterior area that they want to use which in many senses it's like an outdoor dining area so on with a 30 inch drop from the kitchen and the indoor living room and so on, it would become a constant hassle of up and down steps whether it's frayed or breaks or whatever it tis, posing some kind of an immediate hassle to the actual use of the space. The floating, I hear a floating deck seems to be more appropriate with almost a nautical sense of. the property itself. The objection that was basically voiced to us, was that the projection of the deck would encroached on the oblique natural side lines of the neighbor from a basically from a corner window. What we prepared it's a, I'll bring it up to your desk, we've prepared a sketch in which you see the effective windows and the side lines that those windows would be and effectively those two big trees are 24 about 20 inches in' circumference adjacent to a property line, there's an page 10 - Hearing %..anscripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals existing of planting a hedge and stockade fence. There is an opening allowing for natural or diagonal views of the side lines of the neighbor over our property and effectively although the deck would probably not be visible because it's a 42 inch drop from grade to the deck and that would be taken care of by the hedging and the planting that we're proposing. Upon review of the complaint we do sort of grant that obviously if those people here, they would be visible from the a - MEMBER TORTORA: here? Where's the line of the O'Neill's house from MR. LACROZE: The line from the O'Neill's house is on the site plan here, you can see it, this is the existing Erey house, existing deck ( ) of the proposed deck, the retaining wall, the two trees and the O'Neill's house that has an enclosed porch that projects beyond our own building line and the site plan would basically mean that about 50% of the proposed extension would definitely be visible. MEMBER TORTORA: So, right now, your existing deck extends out further than the O'Neill's line of their house, the existing bulkhead? MR. LACROZE: The existing deck basically lines, almost lines up, it's .almost flushed with the front line of the O'Neill's house and there are two trees that are basically somewhat proffer the view and it would have to be a natural view over the fence into the neighbor's lot. MEMBER TORTORA: But, my point is, that right now the house, the O'Neill's house is set further back from the bulkhead than your existing step. Is that correct? MR. LACROZE: The further back from the bulkhead. Yes, in the sense that the bulkhead is in a, is in a slant, knowing the sense that if you look at them as - MEMBER TORTORA: Actual distance. MR. LACROZE: As aligned with the building line. If the houses were built on a diagonal following the lot line, then yes, so that's basically is the situation. This stake indicates the corner of the proposed deck and this would be the triangle of 40-502 that would become visible with people on that site land obviously. MEMBER TORTORA: This is the corner of the deck right? MR. LACROZE: This is the corner of the proposed deck. MEMBER TORTORA: Right where the water is? MR. LACROZE: Right, right before the retaining wall. retaining wall and there's a bulkhead. There's a Page 11 - Hearing Trdnscripts JUly 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're going to have to do two things here. We're going to have to take a short recess. I want you to leave that here in case anyone wants to look at it. Leave it right in front on' the table here and anybody that has to close their windows I suggest you do so prior to this storm that's coming. I just want to mention to the audience that this building is equipped with its own generating system. There's about a 10 to 20 second delay. So, if we do lose lights just stay where you are and the generator will kick in and everything will start all .over again, OK. Is there anything else you want to mention? MR. LACROZE: Well I would say while you know, this is presenting this in the spirit of addressing the objection, this would be the alternative in which instead of projecting the deck land wise we'd be sifting it off to the side and then it would be totally off the view of the side lines and this address is the new state location and the view of the effeeted windows would be basically blocked by the trees and the deck would be set back. That would also allows us to further set baek the deck for an equivalent floor area. With this alternative we'd be also saying in ( ) we'd have a cross flow over the deck so it's even more important that we don't shrink the area that we requested, 300 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: from the retaining wall? How far is that deck, the proposed deck MR. LACROZE: It's 2 foot from the retaining wall, but, that's the cantilever and then there's 3 foot 6, or 4 feet, 3 foot 6 at this point CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To the piers? MR. LACROZE: And cantilever to the actual bearing line of the piers and the girder. MEMBER TORTORA: alternate plan? And the distance of the bulkhead and the MR. LACROZE: The addition to the bulkhead on the alternate plan would be, the original plan it was about 7 foot 6, so it would be 2 more feet. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's about 9 feet. MR. LACROZE: About 9 feet. Well, not from the water, - MEMBER TORTORA: From the bulkhead. MTR. LACROZE: From the bulkhead, yes because we're always beyond 18 feet from the high water mark, from the water mark. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so, we'll leave both of those there. We'll take approximately a five minute recess. I need a Page 12 - Hearing Transcripts July 9.3, 1998 - Board of Appeals motion on that, ladies and gentlemen. favor? I'm making a motion. All in BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. Hearing reopened. MR. LACROZE: At the alternative plan that was basically ( ) at eliminating the site line obstruction granted that neighbor standing by the bulkhead and taking a lateral view directly into the neighbor*s property would obviously see but that's I mean it's not within the new site line is not within a natural, logical site points from the property so that you know, I don't know if there's anyone here from a, you .know representing Mr. O'Neill to you know, to consider this if this would be amenable we haven't been able to run it though them to a discuss it, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To answer your question from the Building Department's point of view, that is not the plan that you initia]ly gave to the Building Department and that's where the problem lies. I realize it all falls into the normal category of 75 feet, and I don't know, you know, if that portion alternate relief because it's more substantial, it's not more substantial in reference to the distance, but it's substantial. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I was wonder- MR. LACROZE: The new proposal? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. LACROZE: The square footage are the same as previous and the distance to the bulkhead is - MEMBER TORTORA: A foot and a half more. MR. LACROZE: A foot and a half more and the way the distance is, the way they measure there are distances to the bulkhead then you know, it shouldn't from their standpoint and I mean I shouldn't have an opinion on what they'll consider or not, but, it should, from their standpoint it should be basically the same in terms of you know having to reject it and then coming back to the variance a- BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: setback does it? It doesn't affect the side yard MR. LACROZE: I'm sorry. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Does it affect the side yard setback? MR. LACROZE: No. Page 13 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just wanted to mention that today, Gary Fish, the Building Inspector came down and he said, that if an alternative was submitted and it's within the same setback, that he has already disapproved it, you don't need to give a new disapproval. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: another yard area or lot coverage. OK, It's only when it affects MR. LACROZE: Yeah, no it doesn't because it moves to the center of the property so the other side yard doesn't, doesn't get effected here. MEMBER TORTORA: What happened to your neighbor on the other side then? See, he doesn't know about this ( )? MR. LACROZE: At that point I would have to refer to Mr. Erey that's had conversations with both and he can relate exactly what the words of the other neighbor were when he was informed that something was going on here. MR. EREY: I'm Iskender Erey. I spoke with both my neighbors. My neighbor to the left of the property, the Wentz, have no objection to any building for the simple reason that there's a big shrub of trees, tall trees, between their and our properties and their property protrudes out to the sea. There's a line that protrudes out. As far as Mr. O'Neill is concerned, I spoke with him as well and his objection was, that anybody standing here who encroached on privacy of his and that his son did not want it and I said, very well, we'll do alternative plans and last Saturday we met with Mr. Lacroze and did the alternative plan which we wanted to submit to yourselves this evening. So, there's no objection from the Wentz. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good MR. EREY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. do you have any more Mr. Lacroze? Alright, we'll start with a, MR. LACROZE: No, that's, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio, Mr. Lacroze? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: A, it's partly a question, partly simply that I would like the record to reflect what I think the Building Page 14 -Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals Department's records show. in September of 96? I gather Mr. Erey bought this property MR. EREY: Yes, ma'am. MEMBER COLLINS: And at the time that you bought it, I gather that that deck that's there now already existed? MR. EREY: It did. MEMBER COLLINS: But, it had not previously had a Building Permit granted and just about the time the property was changing hands, the prior owner applied for a Building Permit for that deck, "as built". In other words, I build it, please give me a Building Permit now after the fact, and he got the Building Permit and as far as I can tell, the Building Department didn't raise the issue of the setback from the bulkhead at that time, and I wonder if you recall Sir, any discussion at that point at time? MR. EREY: No, I do not because I bought the house contingent upon his getting the CO for the deck which did not have one then. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, that's, how I thought the record read and i just wanted to get this down in black and white. I don't think I have any other questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I don't really have any questions and I'll be very candid with you. I feel that this it's a too close to the bulkhead. The setback requirement 75 feet, whether you put it on the east or on the west, my opinion 7 feet from the bulkhead or 9 feet is too close. You have a large parcel of property in the front that you can do a lot of things with. You have an existing deck and the degree of the variance in my mind is too substantial. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Anything you'd like to say? MR. LACROZE: Yes, I'd like to a, if you could just explain just out of a, basically wanting to you know, information of why is the bulkhead, the proximity to the bulkhead an issue? I understand that 75 feet, but when we're dealing with a property that the whole house is within 75 feet of the bulkhead - MEMBER TORTORA: It acerbating an already difficult situation. Page 15 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. LACROZE: But, why is it exactly that it becomes a - MEMBER TORTORA: Town Code? Why was the law enacted? Why is it in the MR. LACROZE: Yes because from the DEC standpoint, a which would be, I mean I want to know, is it an engineering issue or is it a an environmental issue. From the DEC standpoint, they don't regulate distance as of construction to the bulkhead as long as your landward a man made structure (Constant thundering make Mr. Lacroze's statement in part, inaudible) So, I was wondering whether, I mean I know that the concern is obviously that there's a regulation that within and that's why we're asking for a variance, but I like, whether it's an engineering issue or an environmental? MEMBER TORTORA: Thundering makes it inaudible. - the Chairman because he was here when the law was enacted and he probably has a much more ( ) than I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We knew when the law was enacted that it was going to effect the existing property owners. There was no doubt in our mind. This being an existing house, it's probably been in existence. I didn't look at the card when it was really built, but, it appears to be MR. EREY: 1960. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 1964 maybe, Building Permit?, yes. And of course I had mentioned to the council person who had orchestrated it that a, you know, this was going to be you know, a difficult situation. But, I have to tell you, that our concerns are ones of in all instances a, the bulkhead being the mean, OK, that we deal with, because it's the measuring tool - MR. LACROZE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Seaward of the house basically. When I say seaward, I mean from that direction seaward toward it. There appears to be very little room up on top and that's what exists when you look at this entire project. We had an application at the last hearing for a gazebo, alright. I don't know the exact distance, but we granted it 40 feet from the bulkhead. I did call the gentleman today. He asked me to come up and see him, but he was not home. In fact, I just left your applicant's, your client's property. He too, wanted to build closer to the bulkhead. We're just not specifically concern with, the concern is that the bulkhead has reticence, we know that reticence is those tiebacks that exist somewhere in the soil. Some of them are free standing. They're just driven pilings. Certainly, the retaining wall is quite insignificant on this. It's not a strong definite defining point, but, it's just very, very close, and that's where the concern is. MR. LACROZE: Yes, that was basically you know, I had, I'm sorry. Page 16 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: overall philosophy. Yes, we just, you know, that's the MR. LACROZE: Yeah, that was basically why we were opting for the, for the wood piers down to undisturbed soil, rather than any sort of surfaced stress, you know, among other things on the a (). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I couldn't really tell the age of the bulkhead either because it's complete foliated. I didn't go down to the beach. I stood oh, about 5 steps above the beach when I looked at it and my first concern is poison ivy. I have to be honest with you. MR. LACROZE: ( ) my feelings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: speak. This is the applicant who is going to MR. EREY: Something thai is particular to this piece of plan is the number of trees. There are three trees very near to the retaining wall here. There's one right in front of the house there. There's another one here and two here. Very old trees and tail trees, which I assume with the roots give some strength to the land. I'm no specialist, but, I like to think they help. MR. LACROZE: Other than that, the only other issue I wanted to bring up for later to a Mrs. Tortora's observations when she raised the fact that we have a lot of land on the other side of the house. Granted there is you know, a substantial amount of land there but, the width of the house practically segregates front and back and obviously the back as far as and given the layout of the house itself, the way the bedrooms, living room and so on, are laid, and the kitchen is on to the water side and so on, use of the rear yard without benefit of the views and the actual reason of being, of having a house on that ( ) be self defeating in terms of considering as a functional and desirable option to make good use of the property and plus it would be exposing then, that activity that might go there and what might happen on that use to not only to a ( ) the neighbors, but also to cross, and you know, it'll be putting more in the public the use of their land rather than it is now ( ), basically the two neighbors (thunder, inaudible). That's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor?. Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 17 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:31 P.M. - Appl. No. 4586 - LISA McELROY This is a request based upon the Building Inspector's July 22, 1997 Notice of Disapproval for a Building Permit regarding an "as built" swimming pool which is not located in the required rear yard pursuant to Article lllA, Section 100-30A.4. Location of Property: 2565 Long Creek Drive, Southold; 1000-52-8-2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of the survey, most recent date is July 16, 1997, indicating a free flow pool and concrete patio around side pool in the westerly side yard of this two story frame house and garage and it will be approximately 16 feet 3 inches from the westerly property line and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Fitzgerald you're standing there, therefore I assume you are representing these people. How are you? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm glad you're inside and not outside. MR. FITZGERALD: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm glad you're inside and not outside. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, so am I. I don't have anything to add what's in the application except that to explain as I did in the cover letter, that a, I think we had too many cooks overseeing the various aspects of the job and the house that's being constructed. Mr. McElroy who is here, was under the impression, that the permit of the house included the pool as it had originally. The DEC and the Trustee Permits modifications and permits both included the pool. There were two contractors involved and I was involved. The two contractors said that the landscaping contractor who was initially going to do the pool and then he subcontracted that to another gentleman and in effect everybody thought that the permit existed to cover construction of the pool. So, that's how we come to be talking about "as built" instead of one of the pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We recently had some applications in this specific area. Actually the other application was in the whole section of Endicott Park, which is basically of similar consequence. Could the pool have gone in the rear yard? MR. FITZGERALD: No, not and maintain the 75 foot setback in the wetlands. There's a large. Do you have the survey in front of you? There's a large lagoon if you will, of wetlands that occupies the most of the rear yard of the property. You can see that the 75 foot setback line runs right at the edge of the pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: neighbor. Alright. We also had a letter from the MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Page 18 - Hearing Transcripts July ~.3, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr., Mrs. Slatkin. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. & Mrs. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, yeah, right, Mr. & Mrs., I apologize. Is there anything you want to address on that issue at this point, or do you want to hold off? MR. FITZGERALD: I think Mr. McElroy is willing to make it right · with ( ) or With regard to each of the particular complaints. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I guess will 'run through the Board first with you and/or he and then we'll ask them to speak on that issue. Mr. Dinizio, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, just a comment that I think it's probably the most logical place to put the pool if you turn it back to the wetlands and I just can't quite get the concrete patio. Is that just going to be right at the ground level? Is it - MR. FITZGERALD: It's exactly where it is. MR. McELROY? The grade is raised up. MEMBER DINIZIO: cover that? Yeah, so there's no retaining walls other than to MR. McELROY? No, not on the patio at all. There's a retaining wall on 'Lhe westerly side of the property that is built up 4 feet. On the easterly side of that I have 22 Cypress plants that completely give the yard completely privacy on the Slatkin's property. I spent an awful lot of time and money on the landscaping to give an appearance that would not encroach on you know, my neighbors as well as give us a nice private environment. As the situation arose, we had the DEC permits and the landscape contractor who gave the environmental design, was handling the pool permit process. So, when Chituk Pools who installed the pool was told by Creative Environmental & Design who ( ) with it, and since I was paying Creative Environmental & Design to handle this project, we thought we had all permits in place until after the fact. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could I have your name please. MR. McELROY: Yes, David McElroy, I'm Lisa's husband. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you. MR. McELROY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was going to read that into the record. MR. McELROY: The only place that the pool could have been put anyway within because of what Mr. Fitzgerald just mentioned, but I did try to a put the appearance of the pool and make the ambiance Page 19 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals of the pool fit in more so in the neighborhood than more than I needed to do such thing. I noticed that Mr. & Mrs. Slatkin their concern is that from what I read in the letter, that there is a humming sound that comes from the filter and they made a complaint to us about that last year. I think Mr. & Mrs. Slatkin spoke to my wife what have you. The filter I do not turn on in the evenings anymore. If I want to float in the pool I now do that in the day. But, I am willing to sort of soundproof in that event~ if that is one of their objections. I'll put a box or something of that nature around that humming sound that they may even hear during the daytime if that does alienate them and I'll also prepare to plant some nice shrubs. In their complaint they claimed, well not claimed, they said it's an eyesore on their property althoUgh it's a good six, seven feet from their actual house and it's all wooded on that side of the property. In any event, I am prepare to put some nice shrubs so they do not have to look at that in the fall or the winter because ( ). I have absolutely no problem with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: else? Good, thank you. Mr. Dinizio, anything MEMBER DINIZIO: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: This probably makes me sound like a historian but, I'm just curious about the evolution of this. The house I think was built in 1996 and I guess the pool was built pretty much contemporaneously with the house as a single large project. MR. McELROY: The house was constructed in 95, and the construction finished in the summer of 95 and the CO was issued I believe the fall of 97. MEMBER COLLINS: What I'm getting at is, looking at the record, it appears that a Building Permit for the pool was in fact, submitted to the Building Department in October of 96 and it was denied and sort of nothing happened and then in July of 1997, there was a Building Permit application put in by Mr. Fitzgerald acting for you. Here I'm flipping through the papers and I can't find the things that I'm looking for, but, I'm reading my notes. There was a Building Permit application in the summer of 97, which was disapproved. It was a resubmission of the one from October of 96. It was disapproved and at that time they in fact issued a written disapproval which we have in the file. And then, the whole thing was resubmitted again this year. Why has it taken so long to decide to come to get the variance? MR. McELROY: I think that there was some confusion to me with the pool and also there was an issue with the fencing around the pool and we were told when the Building Inspector came, to take the temporary (?) - we had to go with the proper By-Laws and get the fence installed and then it just got laid aside. No reason, we Page fi0 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals just got pushed aside. The pool was here, the pool was closed up. We jUst got to addressing the issue now. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I guess the ax, I should admit what ax I'm' grinding. I'm sure that had you come. in looking for a variance to put the pool where the pool is at the time you wanted to build the pool, I would certainly suspect that the variance would of been granted because I think the location is a reasonable one and the wetlands setbacks are a real fact. I'm just troubled by the fact that the pool was not only built without a Building Permit but there Were a couple of disapprovals from the Building Department and they were just ignored. That's the axe I'm grinding. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: I was wondering, picking up on Ms. COllins, you mentioned that you got permits from the Town Trustees and the DEC. I don't have that in my file. Did you submit copies of that? MR. McELROY: No, it was probably granted by the DEC. I was under the assumption application for the permit for the pool when construction was commencing was done by Creative Environmental Design who was managing the project, being that Chituk Pools was the one who installed it. The normal process from what I understand is that the pool company when we retain them goes and gets the pool permit. I understood, that being the landscape contractor who was involved with this thing, as Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out to you - too many cooks in the kitchen. MEMBER HORNING: I mean, how do We know that this statement is correct that you have these approvals from the Trustees and the DEC? MR. McELROY: Well, the DEC I probably have a permit. As far as the Trustee, the pool. MEMBER HORNING: the record? My question is, did you submit that as Part of MR. FITZGERALD: No. MEMBER HORNING: To the ZBA? MR. FITZGERALD: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can we have a copy of it some time? MR. FITZGERALD: Sure. Yes. Page 21 - Hearing TZ~ansCripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: OK, while you're standing there, MR. McELROY: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, while you're standing there is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Yes, Sir, could you use this mike over here? Would you state your name for the record if you would Sir? MR. SLATKIN: Yes, my name is Daniel Slatkin. I would like to speak against the unconditional granting of this, I don't know if this is working? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think it is. MR. SLATKIN: I like to speak against the unconditional granting of this variance. My wife and I live next door. I just want to know what assurance that we would have that Mr. McElroy or any subsequent owner of the property would in fact build a soundproof structure, a, you know, a soundproof structure with a double wall structure, a double wall structure rounding the a, this pumping apparatus here to alleviate the humming sound, to alleviate the humming sound. That's the first thing. The other thing is, a, the question of the appearance of this structure. It cannot be alleviated by planting the foliage because he has no, the McElroys don't have any room between our property and this humming structure to plant these is just physically as you can see - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, if it's capped with a building you're not going to see that. You're going to see a building. MR. SLATKIN: Yes, if, but Mr. McElroy, used the phrase sort of, sort of. I don't know. In other words we're addressing our petition to, not to Mr. McElroy, but to this Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can tell you this. That if it is not done to our liking and if it doesn't work, we'll reopen the hearing and we will very simply not allow him to have his pool in the sideyard. We've done that on the Board's own motion and other situations. Do we do it usually?, no. Have we've done it before?, yes. MR. SLATKIN: And I would like to reiterate what we said in the letter, that we have no objection whatsoever to Mr. McElroy or any subsequent owner to enjoy this pool. It's a very nicely built pool and it is true, that Mr. McElroy has spent a good deal of effort planting foliage, planting trees and so forth. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Slatkin for your concern. Anybody here have any questions of'Mr. Slatkin? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I have of Mr. Fitzgerald. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Fitzgerald. Page 22 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: The pump house, how far off the property line. It's two feet off the property now, what part off the property line could you place that in an enclosed soundproof structure? Could you place it 5 feet off the property line? MR. McElroy: South? I believe Mr. Slatkin has requested from Mr. McElroy, that the shed over the filter itself which makes no noise, but, it's an eyesore to them, the .filter. My feeling on it is, to answer your question, yes it could. It can be moved over a couple of feet, and build a shed around that. MEMBER TORTORA: You know, that way we can get it off the property line. It's two feet off the property line now and if we could a, would 5 feet be reasonable? MR. McElroy: I could move that, yeah, I would have absolutely no objection moving it a few feet over to allow Mr. Slatkin to move out. What I was going~ to do was, request his permission to plant on the side of the split rail fence at my expense, several nice plantings that would be the right kind of ( ) to eliminate the view for that. MEMBER TORTORA: It'll really be preferable if you can get it off the property line, go five feet back and then - MR. McElroy: You can recommend that I take that filter and move it three feet towards the easterly. I have no problem with that. I could do that, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: I think that would be better. When you have room to do planting on your property and soundproof it and put it in a nice little enclosure like a lot of the pools have and- MR. McELROY: I'll soundproof the actual, pump. I can build a soundproof box with styrofoam, shake it and mold it right in and that will eliminate I imagine a good portion of that humming sound. During the course of the day, last year and the season before that, the pump only runs at night. I have neighbors east of me I have a waterfall on my property so that can also be heard. Our neighbor runs this fall every evening. I hear the waterfall every evening. Neither does it concern me. I want to be a good neighbor. If something that's bothering him I want to have to accommodate them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, just so you're aware that the concern is the view of the pump and the noise of the filter. What we're talking about is enclosing both. MR. McELROY: Reversed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, the noise of the pump rather and the size of the. filter. Of what we're talking about is enclosing the whole thing. MR. FITZGERALD: Soundproof the pump? Page 23 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Moving it over - MR. McELROY: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So that normally on a one acre lot you're required to be more than, you know, five feet, OK, we're going to tell you probably if we're so obliged to go a minimum of three feet to allow for the enclosure and in that case you will not probably have to come back for a variance because of the placement of that. But what we are asking you to do, is not only soundproof the pump but, soundproof the room itself on his side through the use of styrofoam or some other, some sort of technique on the inside of the building, the little enclosure itself. Mr. McElroy: The pump is what a, again, it's a, that's what's making the humming sound. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, once you put it inside a unit that's probably going to be much quieter. MR. McELROY: That's what I meant, well that's what I would do. I'd build a case. I can't take the pump out because it's connected to the actual filter. I'd use piping that and the perimeter of the whole filtration system, but, I can certainly construct a special unit that will hold it up as I just said. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the ugliness of the - Well what can you do to get away from MR. McELROY: You wouldn't see it if I move it 3 feet and I will surround it with shrubbery that will not fall in the fall or the winter. You will not even see it. Our place is three feet over. I can also transfer some of my cypress plantings which are 10 feet tall and you won't even see the pump. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no way you can enclose this in a building similar to what they make this a -? MR. MeELROY: Of course there's a way that I can do that, but, it makes no sense. Now it's going to be a, you take a whole shed, you shed this whole 4 foot strudel aluminum filtration system into a shed would absolutely make no sense. If the issue is that, the view is unpleasant for them. I fixed that by moving it three few feet over and eliminating the view from their property all together. They won't even see the filter or the pump. It will eliminate the noise by building that soundproof unit that I just discussed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, well, what we're going to do, is we're, going to do the exact same thing with the pool we had in East Marion. We're going to let you do this, alright, and then we're going to come back and inspect it. MR. McELROY: OK. Page 24 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, ]998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and we're going to hear it and we're going to make sure it doesn't make the noise. I'll be right with you Mrs. Slatkin, and if it still makes the noise, we'll have to reopen the hearing and then we have to get whatever other things may have to be done. MR. McELROY: May I just ask what would you like to see happen with it? Would you like to the ( )? Would you prefer to have the shed put over the filtration system? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What I would take and I'm not telling you how to build it. MR. McELROY: No, I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would take a normal clear cedar fence, stockade fence. I would cut it down, alright, - MR. McELROY: Oh, I see what you're saying. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I would enclose it totally and put a roof over it with the side to the pool completely open for your access. MR. McELROY: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so that you can take the top off the filter if you have to and change whatever you have to do. I mean anything you have to do. I would styrofoam the entire interior of it as a sound deadening device. MR. McELROY: Hm, hm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's exactly and then I would paint it a very neutral color so as to blend in with everything that does exists. That exists within the area. Mrs. Slatkin over here if you would dear. MRS. SLATKIN: So far as painting it goes, there's nothing prettier or more blending in than nice weather and cedar. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's what I'm saying. I mean it doesn't have to. You can paint it clear. It's going to weather. MRS. SLATKIN: So, I think it should be left untouched. But, just moving it three feet, you know, that we would still be able to see it and I really don't think the shrubbery would do it. So, we really would like that enclosure because that will take care of two things at once. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I think the moving it over a little bit would allow him to put some shrubbery in back of it which will make it less obtrusive to you. Page 25 .- Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. SLATKIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How's that? MR. McELROY: OK, I'll agree to that. I don't have a problem with that. MRS. SLATKIN: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I very rarely tell anybody how to build anything but, that's just my suggestion. You asked my question in that you asked me .a question. Mr. Slatkin? We're trying to alleviate a further - MR. SLATKIN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments that Mr. McElroy made, but it's my understanding from this exehange that, correct me it I'm wrong, Mr. McElroy correct me if I'm wrong. But, it's my understanding, you know, Mr. MeElroy in fact, does not wan~ to move that electric pump. MR. McELROY: No, I will move the pump filter. Mr. Slatkin, we'll move it five feet, we'll enclose it. It's all one unit MR. SLATKIN: So, my understanding is incorrect, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Slatkin? Thank you. Is that agreeable to you MRS. SLATKIN: Yes, but may - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's lust, you're, sitting in the back there and we can't get down you know, and that's the reason why we're constantly making you come up. We apologize, I'm not directing you to use anything. I'm just - MRS. SLATKIN: OK, I think that point is all settled, but, I would like to mention the first point that we brought up which was that when this pool was first built, the noises and music was truly horrendous and we haven't heard it lately. But, you never know what will happen in the future. Now we've heard that the McElroy's house is up for sale and so even if we hadn't heard that, there may well be subsequent owners and we would just like it understood that we don't want anybody there whose going to make it unbearable for us to be on our own property. So the music is played so loud, that even in our house with the windows closed we still have to listen to it. We haven't heard that kind of music lately. MR. McELROY: Well that's three years, three and a half I think. But, there was a Sunday afternoon around eleven, twelve oVclock and just so you, Mr. & Mrs. Slatkin know, the music that was being played was off the rear porch and not off the pool. ~It was a, Frank Sinatra music or what have you. It was not a, why, I see the musie earried over to their property because it's open space even if it's wooded and what not. I, I, we never play the music in the Page 26 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals evenings. As a matter of fact as she just pointed out, we haven't. We try to be good neighbors once they spoke of how that bothered them and there has not be an incident since then which was a year and a half ago. This particular day was a Sunday afternoon about eleven o'clock, twelve o'clock. I can see their point how the music carries over to the property, but, it wasn't from the pool, it was on the rear porch and I want to be a good neighbor. What. can I do to be a good neighbor? They let me know their concerns, they let me know their concerns with this and I believe as Mrs. Slatkin has just said, there has not been an issue for about a year and a half regarding that incident, so. Any future owners, yes, if my house was sold, or I would imagine it just be part of good neighbors, you know, caring them, so far it's mutual. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Your house is for sate? MR. McELROY: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: improvements ? OK, but you intend to do all of these MR. McELROY: Absolutely. I'll have it known within five days. I will start, Mike in the middle of next week? MIKE: No problem. MR. McELROY: I will commence immediately to a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: a decision, alright? OK, you've got to wait until we give you MR. McELROY: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we thank you for your courtesy, we thank you for your input and a we hope everything will be taken into consideration within our decision. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 27 - Hearing T~nscripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:57 P.M. - Appl. No. 4588 - MICHAEL PISACANO This is a request for a' Variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, based upon the Building Inspector's June 15, 1998 Notice of Disapproval for permission to reduce front yard setback from 50 feet to approximately 48.5 feet, for the "as built" dwelling foundation at 865 Leeward Drive, Southold; 1000-79-7-25. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I should point out to the people sitting here, that appeal number 4582 and appeal number 4587 will be open but, we are postponing both of those hearings. That is the hearing that was scheduled for 7:00 o'clock tonight. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: being cancelled. Well Dwyer is not being open, it's CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And Dwyer is being cancelled, that's right. So, we'll go on to Pisacano which is 4588. I have The recent survey which shows the 48 feet 5 inches to the front porch and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I think we're ready, please state your name. MR. PISACANO: Michael Pisacano. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: tell us Mike? How are you? What would you like to MR. PISACANO: It makes no noise. Pretty much the reason why I built a few houses and the setback were always 35 feet, not going over 40,000 sq. ft. they required a 50 foot setback, surveyor surveyed the property. I didn't realize it was that Close and I had the ( ) piece of property. I had the excavator just turn a little bit because my garage door was entered from the right of the home and after it was done from the survey, was when it was picked up by the Building Department. Actually probably about 10 feet from the front porch that is over 17 inches. It's not the actual foundation. I guess it could be considered that, but it's just the front porch of the house that is 17 inches over the required setback and I really ( ) the house by burying the boards or ripping it off it would really ruin the whole character of the house. MEMBER TORTORA: Is there a poured foundation on that? MR. PISACANO: Sir? MEMBER TORTORA: There's a foundation poured MR. PISACANO: It's a poured foundation. MEMBER TORTORA: So you have to rip that out, be costly? MR. PISACANO: Would I have to? Page 28 - Hearing T~=nscripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, because 17 inches. MR. PISACANO: Yeah, I have to rip it up or bury it, but then the 4 x 4s would support the upper roof or bearing. Even if that was buried they'd still want either the header moved back with new footings put in, which was unexcavated area, so it's really like historical ground. You'd have to go down probably quite a bit to a hit virgin soil or virgin ground. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is just a point of reference. This is not a smart statement that I'm making to you. At what point Mike, did you actually find out, that you were encroaching - MR. PISACANO: When the house was built. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When the house was built? MR. PISACANO: Yeah. I'm trying to think when they a, yeah the 4 x 4s were set, then they stopped me and told me to stop working on the porch area on the side that is on the house. The soffits were already completed. There's really not a lot that I can do to the house. I do build them and sell them. It's holding up the CO and I don't make any money on this but this is what I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll go with Mr. Homing first. Mr. Horning any questions? MEMBER HORNING: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I just, I mean I can assume that it would be very costly to rip this up, but, that's a question I'll ask you. MR. PISACANO: Costly? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MR. PISACANO: Well, like I said it would ruin the character of the house. In fact, if it's ripped up, everything is going to be pushed back so you're going to have like a 3 foot front, boards ( ) apart. It just wouldn't look right. MEMBER TORTORA: Would it costs a lot of money, really? MR. PISACANO: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I observed that there was natural footing around the entire postage stamp area of the front porch and wa~, a monolithic poured on top basically. Well it's not a monolithic porch, it's just a pour on top of it. The footing all around. page 29 - Hearing T~=nseripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PISACANO: It's a full foundation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Full foundation, yes. MR. PISACANO: not a structure. They said if I buried it, I guess it's considered CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. PISACANO: They wouldn't allow the 4 x 4 which are holding up the porch roof to stay in that area, we'd have to take it back, average. It would mean taking down the soffit, ripping down the porch roof ( ), it would just be a hassle. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: The description is painful of what you would have to do I'll tell you that. How long, how far along are you on this project? Are you weeks away from finishing it? MR. PISACANO: The kitchen eabinets are in. It's pretty mueh complete. The front porch is what I'm really held up on. Just wrapping the polls and putting the brick walls around the outer and landscaping around it. It's pretty complete. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, while you're standing there, is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 30 - Hearing T}~ascripts July 9.3, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:03 P.M.- Appl. No. 4544 - MARTIN ROSEN (OWNERS: Booker & ano). Location of Property: 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck; County Parcel #1000-141-3-44. This is a continuation of public hearing regarding applicant's request for an Interpretation regarding a proposed tower structure in this LIO Light-Industrial Office Zone District, and/or Variances based upon the Building Inspector's February 18, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a Building Permit. application to construct a tower for telecommunications use, for the following reasons: 1) The proposed telecommunication tower being located on a nonconforming lot in an LI District is not permitted according to Section 100-165B; 2) The proposed tower being the principal use on the lot is required to have a rear yard setback of 70 feet pursuant to Article XIV, 100-142; 3) The proposed tower is required to be located at least one hundred (100 feet) from the nearest dwelling unit pursuant to Article XVI, Section 100-162C.3 .... " CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're on to Mr. Rosen's application and we'll then ask Mr. Cuddy if he would like to do the entering words. MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy, for the applicant. Since the last meeting we have found that the Building Department, and I also filed a copy with the Zoning Board, a new map that shows all of the survey information and all of the site plan information on one document. We've also filed an amended application pertaining to the request that the interpretation be concluded before the Building Department and so that it could also be concluded before this Board. I don't want to belabor the points that we've made but I do think it's important that everybody understands, without question, the position that we're asking the Board to take. We're asking the Board to make an Interpretation, initially an interpretation that this applicant has a radio tower, that radio tower is outside the scope of Article XVI, which is the Wireless Communications Facility provision, it's out of the Town Code. When we were last here, it was my understanding that there was being proposed a different -interpretation although I'm not sure of the basis for that. I have Mr. Olshin who is here. He is a Professor at New York Institute of Technology. And my client (Mr. Rosen). We'd be happy to answer questions if there is a different way of looking at the Town Code. I'm only able to find one version of the Town Code. I don't know how you can get to another version, and I'm seriously concerned that we are working out two Town Codes: one Code that has a version literally before you and then another thai is figuratively before you. If there is another version we need to know because we need to address that. But I believe if you look Page 31 - Hearing Ti~nscripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals at the definitions, you look at the purposes, and you look at the body of the Code, you can only come to one conclusion, and that is that a Radio Tower does not .regulated by this provision of the Town Code. I don't know any other way you can do it. I've read it. I've read the provisions over. I've given you a copy of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and we're just not inside that Act and I don't believe we're inside the Town Code and I don't know any provision in the Town Code that suggests that we are. And therefore I would ask you to make that interpretation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. In light of your letter of July 10, 1998, what we are requesting from you when we get or when you get the new Notice of Disapproval is any update on a new plain application before this Board of any changes that you are anticipating or anything that you have brought before us, OK, other than what we have from the original application. That's what we really need because although we still have the original application~ you know-, you have since requested this - the change for the office use and so on and so forth which we asked you to address to the Building Department, and you know, of course we're waiting as much as you are. But we also need the amendment of that application to include this Notice of Disapproval be brought forward to us in the way of an application. Do you understand what I mean by that? I mean I'm just, I'm not, I know you understand it, but I'm just asking for an acknowledgment basically. MR. CUDDY: Yes, I understand what you're saying. I'm prepared to do that. I was prepared as long ago as March 22 when I first asked for that interpretation and hopeful, I was hoping that the Building Inspector would have that done by this time. We're prepared to file that immediately because the change would be minimum and certainly we wouldn't be asking for the interpretation in just a (week?). Naturally, we are asking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to go through the entire request again for what you are looking for up to this date, or shall we wait until we get that Notice for Disapproval? MR. CUDDY: Well, I'd be pleased to say in addition to the fact that we're saying to you that in the Light Industrial Zone, where we have an office use with an accessory radio tower and that in the alternative we ask the Board to also consider us the Telecommunications Tower, if they found we were and, I did not have it but it's possible, but that's how we were first rejected by the Building Department. If that happens, then we would ask you to determine that instead of making a hundred-foot setback, we could not be more than that is from the dwelling, we could not be more than perhaps 87 feet away, ~so we'll need at least a 13% variance on that particular version. We would also need under those circumstances a variance for the setback in rear yard because we're approximately 3 feet from the line. The requirement as I understand it would be 35 feet, so we would need a variance of 32 feet. In that con~lection the LIRR has consented to our application. They don't have an objection to where it is, they're the neighbor that's Page 32 - Hearing T1~nscripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals affected in the back of it and are closer than the wooden house. But basically those are the applications that we have before you. We ~vould need in one case at least two variances and there is a question that arose although I don't believe that it is a serious question as to having in the Light Industrial District a lot that is smaller than 40,000 sq. ft. But clearly the code provision that we talk to - which is Article XVI says that the Bulk Schedule is what prevails. It says it can't be a nonconforming lot except in accordance with the Bulk Schedule. And the Bulk Schedule indicates lots that are before 1957, which this one is, I have a single and separate search in, is not a part of the minimum 40,000 sq. ft. lot - so I don't think that should be a problem. MEMBER TORTORA: As far as the Bulk Schedule, there are two Bulk Schedules. There is 'the' Bulk Schedule and the Bulk AA Schedule. And if you look at the footprint in the 'section that you're referring to, where it says "shall conform to the Bulk Schedule," at the end of this chapter, you go to the end of the chapter, the Bulk Schedule requires 40,000 sq. ft. The schedule which you are referring to is the Bulk AA Schedule. MR. CUDDY: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: I believe there is a distinction. I just wanted to get that on the record. MR. CUDDY: I think that the distinction is only because the Bulk Sched~l~e AA was enacted after the Bulk Schedule that you're talking about. They weren't enacted at the same time. Interesting enough, the Bulk Schedule AA was enacted just prior to this code provision so it would be remarkable if having done the same kind of law, having done that, we're saying that you should be 40,000 sq. ft., because that's the easiest thing in the world to say. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not sure that that's so. I'm not sure - in fact this was the Bulk Schedule that was enacted if I recall a long time before this Local Law was enacted. MR. CUDDY: No, I'm talking about the Bulk Schedule AA. MEMBER TORTORA: AA. So am I. MR. CUDDY: That was enacted relatively recently. MEMBER TORTORA: No. That's not so. MR. CUDDY: Well, either it is, or it isn't. MEMBER TORTORA: No, it isn't. I guess what Jerry and I, what we want to do is have a clear understanding of what is before us at this point because the original application to the Zoning Board of Appeals which was dated February 6, is for a Telecommunications Tower. It's for an interpretation and if required a setback variance as to the distance from the neighboring property line, and it's for Page 33 - Hearing [['~anscripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals the rear yard setback. There is no other request there. There's not a request even in there for the office. There's not a request there for an interpretation of the provisions that you have since submitted. MR. CUDDY: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: So we're contemplating this piece meal. What we're trying to do is consolidate everything, say, here's what we have before us. MR. CUDDY: But, each time I come - in fairness to me and my client, I have explained to you and I'll explain it once again, that beginning in March, having received for the first time the Telecommunications Act of 1996, I read it and discovered that what had had been hoped was not correct. From that point on proceeded to ask the Building Department, and proceeded and asked by giving copies to this Board the same thing, that we be permitted to make a pertinent interpretation. But, there was no response to that from the BUilding Department. I appeared here and said that the very first time in April. I appeared here on June 11, and said the same thing. I say even tonight, I say it's unfair to the applicant, when he was directed by the Building Department, that he's inside the code and then finds out that the very provision talked about is really not applicable, not to let him do with his tower what he's done is to apply and ask the board to make an interpretation both ways. MEMBER TORTORA: Could you give us a copy of that application that you had submitted to the Building Department? MR. CUDDY: I think I did. MEMBER TORTORA: It's not in our file. don't have a copy of it. We have your letter. We MR. CUDDY: Fine. I'll get one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think we did, we did have. I know you did have a discussion with the Town Attorney most reeently and we had a discussion with him, too; and he very simply asked, you know, that he didn't ask, we said that we did ask, we did tell him that we asked you to as a, and I sure the phrase 'in house keeping,' OK, provision to, to make this application for the new Notice of Denial. You know, we could go on the original application. We don't have to do that. I felt bad, I feel badly for saying this to you, but I mean we could go on the original application and still continue with that on that premise I mean, but - MR. CUDDY: Well (interruption by changing of tape). The only thing I didn't in March was pursue the building inspeetor. I did pursue him but he still didn't give me the answer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Page 34 - Hearing Transcripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. CUDD¥: So, I hope MR. CUDDY: (changed tape) I did pursue but to no avail because we still didn't get any answer. So, I would hope that you would consider both of these because that's what we've really asked to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Both Notices of Disapprovals. The old one and the new one that's going to be forthcoming? MR. CUDDY: That's right. actually saying. I think that's what the applicant is CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Good. Is there anything you want your client or, you know, the expert witness that you have here, you want to state tonight or anything of that nature? MR. CUDDY: Well again, I don't really know what's being said. We're asking for an interpretation. We said to you we believe that the Common Law of New York, New York State Construction Rules is part of the McKinney's Volumes, when read, it says, that you read all of the Code Provisions together. So, I don't know if you can take segments of it and say, well I think this is what it means. I think you have to take the whole thing. If you take all of it, which is the way Statutory Construction is done, I don't think you can escape the fact the Radio Tower is not in the provision; and I haven't really heard serious argument otherwise, but I get the feeling that an opinion that maybe the Radio Tower is included, but I don't know why and no-one has been able to tell me. So, it's our position that it's not, and we're here because nobody has some position contrary to them to try and respond to that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we're- in all due respects to you, we would like to clear up this issue in the very near future of, if it is or it isn't and we - and then proceed and that's basically what I was referring to in my conversations so hopefully we will get that out of the, out of the barn sort of speak and then we would then we can go from there, continue with the application. MR. CUDDY: But. when you say continue with the application, my understanding was that what you're waiting for is a Disapproval from the Building Inspector. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. CUDDY: And I assume that Disapproval may be somewhat presumptuous, but I assume that that Disapproval is simply going to indicate to you that an interpretation is needed to determine whether a radio tower is inside or outside of the Code. So I would hope with that exception, the hearing eventually could come to a conclusion. There doesn't seem to be a lot more than to except it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we could still make the basic interpretation if it is or it isn't. Page 35 - Hearing ~l~.anseripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. CUDDY: Well that's what I mean. What I'm saying to you is that I would like you to make the Interpretation. I would like the hearing ~o be closed and I don't think it would need to go on indefinitely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, if we had the Notice of Disapproval tonight, we could close the hearing based upon any testimony that we would take tonight. OK, but we don't have that. What I'm saying to you is that we could possibly make a decision if it was within or wasn't within regardless if we have the Notice of Disapproval or not. But you feel that possibly the Notice of Disapproval will further earmark that particular issue. Is that what you're saying? MR. CUDDY: No. I .think that the Notice of Disapproval is going to be plain on its face. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Yes. That's what I'm saying. So I mean I still think we can deal with the issue if it is or it isn't, you know, at an interim type of way, alright, and then proceed with the application based upon the new Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER TORTORA: Because another thing, in the Notice of Disapproval, they're going to review the office plans and we don't have that actually. We have not seen that at all. MR. CUDDY: submitted. Well, the survey I gave you was the plan that was CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 600 sq. ft. office. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but the Building Department didn't review that when you originally submitted your original application in February. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? (None). Continuing with this hearing, anybody like to speak against? Mr. Forhkolb, how are you tonight? MR. FORHKOLB: Pretty good Chairman, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MR. FORHKOLB: I've got question for you. At what point does he need, Mr. Rosen need Health Department, Water and Cesspool approval? Does he need that before the application or after the application is granted? Page 36 - Hearing T~.~anscripts July 23, ~998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Every approval that we do is "subject to". OK, so it would be subject to that anyway. MR. FORHKOLB: after? So if the permit was granted he would need that CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It would be subject to him getting it. MR. FORHKOLB: Because we know that building hasn't been lived in in an excess of two years, OK. According to Suffolk County Health Department regulations, you need 100 feet between cesspool and well, the neighbor's cesspool and well. MR. FORHKOLB: And quite frankly the size of the lot, I've done measuring and he won't make it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Review? So he's going to go to the Board of MR. FORHKOLB: Yes, he's going to have to get a variance for that also and there's no public water on that street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. FORHKOLB: So, it seems to me that this whole situation here is just a whole string down-the-line variances. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. FOHKOLB: Thanks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Booker, right? Anybody else like to speak? It is Mr. REV. DOZER: No, I'm Reverend Dozer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, I apologize, Sir. I sincerely apologize. REV. DOZER: Thank you so much. I mean, if Mr. Booker is as good-looking as I am. I am Reverend Dozer, Pastor of Unity Baptist Church of Mattituck, and I am here representing two of our faithful members, Alice Funn on one side and Mrs. Maddie Simmons on the other side. And in sitting and just listening I was a little confused about, well, first of all you know, when you go from one, when you do a little screening for a swimming pool and noise from a swimming pool the fact that you have residences on both sides, and you put up a Telecommunications Tower, you know, it makes you begin to wonder just how you can do that. But I would hate to see this variance go through based on the fact that thel?e's nothing in the Code that would protect you, ok, these are residents that these setbacks should definitely be imposed and that a hundred feet and thirty two feet and all these variances as the gentleman just said, a string of variances. It doesn't seem to be that they're meeting any Page 37 - Hearing T~anscripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals of the regulations for variance just based on the fact that there's nothing there or whether it is that it is imposing more hardship upon the neighbors that are next door that is not in favor of that. And I think we just wanted it just again to be on record, to let that be known that these are people that have gone with the American dream. They own their home, and they've been there, and they're not. fighting over no noise from a swimming pool. But, they're talking about a structure that's going to be imposed upon them completely and in this area, and there's no setbacks that they can seem to be able to meet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you, Reverend, that we are deeply concerned about both of these ladies and the community itself. There is no doubt in our minds, and they have a tremendous impact on us, upon me in particular, OK? Mrs. Funn doesn't know that I Went to school with her granddaughter, or her niece basically. I graduated high school with her. REV. DOZER: They are law-abiding ~citizens here, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate that, thank you so much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Reverend. Yes, Andy? ANDREW FORHKOLB: I'm told you, at one previous meeting they had some opposing signatures? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. ANDREW FORHKOLB: I just want to present that to you. keep that. (Submitted petition of signatures). You can CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Sir. OK. I guess hearing no further comment, we'll make a motion recessing the hearing again until we receive the Notice of Disapproval. Yes, Mr. Rosen, Mrs. Tortora would like to ask you a question? MEMBER TORTORA: You know, we've been talking about all these different issues and the obvious question that escaped me. You're Marty's Trucking Business, right? What do you truck? MR. ROSEN: FurnitUre, rugs, upholstery, almost anything. Mostly household goods and bedding, et cetera. MEMBER TORTORA: company - Is it for, you know, a furniture concern, a MR. ROSEN: I have several contracts. MEMBER TORTORA: that's why I asked. Because I don't see your trucks running, MR. ROSEN: I have a very good reason for that. In 1977 I had three hijackings. My trucks are very well-known. I decided, and it's against the law I might add to send a truck into the city to Page 38 - Hearing Transcrilots July 23, 1998 - Board of Aploeals Brooklyn or certain parts of Long Island, not to be marked. But I take that gamble and I take my summonses with a grain of salt, especially here in Suffolk County, which I must add. I've lived out here in Jamesloort for a little over nine years. I got more summonses for some reason out of the North Fork. It's just not strange, but I go with it. And that's what I truck and that's why I'm a truck - some of my trucks are marked by the way. Most of them are not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Rosen, I'm going to go a little bit farther. I had a discussion with him - with you on Sunday, if~ you remember. He did show me pictures of his business in Oeeanside and I would assume Mr. Rosen that you would allow anybody to eome in and see your business in Oceanside if they wanted to, right? MR. ROSEN: Absolutely. out if you recall. I also brought my corporation papers MEMBER TORTORA: Do you have antennas from Oceanside east? MR. ROSEN: Do I have any - ? MEMBER TORTORA: Antennas? MR. ROSEN: From where? MEMBER TORTORA: From Oceanside. MR. ROSEN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Where are they located? MR. ROSEN: At my place of business. MEMBER TORTORA: East of Oceanside? MR. ROSEN: No. MEMBER TORTORA: You never had any antennas in - MR. ROSEN: In Mattituck? No. MEMBER TORTORA: Riverhead, Greenport, anywhere? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nassau County, west, you know, Nassau County, Western Suffolk County? MR. ROSEN: No. I have a home in Jamesport. I have a small tower there, yes, very small and I have an antenna on there, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: So, that's it? MR. ROSEN: That's the only thing. I mean, you can't really call that a tower. Page 39 - Hearing T~anscripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: That's a11. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions of Mr. Rosen? MEMBER TORTORA: I just wondered what you were trucking. MR. ROSEN: I'm sorry? MEMBER TORTORA: I was just wondering what you were trucking. MR. ROSEN: Household furniture. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Sir. Yes. MEMBER HORNING: I just have a question for Mr. Cuddy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, Mr. Homing would like to ask you a question if he could. MEMBER HORNING: I'm curious, Mr. Cuddy, having read Local Law 26 and which is titled the Wireless Communications Facility, are you familiar with that law as well? MR. CUDDY: I think so. MEMBER HORNING: This is the law that you're saying that is not pertinent to your client's application? MR. CUDDY: That's correct. MEMBER HORNING: And yet, the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval, their first one, the first thing they cite is the "proposed Telecommunications Tower being located on nonconforming lot is not permitted according to Section 100-165B," they're citing a Section of that Local Law 26 -the Wireless Communications Facilities Law. I'm trying to expand my understanding of your logic to say, that you're exempt from that law. What definition are you using since there is a definition of Wireless Communications Facility that goes along with the Law in the 100-13 Section. What definition are you using that would make yourself exempt from that law? MR. CUDDY: I'm not sure I follow the entire question, but the end of that I think I can answer. The Code has three definitions that you're aware. One says, Wireless Communications. One says, Wireless Communications Facility, and the other is Telecommunications Tower. The Wireless Communications is the one that incorporates the 1996 Act. It does it in the first sentence. I don't think you can get the Wireless Communications Facilities without first getting the wireless communications. If you take that logic, certainly one is incorporated in the other. But even if you didn't do that, there's no language in the Wireless Communications Facility definition 'khat speaks for a radio tower. It just isn't there. And Page- 40 - Hearing T~anscripts July 23, 1998 - Board of Appeals so when you say to him, how do we get there? That's how we get there. Now, the second- MEMBER HORNING: Never mind. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion again recessing the hearing. We assume that we should be able to clear this up in August and so we'll - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is there a date with that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: August 13, and we sincerely hope that we'll receive everything that we need to close the hearing at that time and we thank everybody for their courtesy and I offer that ladies and gentlemen as a motion. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. End of hearing.