Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/13/1998 HEARINGPp. 1 4 9 10 12 16 18 19 INDEX iRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS HELD August 13, 1998 Appl. NO. 4590-W. KRUPSKI Appl. NO. 4591-A. ROMANO Appl. NO. 4593- Z. SVATOVIC Appl. No. 4595-W. TUFANO Appl. No. 4587-JOHN DWYER Appl. No. 4596-BERYL CAFFREY Appl. No. 4581-JOSEPH LEBKUECHER Appl. No. 4594-M. FERRARIS 34 Appl. No. 4589-R. SLEDJESKI 40 Appl. No. 4509-E. TONYES/SOUTHOLD AUTOMOTIVE 63 Appl. No. 4544-MARTIN ROSEN Transcript of Public Hearings August 13, 1998 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 6:25 P.M.- Appl. No. 4590 - W. KRUPSKI - A Variance is requested under. Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for a proposed addition to existing dwelling with an insufficient front yard setback. Location of Property: 315 Pat Lane, Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel ~1000-114-10-6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey indicating the area in question that is the nature of this application, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area and I believe Mr. Fitzgerald would like to be heard. How are you tonight Sir? MR. FITZGERALD: Fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? MR. FITZGERALD: Again, I don't have anything to add to the material that's in the application. However, it would be I think, appropriate to point out that the intrusion as required to the required front yard is at no greater distance and not permitted by the regulations for an entrance way a portico and how the problem is that in order to make esthetically and architecturally satisfied, if you will~ it had to be 11 feet wide instead of the required, the maximum of 6 feet wide, which is permitted by the regulations. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Fitzgerald? Alright, Mr. Dinizio, any questions of .MEMBER DINIZIO: No, absolutely not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, the a, we have the a, what would I call it, a survey type drawing of the footprint of the house - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A sketch of a survey. Page 2 ~earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: A sketch of a survey of the house and the proposed additions but, no elevations. The house now, of the front door is perpendicular to the street because it's a little set in from the front wall of the house and what is proposed to do, is to fill in that little space and move out about 5 feet beyond the front wall. MR. FITZGERALD: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: What's this thing going to look like? Is it closed or opened? Is it a foyer for the house per se or a -? Let me tell you why I'm asking. I have no real problems with this. But, I think that you're misreading the code about what's permitted. The code says, with respect to the percent coverage of the lot that up to 6 x 5 open steps and porches don't count for coverage purposes and the code also has this stuff about how if you're in the neighborhood where the setbacks are below what's required, then you're setback can also be below what's required. There's a little gloss in there about not counting open porticoes and I think you're relying on that, and I think that that doesn't really do it for you. I think you really need a straight forward simple garden variety setback variance and that's why I was asking what it looks like. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that's correct. My point was, that this thing on a smaller Scale would be permitted. A narrower width would be permitted by the code as a portico. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, it would not, it's not a matter of being permitted, it's a question when it counts and it doesn't count for lot coverage and it does count for setback. I have, but, I'm not going to argue that because I'm personally prepared to give you the setback variance that you need given the appearance of the house and the setbacks in the neighborhood. I really was asking what it looks like? MR. FITZGERALD: Would you like me to explain what it looks like? It's an uncovered porch portico. I mean it's a covered portico. Correct? MR. KRUPSKI: That's correct. It's with columns. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Walter, why don't you come up and use the mike if you don't mind. BOARD SECRETARY KOWASLKI: Yes, we can't hear you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is Mr. Krupski. How are you? This is Ms. Collins who asked the question. MR. KRUPSKI: You're right, we're going to fill in that space along the front of the house which become the foyer. Coming out from that will be an open porch with pillars and a step down and basically that's it. Page 3 ' Hearing Transcripts AUgust 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Fine, that's really what I was getting at. The space you're going to fill in between the existing recessed front wall and the existing outer front wall, that's going to be a foyer?, and then you're going to put a portico, an open outside portico? MR. KRUPSKI: In front of the back, yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, thank you. MEMBER COLLINS: I didn't mean to sound complicated. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: None. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll see if anybody else would like to speak. Anybody else in the audience like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 4 ~Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals 6:28 P.M.- Appl. No. 4591 - A. ROMANO A Variance is requested under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 of the Bulk and Parking Schedule, based upon the Building Inspector's June 15, 1998 Notice of Disapproval for a permit to construct addition and alteration for a seasonal dwelling, which states: "Under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 of the Bulk and Parking Schedule in the R-40 Zone, the lot size of 8,662 sq. ft. has an allowable lot coverage of 20% or 1,735 sci. ft. Proposed construction will have 1,980 sq. ft. of lot coverage of 22.9+- percent." Location of Property: 1380 Leeton Drive, Southold, N.Y.; Parcel #1000-58-2-2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey indicating in a diagonal cross ( ) the areas to be added to this proposed seasonal dwelling, to this existing seasonal dwelling and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. The most recent date on the survey is March 24, 1998. Mr. DeLuca? MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask you to ask Mr. DeLuca a fact point of the outset to dwelling? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: The Building Inspector's denial says, that the proposed construction will end up with 1,980 sq. ft. a lot coverage of 22.9%. But, the survey that Mr. DeLuca submitted, speaks of a 2203 sq. ft. property after the construction and basis the percentage on that and since we're talking lot coverage I'd like to get the facts right. MR. DeLUCA. Well I think the a disagreement eomes from the wall and the wall was explained to me in two different ways. One where if you look at the survey, depending who you talk to, either the Building Department or the Zoning Board of Appeals, you'll see the elevation 13 and elevation 11 between Zone V-8 and A-7. Some of them were subtracting that area and then take the percentage on that. Some of them were including the area, taking the percentage on that. I really couldn't get a straight answer exactly which one was doing what. MEMBER TORTROA: In other words someone was, one is less the flood zone and other is a - MEMBER COLLINS: No, you're talking the denominator, I'm talking the numerator. What I want to say Mr. DeLuoa, is I want us to proceed on the basis of this which you've given us, which is factual and clear and it has a statement up in the corner that says, the proposed lot coverage is 2,203 sq. ft. I was just bothered by the faet, that the Building Inspector's denial had a smaller building. It had 1980. Pag~ 5 ~Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. DeLUCA: No, no, frankly with all due respect to the Building Department I would go with the high numbers. MEMBER COLLINS: Absolutely, I just wanted to make sure there were no hidden problems in here that we weren't aware of. MR. DeLUCA: No, I would go with the numbers that you see on the MEMBER COLLINS: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We of course advertised it from the - MEMBER COLLINS: From the Building Notice, yes. MR. DeLUCA: Yes, but I brought this up right from the beginning and I discussed it several times and I just did the best I could with getting everyone to agree and I have no control over the markings of between Building Department and Zoning Board of Appeals. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And the outcome of it, right? MR. DeLUCA: I noticed the discrepancy immediately but~ a, there was nothing much I could do about it. I also have, I put in a plan of the house so you would, I gave you elevations and floor plans. If you don't have them there I brought another one with me so you can look at it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes I believe we have it. MR. DeLUCA: And, I'll explain the situation the way the existing house is, and why a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MR. DeLUCA: Mr. Romano wants to change the footprint. Basically the house right now is a two bedroom house with a very tiny a, the bedrooms are approximately 10 x 10. There's two of them in there and there's also a bathroom that's about 5 x 5 and a small utility room, that's probably 3 x, 2 x 3. So, as you can see in that floor plan, we're actually increasing the bedroom count by one and we're actually making a utility room off the garage area and we're a, that flood plan we're raising everything above the 10 foot level flood plan and we're extending the deck running around the side and the rear. So, the bedroom count is going to be increased by one. But, the kitchen, living room, dining room area is going to be in the old section and the bedrooms are being pushed over to the new section. We're just eliminating the bedrooms and the existing and creating a utility room and bathroom. Not a utility room, a bathroom and a, and out of the existing kitchen, we're creating a bedroom. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The existing covered porch and the deck Page 6 Hearing Transcripts }ku~ust 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. DeLUCA: It remains the same. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Exactly the same? MR. DeLUCA: No change. Stairs remain the same, everything, everything from the new addition forward, the footprint remains the same. It does not change at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So where do we pick up this 220 sq. ft. then? Just a, I missed that. MR. DeLUCA: That's the addition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the addition? MR. DeLUCA: That's the addition including the deck, the steps to the new deck, the steps running down the side of the house because we're raising the second floor up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Mrs. Tortora would you like to skip over you for a minute? MEMBER TORTORA: No, my question is really then, the buildable area is less, the area into the V-8 Zone ( ), that's non buildable area. MR. DeLUCA: Exactly. MEMBER TORTORA: So, that's why you've come down to actual buildable land ( ). The lot coverage is 6,262 feet MR. DeLUCA: Exactly. MEMBER TORTORA: And apposed lot coverage is 35%. I understand it, thank you. MR. DeLUCA: I tried to cover all the basis. MEMBER TORTORA: You did, you did very clearly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I guess I don't have any questions. I looked at the p~operty a~d I know what they're up to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I just try to get a little perspective here. The wood deck that's you know, facing Long Island Sound, those Page 7 ~Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals steps that are a, I guess to the east? Which way they going? Towards the road or down towards the sound? MR. DeLUCA: They go down towards the sound. MEMBER DINIZIO: the east side? So, they're coming off that wood deck that's on MR. DeLUCA: Basically, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: And the wood deck that is on the sound, is that a second story deck? MR. DeLUCA: A, no, actually no, it's a, the, you can see it by the floor sketch. I included the existing, everything on that drawing. The house is on piles and that deck is on the same elevation as the a - MEMBER DINIZIO: First floor. MR. DeLUCA: First floor, correct, and it's still going to remain al one floor except it's the back part we're lifting up. You have to walk up steps to get to this level. It's still a one story house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: from the existing one. It's certainly a radical transformation MR. DeLUCA: Oh yeah, but frankly the existing structure needs some repairs. The piles are in fairly decent shape but, the rest of the structure has some deteriorated doors, windows, some siding is deteriorated. So we're basically when we side, we're going to side the whole house over again. Change some of the rotted doors that are deteriorated, windows. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: throughout the hearing. We thank you, we'll see what develops MR. DeLUCA: I remain? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, you can either stand there, or you can a, there may not be anybody. We'll see what happens. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman? Can I in fact ask a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes~ surely, go ahead. MEMBER COLLINS: The increase in the square footage of the house from this project is quite substantial. MR. DeLUCA: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: A, were there alternatives you considered? Were there realistic alternatives that would take you less close to the road? ~earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. DeLUCA: The problem is with the existing piles that are underneath the building now, we cannot add the second story on. That was the first approach. To do that I have to take the whole house down. As a matter of fact, the piles that are there now, are just adequate to support what it has. So, the only alternative he has, actually it would be cheaper if we could go up on the house. But, there was no other way to do it. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good point. Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? 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 9 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals 6:45 P.M. - POSTPONEMENT requested by Applicant due to prior commitment out of New York - Possible Oct. 15 or Sept. 10th? Appl. No. 4593 - Z. SVATOVIC A Variance is requested under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B f~-r a new dwelling with proposed insufficient rear yard setback (less than the required 35 feet). Note: Art. XXIII, Sec. 100-232A, corner lot front yards are required from both roads, and one yard other than the front shall be deemed a rear yard and the other a side yard. Location: 12355 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue; 1000-115-5-2.6:25 P.M CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Appl. 4593 is postponed and I need a motion ladies and gentlemen to postpone that into October 15th. MEMBER COLLINS: So moved. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 10 Hearing Transcripts )kugust 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals 6:46 P.M.- Appl. No. 4595 - W. TUFANO Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B based on the July 15, 1998 Notice of Disapproval in which applicant has applied for a Building Permit to construct new dwelling with deck addition at less tha~-x 75 feet from existing bulkhead. 2482 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, N.Y., Parcel #1000-122-9-9.6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you Mr. Tufano? MR. TUFANO: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you? MR. TUFANO: Fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the proposed placement of the new dwelling dated the most recent date is May 15, 1998 and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Tufano what would you like to tell us? I've known this existing house for years. I'm from Mattituck. This is the house that Mr. Allan owned, wasn't it? MR. TUFANO: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? I noticed that you have pushed the house back from 18.9 feet to approximately 50 feet from the bulkhead and I have noticed that on the survey it says, that you're ( ) construction at 15 feet on the easterly property line and 35 feet on the other line, on the westerly property line and what would you say the average setback of the houses in the area are from the bulkhead? MR. TUFANO: They vary. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They vary. MR. TUFANO: Some of them are 10 feet, some of them are 50 feet and some of them say 75 feet. But, the majority of them are around 10 to 20 feet from the bulkhead. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I guess we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr. Tufano? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Well, as to the setback, you've selected the spot where you want to put your house, and it's 50 feet back from the bulkhead. What were the considerations against going back Page 11 ~Iearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals further? I'm sure there were considerations. what they are? Could you tell us MR. TUFANO: Well this is a waterfront parcel. I don't know if you took the a- MEMBER COLLINS: I, I - MR. TUFANO: Did you visit the site? MEMBER COLLINS: I went to your property but I did not go through the gate and walk down because I could see pretty well what I needed to see. MR~ TUFANO: Well, fair enough. I wish you had taken a walk to the bulkhead. The existing house that's been there, we've been in, we're enjoying the view and if you buy a piece of property and you have a view you would like to protect it. Now, the reason why we'd like to stay as elose to the existing structure as possible, but, it would be to our advantage to go back 50 feet because that takes us out of the V Zone and if I have a choice I would like to stay 50 feet out of the V Zone and still enjoy the view. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: That was my question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, and Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: I'm all set for the time being. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I think I looked at the drawings of the house. Is this going to be a two story house? MR. TUFANO: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Alright, we'll see while you're standing there, is there anybody else, anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor of this application other than the applicants? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any further comment from any of the Board Members? I guess not. We thank you Sir. We hope to have a decision for you in the very near future. I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 12 ~earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals 6:50 P.M. - Appl. No.~JOHN DWYER Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244. based upon the Building Inspector's May 5, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which disapproved an application for a Permit to construct an addition to dwelling for the reason that it encroaches on the combined side yard setbacks. Location of Property: 2626 Bay Shore Road, Greenport, N.Y.; 1000-53-4-21. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the sketch of a survey from Anthony Lewandowski, it's dated April 8, 1998, the most recent date is June 7, I'm sorry, the past date was June 7, 1998. It appears that the applicant is squaring off his house, sort of speak and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Sir? MR. ARNOFF: Goehringer. I'm very well, thank you, it's nice seeing you Mr. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the record. I have to ask you to state your name for MR. ARNOFF: My name is Harvey Arnoff. I maintain offices at 206 Roenoke Avenue, Riverhead, N.Y. Good evening. Mr. Dwyer first of all apologizes for not being here but, he's home recuperating from surgery on his foot and has a great deal of ambulatory problems at this particular moment. I spoke with him this afternoon. He sounded a little less frustrated than the first time I spoke with him because I don't think he anticipated any problems. He was just going to build a small deck out of block and put a little addition on his house so that his kids can come out and visit him, another bedroom for the house and he did rather well I think, up to the point where he came here, because then he some how or other he couldn't figure out how to post the property and how to do certain things that were whatever, and asked me to intervene. Just so the Board knows, there is Trustee approval for this application. There's Department Environmental Conservation approval for this application and quite properly, the Building Department declined to approve it because of the setbacks and side yards. Essentially, I didn't really measure it out, but, it doesn't look like we're changing the side yards very much. If you continue, if you look at the front portion of the house, it looks as if, you notice we're not changing the westerly most portion of the house, or the northerly most, I guess, northwesterly. We're only changing one portion as far as setback and it really looks like it's a de minimis change. It's almost in the same footprint. It's an extension of the footprint. There's a slight jog there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Page t~Iearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. ARNOFF: I cannot explain to this Board. If someone wants to ask me why, I have no idea why it's there. MEMBER TORTORA: Could it be an existing wall? MR. ARNOFF: That's quite possible that it has to do with an existing wall. But I did not personally inspect it for that particular but, it looks like a half a foot jog, it comes out. I've no, I can't explain it, but, it's there. It is in conformity with other structures in the area and I would welcome any questions that I think I might be able to answer. I'm not sure that I can answer anything, but, I'll try. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: pretty much? You say it's going to be an open deck, MR. ARNOFF: Oh, the deck itself is not really before you, but, it's just a block deck, OK. That's not here. That's, that's improved. It's just a concrete block and sand deck that's going on into the back yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the house? Alright. This is strictly in addition to MR. ARNOFF: Strictly an addition. That's the only thing that's before this Board. The reason the Building Department declined to approve was the side yard setback. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I misunderstood that because I was looking at the drawings and they all indicated room or rooms so that's why - MR. ARNOFF: built. Oh, no, no, no, there's no deck on the house being CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great. We'll start with Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: It's a 15.1 put on that property line? MR. ARNOFF: 15.1. Yes it appears to be 15, it looks like 15 feet, not MEMBER TORTORA: It's hard to read because it's ( ). So, I just want to get the exact distance that you're looking at. MR. ARNOFF: It looks like 15 on one side and it looks like - MEMBER TORTORA: 3.8 Page 14 I~4earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. ARNOFF: 3.8, I couldn't read whether it was a 3 or a 2, I'll take the 3. I prefer the 3 to 2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Why don't you call me Dr. Collins. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Dr. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: No, we just, I didn't mean to be flip, excuse me, you had fumbled my name earlier. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I apologize. MEMBER COLLINS: It's alright. Mr. Arnoff, this is a question I suspect you don't have the answer to. There's a year old Building Permit in the window at the house and I didn't come back to Town Hall and ask somebody to look up that Building Permit and see what it was. Do you have any idea because as you said, the concrete block patio was obviously put in without a Building Permit. I hope they're going to grade it because the way it stands now, it's not graded and it therefore really ought to be permitted and that would open a whole other can of worms for him so I do hope he's going to grade it. MR. ARNOFF: No, he'll take care of that. I can't answer that question as far as the permit, apparently, maybe, I don't know, he may like the decoration in his window. It doesn't appear to be, there's no comment by the Building Department with any open Building Permits. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I was just puzzled by it. MR. ARNOFF: No, I, I. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. no comments? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, while you're there, Mr. Arnoff, we'll search the group. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands we'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MR. ARNOFF: It's nice being here on something non controversy. Have a nice evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: See you next month Sir. Page 15 !-Iearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Who second that motion? MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 16 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals 6:57 P.M. - Appl. No. 4596 - BERYL CAFFREY A Variance is requested under Article III, Section 100-33B-4 for a corner of the "as built" accessory building under Building Permit #22394Z issued 10/17/94. The foundation is setback at less than the required 20 ft. side yard setback. Location of Property: 9395 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel #1000-121-2-4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey, the most recent date, July 7, 1998 indicating the approximate area of non compliance standing in front of the building it's on the left-hand side and it's a 17.4 and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Sir would you just state your name for the record. We appreciate your coming in. MR. KELLY: Bill Kelly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: tell us ? How you doing? What would you like to MR. KELLY: Well, on this particular case, I was the builder of the building and we didn't have it staked by the surveyor prior to construction and I think what had happened is the survey stake out when we were doing excavation, the site we submitted to be in an incorrect location and so we ended up approximately 2-1/2 feet on the one corner and it encompasses probably about 7 sqo ft. of the total building area. It's over that ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is the amount of utility that's in this corner other than electricity, is that it? MR. KELLY: That's just it. Actually they've never completely rewired the building. They just put the service in and stopped at that point and currently they're under contract, they're selling the property and that's the reason for the variance and for the CO. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mr. Dinizio, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MEMBER COLLINS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins any questions? Mrs. Tortora any questions? Mr. Horning any questions? Page 17 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: None. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're on a roll Mr. Kelly. While you're standing there, is there anybody 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 .COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 18 ,Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals Postponement requested by applicant: 10th. Possible Oct. 15th or Sept. 7:07 - Appl. No. 4581 - JOSEPH LEBKUECHER. Road, Laurel, N.Y.; 1000-125-2-2.2. 935 Franklinville CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For anybody that is going to be or is here for Lebkueeher it is postponed. We tried to get a hold of you, but, your number wasn't in the book Mrs. Berdinka. MRS. BEItDINKA: No, it's not listed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What you really should do, is leave it with us..If you want to bring it up here and give it to us here. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: the last four numbers I need. I know the first three, it's just MRS. BERDINKA: 5286. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Actually the procedure is, that you should call the office. The Chairman is going to recess this with a date, OK, check with us a day before that meeting in ease I'm not around on that day. I'm taking your number now, but, it's up to you to call the office and get the update on it. I'll take your number too but we'll both try this way we won't miss each other. I need your name. Your name please. MRS. WOODS: Sheryl Woods, 298-1169. Thank you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: for the next meeting. The Chairman going to give a date CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're going to postpone this to October 15th. (Other parties procuring postponement date and other info.) BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: October 15th. I need a second on the Motion to MEMBER TORTORA: I'll second it. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 19 I;I earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:08 P.M. - Appl. No. 4594 - M. FERRARIS A Variance is requested under Article XXIII, Section 100-231B based upon the Building Inspector's June 15, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which states: Fences located in side or rear yards shall not exceed 6-1/9. feet in height." The fence is proposed for the existing accessory tennis court structure. Location of Property: 3585 Orchard Street, Orient, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-27-2-2.10. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have letters from property owners in the area and I have a copy of the survey amended July 17, 1996, with a penned in area of approximately 20 feet from both property lines which basically indicates a 60 x 120 foot tennis court. The nature of this application is the height variance and that was pending on May 7, 1998. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody would like to be heard on this? MRS. FERRARIS: I'm the owner, so- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you like to come up here and we'll grill you for a little while? MRS. FERRARIS: Sure, what do you want to know? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just state your name for the record. MRS. FERRARIS: Nancy Ferraris. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: area when I was over. I notice that this was a relatively open MRS. FERRARIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And a, it's a beautiful piece of property by the way. Is there any particular reason why you chose to put the tennis court in that location? MRS. FERRARIS: It was the furthest from the property line, furthest from the house in the back part of the property, it's far away from everybody as we can see. Not near either street, you know, just in the back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The nature of the letters, one in particular indicates that they would like to see some screening of the fence. MRS. FERRARIS: From what I understand, the two parties that wrote the letters do not have properties adjacent to mine. I had to notify eight homeowners. These two people live behind us so I've got two empty 5 acre lots between my property and theirs. I don't believe according to the letter that they have correct information, Page 20 t4earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals either they seem to think that we're putting a l0 foot fence all around the tennis court, if I'm correct, according to their letters, which we're not doing. We're going to have an 8 foot fence only around the ends of the tennis court and going 30 feet down the sides so that there will be a 60 foot - CHAIRMAN GOEHIRNGER: Opening? MRS. FERRARIS: Opening. the court. There's no fence at all in the center of CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: though? The setbacks are going to stay at 20 MRS. FERRARIS: I believe the setback on the rear yard is incorrect. It should be 50 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It should be 50 feet? MRS. FERRARIS: 20 feet. 50 feet from the rear yard. We originally had a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: more. I didn't read that in your application or MRS. FERRARIS: Yeah, yeah, so I just, I just think that when Mr. Van Tuyl had done that it was originally going to be 20 feet and we flipped it in the rear yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: then the side - OK, so the rear is going to be 50 and MRS. FERRARIS: And the side is 20. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The most easterly side or the easterly side, standing in front of it, - MRS. FERRARIS: It's kind of north east. Yeah, yes, that left side of the property, that's 20 feet from the property line. There's a large clump of trees. I would - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, OK, wait a minute now. No, no, you've got to come up and show us this. I indicated this at 50. You're standing in front. You're saying that this is going to be 20 - MRS. FERRARIS: This is 20 and this is 50. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And this is going to be 50, alright. MEMBER COLLINS: Could you tell us which this? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: south? Yes, it would be either east or Page 21 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we're not giving either one. going to say that when she is standing on (changing of tape) Alright. We're MRS. FERRARI~: faced. Other property based on the way the house is CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, you actually have two rears. MRS. FERRARIS: Well we have two rears right before the corners. So - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, right. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: From the south line 50 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: So, you want an 8 foot by - MEMBER HORNING: MRS. FERRARIS: inches. MRS. FERRARIS: I should of drawn, could I draw that now? (all discussing and looking at drawing.) MEMBER TORTORA: The fence would be 60 on one end. MRS. FERRARIS: And 60 on the other. MEMBER TORTORA: 60 both ends. MRS. FERRARIS: And that would be 30 here and 30 here and 30 here and 30 there with 60 in between, no fence at all. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have to mark the file that's in the office, so. (further discussion). MEMBER TORTORA: Corners. So it's 30 both corners and 60 in between, or 50? MRS. FERRARIS: 60 in between, is no fence at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Change your number from 20 to 50 where you have it running there. MEMBER TORTORA: And the fence height is? MRS. FERRARIS: 8 feet. Proposed. Proposed everywhere. So it's additionally 2 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What color is the fence going to be? Page 22 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. FERRARIS: fence. I guess it's going to be black standard chain link CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Anybody wants to see this we'll show it to them in a second. OK, what else would you like to tell us. Any lighting? MRS. FERRARIS: No lighting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this a clay court or an asphalt court? MRS. FERRARIS: An asphalt court. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and a, so you're proposing no screening at all is what you're telling us? MRS. FERRARIS: Well, it's in an area of the property that we don't maintain, so we don't mow the whole 5 acres other than where they built the court or, where the a, the asphalt is anyway. Everything surrounding it has been left natural. So, there's a lot of tall grass, there's a lot of bushes, there's a lot of brush ( ) to the area. At the rear of the court, at the back, at the 50 foot line,- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. FERRARIS: There is a large cluster of trees that are probably doubled the height of the 8 foot fence that probably cover three quarters of that back length of the fence. So, that's pretty well hidden. If you're at the front of the fence facing towards Halyoke, there's a lot of brush and bushes and it gets very dense to the street. So, if you're actuaily standing on Halyoake looking straight at the fence, you can't see it. You can't see the court. All around the sides are tail grass. I mean they're not 8 feet, but thery're some small trees and bushes and stuff, so, we feel naturally it's, it's fairly well covered. I know they proposed a 10 foot wall, 60 x 120, 10 foot wall of evergreen trees, surrounding this whole entire court to hide it I guess is what they want, and I don't think that looks natural. I think it looks quite artificiaily quite frankly, which is why we're objecting to that part of it. You just go the natural state of the land it looks best. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: this applicant? Alright. Mr. Homing any questions of MEMBER HORNING: foot fence? Sure. What's the compelling reason for the 8 MRS. FERRARIS: Well, see every 10 foot fence height is 10 feet, we chose 8 feet because we want to do the minimum. That we were to facilitate (), yet not have any protrusive in the area so we felt that being that it's on 5 acre lot next to other 5 acres lot, acre lots, the few walls that we would have to retrieve goin~ over 8 feet would be few and far between, so we figured 8 feet was a good height. Page 23 ~{earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: And the purpose of the court is for recreational purposes for your family? MRS. FERRARIS: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I read what the neighbors want you to do and you kind of state, you know, what you're feeling are. Is there some kind of a compromise that you feel that in fact you cou]d do that would help alleviate their concerns? MRS. FERRARIS: I don't mind doing some kind of plantings. I just don't think a wall of 10 foot evergreen trees is going to look good, or, quite frankly so a - MEMBER TORTORA: What, what would you do? MRS. FERRARIS: I mean we could find something, I mean Dogwoods grow high and they're pretty. I mean maybe on some of the ( ) we could put something like that. I mean to buy something that's going to be that high would be kind of I think next to impossible, but we would plant somethi~ng that would - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This Board, OK, has never requested that anybody go out and buy a 10 foot tree, OK. The max we had done in the year 1997, not calendar year 1997, fiscal year 1997 to present of 1998, is 6 feet, OK, and that was to buffer a garage which had an observation deck upon it, OK. MRS. FERRARIS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: However, the greatest was a swimming pool and those were I believe 4 to 5 foot Arborvitaes. MEMBER TORTORA: We did a tennis court once, but, that was a different situation. MRS. FERRARIS: Quite frankly, I mean you know, you guys, this is a new experience to me all together. MEMBER TORTORA: I did look at the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, let me just say this to you. It becomes something that you have to, the reason why, I think Mrs. Tortora, I'm not putting words in her mouth is asking the question is because, if you have the high brush there that you have, and you choose not to maintain something that this Board may require as a condition, that high brush could snuff that tree right out, or bush right out. So, that's the reason why we're saying that tell us what you feel that you might, you don't have to do it this second OK, because we're not making a decision this second, alright. But, Page 24 t~{earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals if you want to think about it over the weekend and you want to write us a letter, or fax us something. We would ideally like to have it within approximately 5 business days. You may want to speak to your husband, you may want to speak to some family members, you may want to speak, you know - MEMBER TORTORA: Why doesn't a, you know, why don't you consider working with the two neighbors and explaining to them, that it isn't going to be a l0 foot tall fence, saying that not, not - MRS. FERRARIS: I know I could, I just a, there's a lot of distance between their house and my tennis court and I guess the problem I had with them as appose to all my adjacent neighbors is, there's a long way away for them, so, they can see my court, but, from second story of my house, I can't see well the landscaping they do around their house. So, their objecting to 18" of fence, down 5 acres plus 50 feet, plus another acre or two, wherever their house is situated on their property, I find it hard to imagine that they can tell where 6-1/2 feet stops and where my other 18" is. Then, we have two empty 5 acre pieces which from what I understand there will be two homes built. They're both being designed right now. So, when those homes are being built, these people may not be able to see my property at all never mind my tennis court. So, if it was my next door neighbor or the gentleman who looks across my landscaped property and my tennis court, I would be - MEMBER TORTORA: So what you're saying is, you don't feel it's a reasonable request? MRS. FERRARIS: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, that's pertinent. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I just wanted to pursue the landscape a little bit further. I know the area and I did go out there again today to check it. The people who have written letters regarding their vista have addresses on Orchard Street and I gather it's further what I would call out away, away from Town, away from the Village. You face, your address is on Orchard, but, you actually face Halyoake Road. MRS. FERRARIS: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: What I guess we would say behind you, behind your house is one of the undeveloped parcels? MRS. FERRARIS: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS.' And then, if you go out of your driveway, if you turn right and go up Holyaoke Road, pass the sculptures, that lot abuts, it's close to your tennis court on that side. Page 25 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS.. FERRARIS: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Is that an occupied lot, or is that empty? It's hard to say out there. MRS. FERRARIS: Let's see - MEMBER COLLINS: I think improved with a house up on the curve. MRS. FERRARIS: Yes, there's a house on the corner of Halyoake, right next to me, and I guess it's Platt is the little one lane that then goes off back to a narrower road. There's a house there. That abuts my tennis court. There's a vacant lot behind that that, there's a corner of each one of our properties that touches and I was, they were not considered adjacent to my property, so I was not required to notify them. MEMBER COLLINS: The reason why I'm pursuing this, I, I heard what you were saying, that you felt that the objections were raised and the request for this fairly massive screening from people who really were quite, quite far away from your property. So, I just was trying to explore for the record a little bit more about what is close to your property. So, there's this empty lot behind you that you understand is going to be developed in the reasonably near future? MRS. FERRARIS: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: You mentioned another 5 acre lot that's going to be developed. MRS. FERRARIS: Next to that. So, - MEMBER COLLINS: Next to that one?, OK. MRS. FERRARIS: Right, so in that big section is 30 acres that was subdivided into six 5 acre parcels. There are houses on each corner. The two center lots are vacant. I spoke to actually one home owner today of the far lot who had a couple of questions based on the people behind him. He told me he's designing a house, hopefully it will be built soon, and his friends have the vacant lot next door, directly behind me, if you will, who are also in the process of designing. So, those center lots are the one, and there's only one that's actually adjacent to my property whom I had to notify. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll see what develops. We thank you for your imput and if we don't hear anything from you we'll Page 26 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals definitely deliberate upon it, you know. I mean in reference to your consideration on your feeling. I realize you've expressed your opinion on the screening. But, I have to, you know, consid, consulting with family members, and you know, you may consider, well, your only avenue is to put something in or whatever. So, send us a letter within five business days. MRS. FERRARIS: I'm not opposed to sun screening, I, you know, if there was somebody next to me. So, I'll send something to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you want. MRS. FERRARIS: If, OK. About how long does the decision take may I ask? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It depends upon when we schedule the next special meeting, OK. We are definitely probably going to have a special meeting because we have extended the calendar two more weeks to accommodate some changes that we're doing in the middle of September. So, I would say we will have a special meeting within approximately the next nine days or so. So, hopefully, and so, we would address that issue at that point. We do not usually make extemporaneous decisions from this dais, OK, only because we all wap.!, to see what we are putting into the decision. Each Board Member writes his or her own decision as it's assigned to them and a MEMBER TORTORA: This one is assigned to me and if you do have some suggestions, as far as landscaping, in the event this Chairman schedules a special meeting in the next week, please try to get it to the office. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I said, five business days. Tomorrow is the first. That would be next Thursday, that would be the last day. MRS. FERRARIS: photos too? Have you seen the property? Can I send you MEMBER TORTORA: property. Yes, I have seen it. It's a beautiful piece of CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you. Is there anybody else would like, wait, wait a minute, Nancy, don't leave. MRS. FEI~RARIS: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're still continuing the hearing. Please excuse me for calling you by your first name. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes ma'am. Could you just come up here and use the mike or just state your name if you wouldn't mind. We promise you we'll be very nice. Page 27 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. FRIEDMAN: My name is Barbara Friedman and I'm a neighbor on Halyoake, Platt area and I didn't read these letters, I wasn't aware of it. I have the same objections about the screening. I also wanted to know why their fence post goes all the way around it. ( ) on the end. MRS. FERRARIS: No, on the end, no. MRS. FRIEDMAN: Well I think that Nancy should address the issue of screening and not with gigantic trees but, I would say with a hedge along Orchard Street, because it's not only the tennis court that is riling people up. You know, it's the other things that are in the yard and I think it's a very exposed piece of property - MRS. FERRARIS: Can you see my house from where you live? MRS. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to address that question to the Board. Mrs. Ferraris, you have to address the question to the Board because we're taking it down, OK. MRS. FERRARIS: Where is your house? MR. FRIEDMAN: The corner of Platt and Halyoake. MRS. FERRARIS: The corner of Platt and Halyoake. MRS. FRIEDMAN: Yes, I can see your house from my house and I would also like the assurance of the existing plantings to remain in place to screen the tennis court. MRS. FERRARIS: May I say something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, well that's why I told you not to leave. So, why don't you stand over there and use that mike. This is the applicant speaking again. MRS. FERRARIS: I cannot see her house from my house. understand how she can see my house from her house. not my tennis court. I don't Definitely CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just have to tell you, that if one was to have a two story house, OK, - MRS. FERRARIS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean I can see your house from down the block, conceivably, OK. So therefore, if your house wasn't blocking the tennis court, I could see your tennis court. MRS. FERRARIS: Up the corner. Page 28 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, coming in the opposite direction, I could see your tennis court, coming from east to west. MRS. FERRARIS: Right, coming up Orchard Street you could see it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, right. MRS. FERRARIS: But, not coming up Platt. MRS. FRIEDMAN: house. I can't see your tennis court but, I can see your MRS. FERRARIS: OK, so now it's not the house, we're talking about my tennis court. MRS. FRIEDMAN: Yeah, but you know what? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: have to be done - Wait, wait, wait, wait, those statements MRS. FERRARIS: OK, we're not talking about my house. My house has been there for three years. We're talking about my tennis court, correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. FERRARIS: And we're not talking about my tennis court. We're talking about 18 inches of fence for my tennis court, correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I think, wait a minute, I think the figure that your saying is, thai you have the right to put 6-6- 1/2 feet in your rear yard. MRS. FERRARIS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Your choosing to put 8 feet? MRS. FERRARIS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: refering to. Which is this 18 inches that you're MRS. FERRARIS: Yes, in theory. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: in the future. In theory, right. Well, or, or in reality MRS. FERRARIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so, you know, it's an interesting phenomenal because some people and this has no reflection upon this lady over here, just don't like to see chain link, OK, in general. We've seen that before, alright, and that's the reason why we asked you the question, alright. Page 29 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. FERRARIS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, we may impose some greenery, alright. But, it's not going to be punitive. to be reasonable, and so on and so forth, alright. sort of It's going MRS. FERRARIS: And, I'm assuming in that decision, you would tell me exactly why based on whatever that you came upon that decision, correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why we came upon this - MRS. FERRARIS: Yes, would you let me know how - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I would much rather have you say let's recess the hearing and you go to a landscape architect and have one done which we have all the time. I would really think that would be more pragmatic to be honest with you, alright. Would you like to do that? MRS. FERRARIS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What, you would? MRS. FERRARIS: No, I would not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You would not, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: I think that sums it up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I'm just telling you. I have no idea how these Board Members are going to vote. MRS. FERRARIS: This is a new experience for me so, I would just like to know how things work, that's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER: Alright. How things work in reference to how we would determine the screening that would be done? Well, I certainly wouldn't determine any screening without coming out and looking at the entire piece from the exact location of the tennis court, OK. So, you will see me prior to any next special meeting there, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: I'd like to see you know, exactly what it is that people are seeing, because I did go see it. I'd like bearing in mind that before we ( ) were carried away one way or another, bearing in mind the location of where your house is and the impact on it and the two other neighbors. I'd like to actually see what it is that is involved here before I make a determination you shall do this, you shall not do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well the question is, do we recess the hearing or do we go out and look at it? Page 30 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: In fairness to her, yes I would say so. would say so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MEMBER TORTORA: I would say so. In fairness to you and fairness to the applicant, I'm not about to sit here and say do 16 yards of screening. Unless I see exactly what we're screening and where and why. MRS. FERRARIS: That sounds fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: know, I haven't difference, alright. MRS. FERRARIS: it if they a - I mean we have been there, 'but, you stood in the exact location and that's the We'd be more than happy to show anybody around CHAIRMAN GOEHRING ER: Well, why don't we schedule an appointment for next Saturday? Not this coming Saturday, but the following Saturday, OK. MRS. FERRARIS: I will be here through Monday. week through Monday. I'm here this CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well this would be the following Saturday, that's not this. This Saturday, I think is the 16th? MRS. FERRARIS: Right, so it's twenty - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's the 23rd? MRS. FERRARIS: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Around 10:00 o'clock, 9:30, 10:00 o'clock? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The 22nd. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The 22nd, pardon me, thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: it. I won't be able to make that. I mean I've seen BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What time is this, 3:00 o'clock? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, 9:30-10:00 o'clock. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 9:30-10:00 o'clock. MRS. FERRARIS: That's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so, in that case we'll recess the hearing until the September meeting. Page 31 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It'll be September 10th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No it's not. We changed it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I mean the 24th, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The 24th, right. Yes, Mrs. Friedman? MRS. FRIEDMAN: Has the applicant submitted any landscape proposals at all? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, she basically is objecting to it. I'm not speaking for her, but that's what she - MRS. FRIEDMAN: No, but, as far as the existing condition? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, she is telling us what the existing conditions are. I honestly didn't - MRS. FRIEDMAN: As far as maintaining those existing conditions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I honestly did not see those existing conditions, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: As far as what conditions? Let's be specific, because I really don't know what you're talking about. Help me with this. Well I object to that being - Well sustaining the trees that are there and the a MEMBER DINIZIO: MRS. FRIEDMAN: MEMBER DINIZIO: MEMBER COLLINS: MEMBER TORTORA: MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't think we need to discuss this. It's not before us. I wanted to know what she was talking about. Well I don't think we need to discuss. We're discussing a foot and a half of fence. Not the rest of the ladies yard. MEMBER TORTORA: Jim, I didn't understand that. asked her to explain. That's why I MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you asked her to tell, you asked this woman to tell you what she thinks is wrong with this ladies yard. MEMBER TORTORA: I didn't say that. MRS. FRIEDMAN: No, what I'm asking is if the existing screening is even going to be maintained. Page 32 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're talking about the - MRS. FRIEDMAN: I'm asking to described the existing plantings, but, are they going to stay there? That's my question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we can stipulate that when we see them, OK. We'll stipulate them. MRS. FEI~RARIS: Mr. Dinizio was right. She's asking me what else am I going to do with the rest of my yard. I mean you know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we're not interested in that. not germane to this public hearing. It's MRS. FERRARIS: I understand that ( ), I agree. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And so therefore, you know, if we were in a court of law, the judge would tell you to strike that, OK, and this is not a court of law. This is what we construe this to be reasonable people making a reasonable decision based upon you know, a situation. So, therefore, we can just ask us to do this for us though. Can you give us at least some stakes exactly where you think this is going to be placed? MRS. FERRARIS: Some what? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Stakes. I didn't see the stakes. MEMBER COLLINS: Well the asphalt there and the post for the fence. CHAIRMAN GOEHi~INGER: I didn't see it, I apologize. MEMBER DINIZIO: How much more do you want? It's there. All you need is a little chain link, we're done. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I didn't see it, I apologize. my fault. I didn't, I didn't notice it. That was MRS. FERRARIS: Well I have room for my tennis court. looking for my foot and a half of fence. I'm just CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: didn't know it was there. see it. That was my fault. I apologize. I I just knew where it was going, I didn't MRS. FERRARIS: No, it's there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good. MRS. FERRARIS: OR almost there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was there, but, I didn't see it. So, it only tells you one thing. That the entire screening around it must be relatively great because I didn't see it, OK, but I will see it Page 33 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals next week I assure you. OK, so, we're going to postpone this. I'll make a motion. Pardon me, is there anybody else like to speak against, OK. We'll make a motion recessing this until the September 24th hearing calendar with no specific time, at this time and I offer that as a resolution. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. MRS. FERRARIS: I have a question regarding the 24th hearing. I have small children and some of them are going to be in school. Must I be present for this? Can I do something in writing? I mean I have a conflict. I don't live in Orient full-time, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. FERRARIS: It may be tough physically. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, you can do it in writing. MRS. FERRARIS: OK, thanks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Page 34 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:47 P.M. - Appl. No. 4589 - R. SLEDJESKI Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31B-13 for Accessory Bed & Breakfast Use. Zone District: LB Limited Business. Location of Property: 305 North Road at intersection with Sound Road, Greenport, N.Y.; Parcel ID ~1000-35-1-21. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey from Anthony Lewandowski, indicating the parcels which are contiguous to each other, one at 80,569 which is the nature of this application and the piece in the back which has several structures on it, which is 75,684 and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area and my first question for the attorney for the applicant is, it is my understanding that Mr. Sledjeski and his mother are no longer in title to this property. MRS. MOORE: Correct. On July 31, 1998, the property was conveyed to Bobby Zoine and if you recall my applicant although we weren't sure exactly the timing. All of the papers were to be signed by both the purchaser, the seller, The purchaser as an interest man here. In general everybody signed everything at the same time so that we wouldn't have an issue whose in title and the person making the application no longer being in title. So, I have a copy of that deed and I'll give it to you. However, let's back up - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just go on to that - MRS. MOORE: Do you want the deed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, I'll take the deed. Anything you want to give me. The reason why I raised that question is because by marriage I am related to Sledjeski family and however, I am, this is a distance relative Mrs. Sledjeski and his mother. However, since they ARE no longer are in title - MRS. MOORE: No problem and it wouldn't have been a problem really, the relation so far removed and everybody out here seems to be somewhat related, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're not going to say anything derogatory? (Laughter and Pat Moore made her little joke also). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just wondered. give the deed? You started to give it, yes, please. Is Pat going to MRS. MOORE: For your records, I'll give it to you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Thank you Pat. Page 35 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going to mark it? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: We all made an inspection on Saturday, I showed you around and at that time I was hopeful that by today, I would have the Building Department which would of given me a Building Permit, for what we plan to do and this whole issue would be a, today I spoke to Ed Forrester. He, and certainly you will confirm that on your own, but, I'm sure on the record I can state my conversation with him. He told me that from own conversations with the Town Attorney, the Building Department's conversations with the Town Attorney, my reading of Zoning Ordinance, this use is a permitted use. The Building Inspectors of the four people in the office, three of them believe it's a permitted use. If it sits on the rack and unfortunately I get lucky enough to get one Building Inspector who says, you know I really don't feel comfortable with it, you should go to the Zoning Board, here I am. And, as it turned out, I was glad that we made the application at the time we did, because Mrs. Zoine really needs to get the place up and working on the place because that's where she's going to live. So, she's somewhat displaced right now. If you look at the Zoning Ordinance, this is a LB Zoning, zone parcel. There are two parcels. Both of them are LB. The parcel we're dealing with is the restaurant with a dwelling on the second floor. The provisions, well under LB, the use of bed and breakfast, is listed as number 3H, no, oh, the numbering stinks. It's number 3. But, it comes in after number 4, so, I don't know how the numbering worked out, but, in any case it's strictly listed as a bed and breakfast. However, if you are going to make a bed and breakfast, convert your house, your dwelling, with bed and breakfast rooms, that can only be done if you comply with 13lB the standards. That is not a problem. We're going to need all of the conditions of the bed and breakfast which is you have to have a, it's a one year permit so, it's monitored by the Building Department to make sure that everything is going well. That we're not inviting guests out here and the bed and breakfast that we shouldn't be running. If you have smoke detectors, the dwelling has to have at least two exists with large enough windows, there's going to be major renovations to this, to the second story and so, the windows if they're not large enough now, we'll definitely be large enough, and because of the nature of the renovations a lot of, the whole building is going to be brought up to code. So, that won't be a problem. Identification sign if you're in a residential area is limited, but otherwise you meet with whatever zoning criteria whatever the zoning, that zoning district designates and you can't have accessory apartments as well as a bed and breakfast in that same structure. So, we can meet everything. We should of been able to get a Building Permit by now and it should of been a no ( ), but what I think I need from this Board is, rather than proceed with a Special Permit, as a Board you take the Special Permit and say, thank you Mrs. Moore, very nice of you to submit it, however, we don't think you need it under this provision, it's a Permitted Page 36 I~Iearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals Use, go back to the Building Department. Converted to a interpretation that then sends it back to the Building Department and some poor slob coming up behind me won't have the same problem that we did. So, that's really where I'd like this application to go. I don't think you can read the code any other way than to read it as a Permitted Use. I guess that's your job. Any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, apart from that issue, I did want to ask questions regarding the, the, we have seen the renovation plans which are - MRS. MOORE: Incredible to say the least, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Incredible, right, and you're telling me that this. I know we met with you last Saturday as a Board. This woman will be happy with only three rooms for occasional residents. MRS. MOORE: Yes, well she knows, it's funny because, again, I'm looking, I know what, I remember the law to be which was a three room (changing tape) BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Lora said, it's in definitions. MRS. MOORE: And I look at the definition and I don't remember seeing three rooms. But, I remember it being and I have the code here and I stand corrected. I know that, I mean I remember the legislative process. I remember that the Board at the time, the ( ) is in there? I must of been foggy that day, because I remember I told her it was limited to three rooms. She's happy with that right now. It's LB right now with the moratorium and the considerations thai are being made on LB area. This is, kind of common sense to me, tells me that this is something that belongs in that area. I don't know what ultimately is going to be the end result of the legislation but, it seems to me, that she's happy with what she has. She has an existing restaurant, so if we had to make modifications to the restaurant, come back to the. Board at a later date because of whatever it is that we've done that may or may not fit comfortably in the code, will be that there then. Right now, she's going to be, there's going to a lot of renovations to this building and she is comfortable, you know. Would she like more? Of course she would. But, I think by the time she's ready to really open, put up her shingle in, start renting bed and breakfast rooms, I think that that issue may be resolved as a normal bed and breakfast. I think somebody may have told me that maybe one of the Board Members that the State Law talks about 5 rooms being a what is regulated for bed and breakfast use. So, it seems the town should consider - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's Tourist Home. MEMBER COLLINS: Tourist Home. MRS. MOORE: Tourist Home, oh, OK, alright. In any case she's aware of the limitations. She still willing to proceed, so. She 'Page 37 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals has, I think I explained to you I guess for the record, she has children, so, those rooms are going to be occupied by family members I'm sure if they're not occupied by guests. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will start with Mr. Dinizo. Any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: They have plenty of parking there. MRS. MOORE: All use. MEMBER DINIZIO: height? And you're going to raise the ceilings to proper MRS. MOORE: Yeah, their raising the plans. Rob Brown did some preliminary drawings to get us to the Building Department and I know there'll be ( ) with that for quite some time, but, they're going to raise the ceiling so that there are peaks. I guess her first thought when she was in there was, well I like the place, but, I'm little claustrophobic about the height and then Rob Brown said, well you can raise it. You can do anything you want with it as long as you have a little bit of money and you can raise the ceiling and that's what she's planning on doing. MEMBER DINIZO: And the house in the back that's occupied, that will remain as an occupied? MRS. MOORE: Everything is staying the way it is. Sledjeski is living in that house now? Actually Mrs. MR. SLEDJESKI: No. MRS. MOORE: She's out of there? MR. SLEDJESKI: I moved her out yesterday. MRS. MOORE: Yesterday, OK. ( ), But it's a single, it's a little, again, it's on a separate parcel, so, we're OK, there. Her long range plans, the article is true as far as all the things that can be done on the property. There's plenty of room for it. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK. The Hammock guy is - MRS. MOORE: Yeah, that's a temporary situation. Mrs. Sledjeski had rented to the Hammock guy. He's only got only two weeks left on this lease and I've already told him that. You know, he's a real nice guy, but, next year he's got to find another place. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, that's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins. I've been doing much better at addressing you. I apologize. 'Page 38 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I just like to get into the record the fact, that I think your Code, on ambiguously says, that it is a permitted use in that zone, that in Section 81-A3, which cross references under Section 31B 14 and what B 14, says, is that you have to meet certain physical requirements having to do with egress and what not and it furthermore says, that you have to be permitted, get your permit from the Building Department. But, I think clearly that the requirement for a Special Exception which is up in the opening of 31 B applies only in that district and I just wanted to get it on the record that I agree with your analysis. MRS. MOORE: Well, I think it would be helpful for future reference for this Board to essentially state that to the Building Department so that I don't have to, it just seems unreasonable that we're, you take somebody's arbitrary interpretation rather than you know looks - MEMBER COLLINS: Actually, procedurally I'm not really sure, exactly what we're doing here. MRS. MOORE: No, I started with a Special Permit because the Building Department had I gone in and waited for them to give me an answer I would be making the application next week for it and Mrs. Zoine is really anxious, she's, she's starting, she's in her play clothes pulling down walls. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: See, you, you anticipatory applied. You voluntarily anticipatory applied. MRS. MOORE: Oh, yes. I voluntarily applied. The Special Permit is directly to the Board, and I said, they were right in the process of negotiating the contract. We were not, everybody was very anxious. Both sides were anxious to sell, sell and buy and to make us wait any longer to get a ruling that we thought was a no greater and it turned out to be a little more of an issue than it should of been, here we are and it answered the question so. So, we kind. of did the job for the Building Department, in the sense the Building Inspector if there was a disagreement among Building Inspectors, they would be coming to you saying, would you give us an interpretation. We know we think three quarters of us know what it means, ]~ut the other guy doesn't, and would you tell the other guy, so, that's what happened. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, so, essentially what you want us to say, or maybe it's not simply that, that this is not a, the Special Exception request is not applicable to this Zoning District because it's not permitted. MRS. MOORE: It is a Permitted Use. MEMBER TORTORA: It is a Permitted Use? MRS. MOORE: Yes, I gather that's what you meant. Page 39 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MRS. MOORE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else 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 DINIZIO: Second. Motion Carried. See Minutes for Resolution. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions, OK, so we'll continue with this and to see if anybody else wants to speak and then will just close the hearing. 'Page 40 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals 8:03 P. M. - Appl. No. 4509 - E. TONYES/SOUTHOLD AUTOMOTIVE Location of Property: Citgo Station, 54360 Main Road, Southold, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-61-4-23. This is an application requesting Variances based upon the Building Inspector's August 13, 1997, Notice of Disapproval. Applicant has applied for a Building Permit to construct addition and to alter existing gasoline station building, and the application was disapproved for the following reasons: ""under Article XXIV, Section 100-243A, a nonconforming building with a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered unless the use of the building is changed to a conforming use. The preexisting building is located in the Hamlet Business District and is not a permitted use in this district. The side and rear yard setbacks do not conform to the require 10 ft. side and 25 ft. rear yard .... " CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next hearing is a hearing that has been continuing since last year. Do we have affidavits of posting on this one from you? Yes, OK, good. The following public hearing existed here on September 25, 1997, October 23, 1997, November 13, 1997. So, therefore, I'm not reading the public legal notice. Anytime you're ready. MRS. MOORE: Oh, OK, thank you. I had delivered yesterday, thanks to my brother here, he helped me out, I delivered a packet to you and in it I, in that packet I had both Memorandum of Law, which identified I think very applicable legal issues that, to a certain extent I know as Zoning Board to layman, someone would say, well, shouldn't there be just one legal argument? But, in a court of law, there are multitude of legal arguments and some you can argue from various directions. I prepared a Memorandum that argues from various directions, all leading to the point, that you don't need a use variance and that's really my focus here that the Notice of Disapproval says, "this use is not a permitted use in the Zoning District." I say, one, it is based on the definition of public garage and what you're actually doing there and secondly, there are special criteria you give to uses that have special importance to society and it's kind of hokey, but it's true. Educational institution, religious institutions, things that as a whole sometimes get a little bit of pressure when you a, it's a preexisting non, considering it as a preexisting conforming use. typically preexisting nonconforming uses, you say, zoning policies we don't like to expand them, we limit them, don't go anywhere with them. But when you have something like we have here where it's a state mandated and I go through the ( ). However, the Clean Air Act, led to the requirements of 1998 emissions testing and the mandate which this equipment is mandated, I think you can come to any other conclusion that there is no other. They need that extra 'Page 41 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals bay, they must have that equipment, and that's to preserve status quo. So, it's not an expansion, it's not a use that they would otherwise not be allowed to conduct there. It's a use that they've maintained there, that they need to maintain there and as a public policy you and I need our cars repaired. You need to have your car inspected. There are going to be very few inspection stations that are going to have this equipment because of the extreme expense and the equipment here is about $50,000? The equipment itself, is in the range of $50,000 let alone the improvements that you have to make your property to accommodate this equipment because it is not insignificant. There is, and I again I point out, in the facts and the Memorandum, this equipment consists of about 4 fazes. You have the camera that's fixed in place, this is something new. This is not what your existing equipment provides. It's a fixed camera pointed at the vehicle and the reason for that is that it takes a snapshot picture and it takes a picture of the license plate while it's being tested so that the State can verify that we didn't switch cars and did get one passed and the inspection went on another. So, this is big brother watching but it requires that equipment. Somewhat ludicrous, but, that's the equipment. You have the exhaust system that hooks up and I know that you had asked a question which is, is it a tube or is it a hose? And, it's actually both. When I spoke to the manufacturer he said, there's a tube that goes in, but, there's also a hose and it's taking the exhaust and reading the exhaust so, your - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is it doing with the exhaust though? You know, is it dumping the exhaust? MRS. MOORE: It's analyzing. Well, it analyses just like it does now. It analyses it and then it extrudes it. It doesn't filter it, process it, or, do anything of that nature. But to a certain extent, being in the building and that again is part of my argument being inside the building, if you have air conditioning, if you have a closed system, his plans because of state code, he's going to have to go up, he's willing to spend the money. That's what's incredible. He's not going to do a half you know ( ) job, it's going to be a full top of the line job and he's going to put an exhaust system up in the ceiling so that it ventilates the whole property and certainly there might be filtering systems but, nothing to the~ we're not talking about clear air emissions of pollution standards that the big corporations have on the end of their pipes. You don't have to process that. But it gets it out of the environment, the low level environment that you and I walking by, your neighbors might be affected. So, allowing him to put that extra bay and do the improvements he wants, we're going to be pushing the stuff up and out of the way. So, you have the exhaust system, the camera, the computer network, the computer analyzer and a, and it's a box, a big box. MR. TONYES: Dynamotor. MRS. MOORE: network. OK. No, no, not the dynamotor, the actual computer And then finally the dynamometer, I don't know Page 42 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals who made that word up, but anyway, and that equipment is the most, if somebody had a nightmare it created that equipment because the thing is about 13 inches - MR. TONYES: feet MRS. MOORE: 13 feet, excuse me, thank you, 13 feet wide, you put the car on to this tray, it rotates the tires in place at 50 to 80 miles an hour to get the speed and the exhaust that you and I would experience on the road, and then hoping that luck and that the ear does stay in place, and it get tested that way and again, in the Memo, I point out, Ed, I had my father-in-law looking in the Inter-net, I had the whole family working on this, looking for the specific examples and I may be able to get them .for you, but I haven't been able to find the specific Ed read in articles in his literature he gets it all the time. The accidents that occur, it's only common sense it tells you, that a vehicle on this thing if the brakes, if the brake is bad or whatever, if not hooked in place, there's just ordinary a, I'll call it negligence, but some - MR. TONYES: Mechanical failure. MRS. MOORE: Mechanical failure, thank you. MR. TONYES: Tire blows. MRS. MOORE: Tire blows. Numerous examples of accidents that can be created because of this equipment and where it has to be placed. So, it's just, it's baffling that the state is the one whose mandated this and then how you have to deal with it. I also in my Memo, I point out the public policy end of it that the town in a way has given you somewhat of a directive, I think a message because the Town Board comes from the Federal Government. The money is coming filtered by the Feds down to the State and then distributed by the Municipality and it's a program that the Town Board actually had to sponsor or participate in to give local garage owners the ability to get grants to help subsidize some of the cost. $5,000 is not a lot of money but, when you're talking about Federal Funds and Public Funds, you're actually getting $5,000 and that money is coming through the Town and the Federal Government. So, you've been given somewhat of a message, hey we recognize the difficulty experienced by local shops, it's very expensive, they're going to be major modifications and here's a little extra change to help you pay for the cost. When I, one of the points that I made to you, specifically dealing with the definitions of the code, if you look at and I point out to you the difference in the definition between public garage and repair garage, and if you look at each, both definitions, put them side by side, I point out to you, the difference between the two which is minimal, but, that difference is important when it comes to this application because there is no painting, there is no interior work that the repair garage definition has. The public garage definition is much more applicable to what's going on, going on here, the operations of the business. And, in fact I also cited you the 1997 legislative drafting that was done by Page 43 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals prior demonstrations on how to consolidate some of the uses with the zoning district and in fact they kind of lumped them together and they keep calling it public garage rather than repair shop or something else. So, if it's a public garage, public garage is a permitted use. We could go through a very simple site plan process relatively simple, relatively simple, but, that would be the process we keep going through. Not the Building Department's directive of a use variance and an expansion of nonconforming use. So, that is ( ) the new when I sat here as an audience member on another application listening, I kept thinking to myself, public garage, public garage, why is it not being considered a public garage and that was one of the arguments that's pointed out to you. Again, another legal point that is raised, is the integral part of the original plan. It's a, a, if the applicant of a preexisting nonconforming use can demonstrate that the proposed use wan an integral part of the original plan for the entire parcel, is not a use variance. So, that I think we can all, just common sense will tell you, you had inspections here, they're continuing to do inspections here, the plan, it's a continuous integrative plan. We're not adding, I don't know, what could it be? We're not adding a grocery store to this preexisting nonconforming use. We're actually continuing where it would be otherwise accessory use. Part of the original plan. You've got enough law in my Memo. I don't need to rehash it all. If you have specific questions I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, always questions. MRS. MOORE: Oh, I know they'll be questions. some of the facts which are ( ). But, I can into CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: your - Assuming that three of us agree with MRS. MOORE: Analysis. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Analysis. How can we monitor this issue of this venting system which is very crucial as I explained to you last Saturday. From the neighbors' point of view they are concerned, OK, with any further, OK, this has no bearing on your applicants. We're talking about a public garage in a quasi business, residential district, OK. MRF~. MOORE: Well, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: residential but, but - I mean it's more business than it is MRS. MOORE: It's more business. In fact I point out in the memo which is this is a very busy, I don't want to say derogatory relief, but, it's a, it's a active intersection where most of town's, most of the town stops at that stop sign because we've got three stop signs on the main road and one just happens to be there. So, I think that, I don't want a, I'm sure the neighbors are, there's a Page 44 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals legitimate concerns of the neighbors. I'm not sure that they are in fact a cause of this repair, this business. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying that if the venting aspect is very, very crucial to me, OK, so, I'm saying that assuming there was unanimity, alright, in the future, on this application, I would be very concerned with this venting aspect and we would certainly want to see it, we would you know, after it was done we would - MRS. MOORE: Just got confirmed it's been in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What? MRS. MOORE: Well you can put it as a condition that the Building Department should look to see if it was placed. You know, resolved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I would want to look at it, OK, from a point of view of was it adequate? Is it serving the needs? Is it being, please this has nothing to do with the Federal's Clean Air Act, OK. We're talking about is it working? That's what the concern is, alright. MRS. MOORE: I'm only stopping you in that I want to understand what exactly you're asking because when you say a venting system, I imagine there's going to be a fan, a large fan, I mean the building if you, if the extra bay is added, you're going to have air conditioning in the summer time that we don't have now and you're going to have the ability to seal off that garage bay from the outside as well as from the other existing garage. So, that's important. But, as far as the venting system you're talking about what is, what would be like for the Quiet Man for example, they have a large fan ventilation system to help circulate the air and. directed up rather than - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Directed up. MRS. MOORE: Directed up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: out. Directed up as apposed as to directing it MRS. MOORE: Directing, I'm sorry what? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Direeting it out, directing it out. MR. DON TONYES: Excuse me, can I say something? The amount of time that the cars are going to be running for the testing, it's not going to nowheres near come to what's on the road today. I don't think that's a problem. MRS. MOORE: Well, as far as the test is concerned, because that was something that I know you asked and the actual test, the Page 45 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals emissions test takes all of nothing less than 5 minutes, less than that. MR. TONYES: 30 seconds. MRS. MOORE: number. 30 seconds. I knew that it was an insignificant in (All talking at one time. ) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Tonyes, you have to understand that all I am saying is, that I am basically stating what the neighbors were concerned with. MRS. MOORE: I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am trying to deal with that particular issue. This in no way is, this may not even be, this is generic statement for all public garages, OK, that are putting this particular system in, alright. MRS. MOORE: But understand that this system is no different by way of what it's testing. Its standards are going to be higher. So, as cars go through this system, they're going to have to be improved in emissions or be taken off the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that but, but, by the nature of running the engine at higher speeds you are putting more into the, I mean I understand what you're saying, and when we stood there in front - MRS. MOORE: It very ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just, yes, for the entire people, for all the people sitting here, we had met with Mr. Tonyes, both Mr. Tonyes and the attorney for the applicant, on Saturday morning, at the site, OK~ and at that time, Ed Tonyes said to me, well what about the cars riding by and he's absolutely correct. It's a~ the difference is, it's not a confined space situation as appose to this is now confined space while your testing the auto. I am only stating that we had three hearings on this application and that was one of the major concerns that the neighbors had and I'm trying to tell you, that if the ventilation system is going to go in, then, it's important for us to understand how, how good that ventilation system is going to be, OK, in reference to how adequate it's going to be to discharge this stuff which we're referring to, tail pipe exhaust OK, into the atmosphere. MR. TONYES: OK, on that concern. Actually where that engine, first of all we're doing this to protect the outer emissions, OK, that's number 1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you use this time. Explain it to us Don. Number 1, this is to bring down emissions. Number 2, ~Page 46 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals when the car is at, running at 50 to 80 miles per hour, that's what is going to be, it's actually less emissions coming out. There's actually going to be less emissions at our site than what we're doing now to test which is at idle. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. TONYES: It's actually less emissions when the car is, there'll be different limits and everything what have you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Now, this, this - MR. TONYES: You're actually going to see less. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Now, just give us some idea if you can, either you or Ed, on what type of ventilation system do you want to put in. MR. TONYES: Well basically what we want to do is keep a, we're concerned about ourselves and of course - (Chairman and Mr. Tonyes speaking at the same time.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: asked the questions. I agree with you, sure, that's why I MR. TONYES: We're going to pass it as high as we can. That's what we want to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: chimney vent? So, you're going to vent it like a MRS. MOORE: Yeah. MR. TONYES: what - I haven't seen the exact plans, but, yes, that is CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean is that an example or some sort of analogy? MRS. MOORE: That's right, yeah. MR. TONYES: With the ventilation system they actually sucked it out. Two would blow it even higher. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. MR. TONYES: When people pull in for gas, the first thing we want them to do, number 1, it's a fire hazard to keep the engine running. We don't want to breath in all of the carbon monoxide either. We're here at the site~ we don't want that. Page 47 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I agree with you, but, I'm just trying to get an understanding. This is a generic statement, it's the first dynamometer that has come before us. MR. TONYES: This is for the better for the town, but in N. Y., but the United States of America, this is what this is for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I understand, we're required to ( clean air it. There's no question about it. MRS. MOORE: Right. It wouldn't make sense to do testing that's goi~ig to pollute the air as you're testing. That just doesn't make sense. Plus, you're also talking about one bay and the vehicles that are being inspected now, being inspected there, and as I pointed out from that literature, the actual test takes an extra was it 30 minutes?, hour?, an hour and six minutes. I don't know how they calculated that, but, an hour and six minutes - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The entire test takes an hour? MRS. MOORE: An hour and six minutes versus 30 minutes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Really? MRS. MOORE: No, right now it takes - MR. TONYES: Not the whole emission. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, just the whole test itself. MR. TONYES: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll start with Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Yes, to Mr. Tonyes. Do you intend to put in this inspection equipment regardless of whether you have the new bay? MR. TONYES: Yes. MRS. MOORE: I think I can answer it. I've been (inaudible) MR. TONYES: The equipment is there and ready. The whole Board saw it today. MEMBER HORNING: OK, I didn't know. MRS. MOORE: No, you didn't have the benefit of seeing it. So I can explain the process because the state when the equipment first came out, when they had to advise the state whether or not they wanted to wish to continue to be an inspection station, in 97. They had to say, yes, we'll participate and yes, we will contract with a provider to provide the equipment. Then, there was a grace ~Page 48 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals period, thank goodness because throughout the N.Y. area, there's goi~g be, there were 20,000 some, 2,000, 20,000, - MR. TONYES: 2500. MRS. MOORE: 2500 of these facilities equipment stations that we're going to have to be produced. What happened is, most recently and for the last two weeks, right during this process, right after actually I know I published, Tonyes posted this application, Ed calls me, somewhat panicking because the state calls and says, we're ready, we're delivering your equipment and I called up the state, nicely begged them and said, we're right in the middle of our zoning process, we will know in the next month, please can you give us at least that period of time to respond. We're ready to take it, we're not going back on our word, but, do you have to deliver it? They have an enforcement unit. I never, it was bugged on the other side of the phone who said, we will not, if you, we're going to deliver it, if you do not accept delivery, we shut you down, turn it off and in fact because of lack of communication over an hours period, they actually shut, after it was delivered, after they accepted delivery, they shut them down for 24 hours because they thought they had not accepted delivery. So, this equipment is there. In fact, the state contracts with a installer and when that installer is ready to come to your site, you show them where it's going to be. Whether it's permanent or temporary, you put it in there and that's what we had on the ( ). It's actually a, it looks like a death, you know the outline for a dead person. It's the outline where this equipment is going to go and in fact that's part of my argument saying, where it's going to go now? It's just, it's terrible. They don't want to do it that way, they don't want to be forced to do it that way and it just a, I don't want a year from now, if that's what happens and you don't give them the approval you're going to have people coming to you, and complaining and bitching and possible accidents because of the fact that this equipment has to be squashed into the other bay and again, part of my argument, I mean I can only envision the accidents that are ready to happen when you have the turn around area for the gasoline, you have the equipment with a big, let's take a suburban or a pickup truck. A pickup truck is not that big in our eyes, but, but, it's extended cab, it's inside the one bay, where it's now hoist to be installed, and the cab is sticking out, you have a little old lady coming around the corner, knocks the engine of the back of the truck and it's just going to be a domino where you're going to find the other side of the garage through a new opening of the garage door. So, that's where, that's the alternative right now. MR. TONYES: We're not looking forward to it, believe me. MRS. MOORE: No. MR. TONYES: We are not. MRS. MOORE: I mean we were imagining because really, if they didn't have to be here, they certainly wouldn't be here and we were Page 49 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals really trying to figure out what would be best (changing of tape) Anyway, the separate bay with the isolated equipment, sound proof system because this equipment is noisy. They just haven't come up with state of the art equipment that it's, it's a little better than what originally the first bays of the equipment that was installed maybe California and so on, the second faze is going in through N.Y. area and it's a little better, it's a little more muffled but still very loud. Imagine that the wheels turning and trying to run a bus. iness in the same space with this wheel, you know, the system turning with the noise and the garage bay stick open and the car sticking out. I mean it's going to look like Brooklyn, in the corner of main road. I mean I hate for anybody whose from Brooklyn. I apologize~ but, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You raise an interesting issue, OK. MRS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The issue you raised is, can you call the state and ask them if anybody on the island has placed them in? MRS. MOORE: They have. Well, the most recent, originally they were not going to be allowed to be in the same bay. Now, they're going to be allowed to be in the same bay. So, if we don't get that extra bay, they're going to be stuck one behind the other, and I know that you had looked at that frontend. Remember, that's an addition that was done in seventies. It's not, the structural wall is where the end of the garage is. That is a storage area. To start with, it really won't do the job because again, you're not going to be able to sound proof and I addressed it in my Memo, what is the alternative? The alternative is, you know, expanding the back and push two cars, one behind the other. I don't think that's going to solve the problem because now you're still dealing with one lift for the brakes, the car coming in behind and now again you, you have one inspection station and you have that as a fixed inspection station. You can't move the equipment now. Under present equipment, you can move the equipment to accommodate either bay, you know, you're filled on one side - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand, but are there any in operation now, that we could see? MR. TONYES. There's over 50% installed already. on practice mode ( ) now. They're working CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but, at least we can hear the extent of the machine and all of that. MR. TONYES: You can call the state - MRS. MOORE: I think that's a, OK, you know what, I'll call ESP, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you do that and see if there's anybody you know, in Eastern Suffolk or anybody in a - Page 50 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Right, someone within the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're just going to run over and breeze over and listen to it. MRS. MOORE: Ed's reminding me that it's admirable that you're looking to see this equipment in operation but, we have the guys are coming in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know you're under the gun. MRS. MOORE: I mean we were under the gun six months ago. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I'm under the gun right now, because it's Mrs. Tortora's turn. Oh, Mr. Homing still has another question? MEMBER HORNING: Yes, I would like to say if there's anything the garage owners would like to add as to the practical problems that would exist if in fact, the this application was denied? MRS. MOORE: Practical problems? MEMBER HORNING: Yes. MRS. MOORE: Beyond what I've listed in my Memo? MEMBER HORNING: Yes, if they have anything to add. MRS. MOORE: Do you have anything to add? MR. TONYES: Well she mentioned something that was really, that I never thought of it. Drawing will be lines out. You said, it'll look like a dead person? You're going to have a couple of those. No, seriously. (All talking and laughing) Three of them blown out of the walls in Pennsylvania already. And why, because they didn't have a safety system like I want to build. MRS. MOORE: Oh, oh, oh, that points out another issue. (Everyone talking and laughing, inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: about. We are Ed aware of what you're talking MRS. MOORE: It's a legitimate concern. One thing that he, when we were preparing for this case, he, Ed said to me, you know I'd really like to put in that extra bay, I really like to put in, (and I think it's really very clever), post, cement post, like you see in front of propane tanks and the rest where you want to stop somebody from going through. With the extra bay, you'll have the room to put the post in so that you have like a safety mechanism if the car inadvertently jumps that track. You know, you destroy the "Page'~ 51 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals car but you don't destroy the building nor, somebody whose standing on the other side of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Under Health, Safety and Welfare, I would have done that anyway. I had to say that. MRS. MOORE: But that's not something, that's something that he came up with on his own. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: that anyway. I understand, but, we, I would require MRS. MOORE: Only because you're a fireman. MR. TONYES: The state don't require that. Chain it down, they want it chained, which is good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, right, right. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you very much. MR. DON TONYES: I would like to finish. You will have more congestion if we don't do this because we do have a lot of loyal customers and this is what we want to prevent. We want to prevent these congestions, the noise, pollution, the safety we want it to be safe. We'll have lines, we'll end up having lines. I think some people would probably go elsewhere. Where I don't know, there's not so many people, but, they're going to have the problem also. I don't know if they'll be addressing them or if they're doing anything to correct it, if that answers your question. MEMBER HORNING: Yes it does, thank you very much. MR. TONYES: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: hearing. I don't know if this is a third or fourth CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is the fourth. MEMBER TORTORA: I've asked so many questions in the past, I think most of them have been answered. As a technical point, what you're asking for is for a determination of a public garage, not a gas station. MRS. MOORE: Well I've given you various alternatives. MEMBER TORTORA: And/or in the alternate, let's go down the alternate, let's stick with the gas station. If under that scenario, as a gas station. MRS. MOORE: As a gas station? ~Page 52 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: As a gasoline station. MRS. MOORE: Oh, OK, because you, alright, go ahead. MEMBER TORTORA: Because you presumed that it's a gasoline station and such, would that still be considered integral part of the expansion? MRS. MOORE: Yeah, see, yeah, no, it's funny, you could call this an accessory to a gas station. It's not, in fact the legislation from 97 described to a certain extent, those uses, gasoline stations, other things and then accessory repairs. I think that the business that's conducted on this property, is actually more principal. The principal use is the public garage. But, if it, could you, would you use MEMBER TORTORA: There are a lot of scenarios in it but - MRS. MOORE: There are, I mean, what I think, if I was writing a decision, I would say, for the fol, it'd be approved, as requested - MEMBER TORTORA: I'm surprised, I'm shocked. MRS. MOORE: Approved as requested for the following reasons and you could recite, 1, we could determine that in this instance, in this particular instance, it fits the definition of public garage over the other definitions and therefore if it were it would be considered permitted use. Secondly, you could say, as a gasoline station, with the accessory use law, with regard to the a, I think it's point to the end with accessory uses, talking about it as the repair end of it. The repair vehicles has always been conducted as an integral part of the whole property so could you say, well, gas, repair, it's been like this, you know, and - MEMBER TORTORA: garage. There's lots of different ways to look at a MRS. MOORE: There is, I mean there's a lot of ways to say yes. I think there's a lot of other ways to say no. But, I'm not in charge of giving you the nos, only the yeses. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Somehow we've heard this before. MEMBER TORTORA: I really have a, I think one, but a, points but, it's very difficult to see unless you visited the property is what we saw when we did the site inspection and that's what you see in terms of traffic and in terms of safety concerns that it is going to be in the existing bay, unless the new bay is added on and I have series, that was my main concern from the ghetto is traffic concerns and I did feel that this proposed plan would alleviate some of those concerns. MRS. MOORS: Yes, you know, there are no perfect solutions. Page 53 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: No, there not. MRS. MOORE: But, the, what he's proposing, if he was, he was really trying to save a dime, he wouldn't be proposing this plan because this really is an expensive play (). Very expensive, but he's - MR. TONYES: Do you know what they're doing in Brooklyn and the state is allowing it? A tent. MRS. MOORE: A tent, OK. MR. TONYES: If I ever said that to anybody that I want that, I don't want that. MR. DON TONYES: I think we left a big issue out here. weeks ago, two weeks ago we had the, - Two MR. ED TONYES: That had nothing to do with a - MR. DON TONYES: No, but what I'm saying is, reading the dynamotor, further away from the gas pumps I think is a big thing right there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a big favor? MR. DON. TONYES: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGER: Mr. Homing as you know lives in Fishers Island. He's leaving at approximately 9:00 o'clock tonight. Could one of you two gentlemen take him down to your station and show him everything that you showed us right now and you know that would be greatly assistant. MRS. MOORE: Oh, absolutely. I was going to suggest - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so why don't you get everything together George, and they'll take either one, -. I'm not trying to get either one of you guys away from what's going on. But, it would be greatly - MR. DON TONYES: Which one do you want to go, me or Ed? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Either one, you can fight it out. But, it would be greatly appreciated. MRS. MOORE: No, I think it would be very helpful because and, you really aren't getting the full flavor, because in the evenings the place is nice, tidy, everything is in place. But, in the daytime, in the bustling Saturday morning, when we were there, it was somewhat of a zoo and that's just because that's when everybody decides they're going to change their spark plugs or whatever. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Page ~ 54 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: Now Mr. Chairman, in my early excuse from the meeting I understand on the next case we're not doing anything in particular in terms of making any decision? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, not to my knowledge. We still have not received. (This is off the record not on the Tonyes record.) This is completely off the record in this hearing, but we have still not received the Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department. So, therefore, we will see what develops. I mean I can't tell you that the applicant's attorney could modify the application. That's all I can tell you at this point. MRS. MOORE: Does involvement me? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does not involve you. No, he's talking about the last hearing for the a, for the, for everyone in the audience Mr. Homing is going back by ferry tonight and that's the reason why he's leaving early. Thank you Sir. Thank you for your assistance yesterday and safe home. OK, we go on to Ms. Collins. Are you done Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, OK. MEMBER COLLINS: I have been very diligent about reading the Minutes of the Transcripts of hearings that occurred before I came on the Board but, I didn't read this one. I will of course after tonight. I thought it would be easier to understand last year's hearing after I heard a little more in that ( ). But, at any rate, I wanted to ask you just in case you think it's not adequately covered in the prior hearing. What, what, the owners, the Tonyes' view is about the business pl~ospects? They run a service station, they sell gasoline, they do a fair amount I gather, a considerable amount of repair business and they also have the inspections. They've made it clear that they're going to stay in the inspection business. They've told us - MRS. MOORE: Absolutely, they've already bought the equipment. MEMBER COLLINS: They've got to stay in the inspection business because that's critical to staying in business. MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: I heard one suggestion this evening that, but, it's really very speculative, that if they don't get what their asking for and they have to put this operation into the existing bay, that they very welt may suffer a fall off in business, and I suppose that's possible. I mean, that is speculative. Do they think, that if they get what they want, there's going to an increase in business? I mean is that part of the, other than the hope for the increase of business? Everyone hopes for. Page ~ 55 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Well, you see, I'm not, you know honestly I, I think there's always the hope, that they'll increase business, but, that's the nature of the economy and local people using local businesses to support, you know, to do their chores, to fix their cars. So, as people become more localized, they use this facility. I've lost my track of thinking. No, that alright. Will they increase? Yeah, yeah, I think it's possible to increase business, but, I think they're thought is to maintain the business because, as I pointed out the inspection equipment, that is presently in the a, that's about to be updated by this new equipment. The present equipment allows them some flexibility. They can inspect either vehicle if there's a problem with one vehicle, they can go on to the next one, there's room for movement. If a, with the new equipment, everything is stationary and what you're goner have, is you know, cars pulling in and out and that's another safety issue that I think they've considered, and, I, I, appropriately so, that site is, you're going to be pulling out into bays in front of your gas customers who are not always paying attention, so. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I'm sorry, I think I was long winded in my question and I apologize. What I was really getting at and thought would be helpful to have clear on the record, is, that in fact, what they're attempting to do, is maintain the business that they have. MRS. MOORE: Absolutely. MEMBER COLLINS: That they have. This is not a new improved come to us, because we are the only ones who have a kind of a, a, improvement. MRS. MOORE: No, no, in fact, there'll be some other stations around. Qual-Com, I think just sold their facility and may not be doing any repairs. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, I was just getting at the question of whether because I think important to your argument is kind of, is this an expansion of a use? MRS. MOORE: Exactly, well that's - MEMBER COLLINS: And you're trying to argue that they're in this business and they're just doing what they have to do to stay in the business. MRS. MOORE: Absolutely. MEMBER COLLINS: outlook. And that's why I was asking you about the MRS. MOORE: And that's why exactly and I'm glad that you brought it out. There is that article from their own literature that gets circulated among, they kind of preaching to convert it, they, they gripe, gripe article and that article actually points out the effect of the new inspection equipment, the time when inspections ~age ~ 56 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals end, on a daily, on a days a, I call it, billable hours, you know. Look at your sheet and say, well, I use to be able to generate six billable hours, now, I can only generate four because of the work that's entailed takes that much longer. So, I think they're dealing with that issue just to maintain the status quo as well, so. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. Jerry, I'm done. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: so quite back there. You're done. Mr. Dinizio. You've been MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, well, I got my questions answered pretty much. I guess really what you're looking for here, if you're taking the explanation you know, concerning economics, and, you know, really no increase in business. You're looking for some place to put your tools that require to be (). It's, this 13 foot piece of machinery is just not going to make it in the second bay. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, you're right. I mean, it's a tool, exactly. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MRS. MOORE: The tool use to be this big, now it's this big and what you're going to do, so. MEMBER DINIZIO: Alright and I mean concerning the ventilation, more of a osha situation, you know, you can't suffocate your employees, so, you're going to stick a hose outside or in your case, I guess you're going to ventilate it up in the air and the air more that's just goner not a kind of a scrubber situation where you have to take the particles out and ( ), just get it out. MRS. MOORE: of things. No, no, no, I don't know if you can make those kind MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MRS. MOORE: They probably do, but, it would be a $~.50,000 expense system. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, so we're kind of looking at you know, your application and your, your, that this is a permitted use. MRS. MOORE: I think it could have been very easily have been interpreted to be a permitted use and we wouldn't, he wouldn't of been going through this process. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, so, I mean, naturally the only reason why you work at that building, the building is protect the equipment. To protect it from the weather. MRS. MOORE: Well, yeah, they could as Ed points out, in other areas where there really is no place to go, they've put it under 'Page '57 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals tents and it's purely to keep the elements away. we want?. Absolutely not. Is that something MEMBER DINIZIO: No, right. Well I'm just trying to point out the leadway her that you may have. I mean, certainly you'd want a nice looking building as appose to putting a tent up everyday? MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER DINIZO: If that's what you chose to do. MRS.MOORE: Well, the equipment is there. The tent is going to be there you know. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MRS. MOORE: And it's going to be the garage - MEMBER DINIZIO: Sure. MRS. MOORE: With a tent. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, right, right, well - MRS. MOORE: Well, the ( ) won't be little chairs with the tables, it's going to be the equipment and the cars being repaired under that and thank goodness they're not like that. I'm really glad to have them as clients. That they're willing to spend the money to make the place really I think a very nice station as a station goes. It's a very nice station, so. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right and the absolute worse scenario the piece of equipment that you have right now, could still be operational tomorrow by cutting a hole in that second bay and placing it there and you would have absolutely no, the town would have no community recourse whatsoever. MRS. MOORE: The town would not be able to say boo. They would have to live with the situation and complaints are going to go to this young man right here. MEMBER DINIZIO: Which he won't be able to hear that, because the tires would be spinning. MRS. MOORE: Oh, yeah, we won't care. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, so, what, you know, I mean, I read your Memo. I think, you know, we're not looking at expanding a nonconforming use here? MRS. MOORE: I don't think so. I think that that's a lot, certainly the whole process is applicable. But again, their other argument about you know, expanding nonconforming, I think that there are constitutional problems where you're telling somebody the code says Page 58 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals you can't do it. Black and white, you can't do it. And, you're putting somebody out-of-business by saying that. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, right. MRS. MOORE: You can't, there are still certain property rights and presumptions in the law and that's one to think about, so. MEMBER DINIZIO: And the town has some complicity in it and that they did take the federal money to - MRS. MOORE: Yeah, I mean they sent a message. MEMBER DINIZIO: To encourage, right. MRS. MOORE: We strongly believe in clean emissions, you know, clean air. What are you going to say, no everybody should be polluting. Of course not. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: people. Yes, Surely. OK, can we switch over now to the other MR. ROMANELLI: For the record, John Romanelli. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We think we know you John. MR. ROMANELLI: I want to make sure it was on the record. I just, a lot of points have been brought out. I don't want to make a long meeting any longer, but, I do believe there is some sort of moral obligation the town has to support an expansion like this when a government enforces this kind of restriction on them. In the admission that the neighbors are talking about. You know, this is a car exhaust, and that's what they have to be told. This is a car exhaust, just what's going to happen in your driveway and just at that right light when they're parked there waiting for it change colors. Denying an application like this, would in my opinion, would be doing injustices to, not only this family but any small business owner whose put under these restrictions to make their business grow and survive. Not to become any bigger, just to survive with the hope that doing business properly they'll get bigger and this is the way doing business properly and this is the way they hope in the future they could build them as they make more money. So, denying this application, it really shouldn't happen in my opinion. I wanted to express that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. ROMANELLI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Page '59 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. EVANS: I have a question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely, ma'am, could you use the mike. MRS. EVANS: The material that would be vented into the air on a still day and we have many of them here, when there's no wind, I don't know about aerodynamics but, what happens to this material? Does it settles over the neighborhood and thus decrease the quality of the air? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, what I was trying to get was basic, first I need your name. I apologize. MRS. EVANS: Paula Evans. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I was trying to get to a situation where we could monitor how this disbursement was going to affect, based upon what they want to do, the surrounding properties, OK. I would assume and I'm not assuming anything, but. I would hope, that it would be similar to a chimney, OK and that the dispersion would be more forward toward main state highway as appose to the opposite way, OK. It was quite interesting last Saturday, when we stood there because I am trying to take everybodys, the culmination of all three hearings prior to this one and this hearing and capitalize on the issues that most of the people had as concerns, OK, apart from the zoning issue, alright and that is the reason why I raised that but, when I stood there, the entire road was loaded with cars, OK, on Saturday morning. Mr. Tonyes was absolutely perfect, right on the dollars when he said, well what about all those cars right there?, alright, and he's correct. I'm concerned about the neighborhood and I have to tell you that OK, and that I would hope that there wouldn't be any more saturation of either noise or pollution based upon the installation of this machine. I have to tell you, that's my concern, alright and I would like to bill that into the decision to the best of my ability, OK, and let's see what we can do. MRS. EVANS: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak? Mrs. Moore. MRS. MOORE: Well, I only caution the Board that to the extent of your monitoring, you're not DEC, you're not, you know the, the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, you see, you're missing my point. In no way am I saying I'm monitoring. What I am saying is, that let's build a system that's going to make everything fine for the occupants of this station, OK, and the people that live and work around it, OK. MRS. MOORE: I agree, we agree with you with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, we all know that anybody that has a normal chimney on their house has disbursements of stuff out of ~Page 60 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals that chimney, OK. There's no question about that. I'm saying, let's have the same disbursements out of this bay, OK, that we would have out of the normal chimney, OK, and you know, let's, let's have a normal, I mean restaurants have the exact same thing. MRS. MOORE: I was just going to say that the most, what we're talking about is really air circulation and venting, that's it. That's going to be a part of our design, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In the last three hearings - MRS. MOORE: Yes, it was an issue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There was no doubt in my mind, that Ed Tonyes and his brother want to do it the right way. MRS. MOORE: Exactly, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, therefore, in seeing that situation, I am saying to him, let's see the venting done the right way also. MRS. MOORE: OK, that's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean he's attempting to take care of the noise, the health, safety, and welfare issue, in reference to the whatever type of bracing he intends to put in back of or in front of the car sort of speak, OK, you know, is definitely a positive step, there's no question about it. The insulation of the building - MRS. MOORE: The air condition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The air conditioning as we just said again, not to be redundant and now the only thing really left, is that of the venting and you know, I think these things can be taken into consideration and I think that they a, you know they can be - MRS. MOORE: Why can't you just say, properly vent the building? We'll properly vent the building. I mean I'm just trying to think of, don't give me specifications because I don't know what's in the business, what's available and I'm not the ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You see, the way they vent the building now, is, they open the doors. I mean that's ventilating the building. MRS. MOORE: That's true. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And again, as I said to you, those doors are opened facing State Road 25. MRS. MOORE: Right, which is a- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A main road. So, what I'm saying is let's not further exacerbate the situation and let the flow go back. P~ge 61 H~ ~aring Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals Let's, let the flow stay forward because those cars across the street are going to take that in both directions and disburse it. MRS. MOORE: OK, I don't think we disagree. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: don't think we do at all. No, we don't disagree. Quite honestly I MRS. MOORE: I only caution that the specificity of that because I don't know what's available, so, thai's, don't write something that I'm going of say, please what did you put. MR. TONYES: system. I don't want to put in that $300,000 ventilation CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ventilation. We're not asking for a $300,000 MRS. MOORE: No, that building will be vented so, it'll be disbursed ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And we'd like to see that. MRS. MOORE: It's coming off the buses. For example, the buses when they were originally, remember the old buses, they use to have the pipes that were down where the cars were. Then, finally somebody got smart and put them up and that way you could be behind the bus and not choke to death. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As in every tractor trailer. MRS. MOORE: about. Tractor trailer ( ). That's what we're talking CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm saying the exact same situation. MRS. MOORE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody else want to say anything else regarding this hearing before we close it? Alright, anybody? Do you want it closed or not? MEMBER COLLINS: I'm definitely for closing it. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, you need to make a decision only because the poor guys have that equipment. CHA.I. RMAN GOEHRINGER: What are we doing about looking at one that's operating? MRS. MOORE: mean - Oh, looking at one that's, you can look, closing, I P~ge 62 H, earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean let's not get involved in closing. Let's just talk about seeing one that's operating. MRS. MOORE: I mean if you go see one that's operating and there's something that triggers a question, you can contact him, you can contact me and Ed will respond to what ever question. I mean it may be a very practical one, like, you know, I can't even imagine. (Talking amongst themselves, inaudible). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, for all intensive purposes, I'll make a motion, closing the hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Pa~ge 63 H, earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals Public Hearing Reconvened from the last Regular Meeting regarding the Application of MARTIN ROSEN, Appl. No. ~/-V~/~. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we would like everyone's attention. We want to open the Rosen application. Mr. Cuddy, would you like to make any preliminary statements? CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: I would like to say several things, but basically since we have been here on several occasions that I would hope that the Board is at a position now where it has sufficient information to make a decision. But I indicated that last time, and I didn't have Mr. Olshin speak. He and my client are sort of running out of time and money to keep coming back, so I would like Mr. Olshin to address the questions so it is emphatically in the record as to the Town's Code provision, that is, Local Law 1997 and have him address the question of whether or not the definitions include "radio tower" that we put in before you as the question we want you to interpret. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you put that on hold for one second? I did want to mention one thing. I did have a discussion with Mr. Forrester today who is the person in charge in the Building Department, and he has indicated to me that they have still not given you the Notice of Disapproval that we have requested, and I believe Member Collins would like to address one issue before we get involved with Mr. O1shin, if you don't mind. Ms. Collins? MEMBER LORA COLLINS: Well, on the basis of the discussions, informal among members of the Board, informal but very serious, about various aspects about this application, it has become clear to all of us on the Board that the thresholds question is they would like to say, is whether the Wireless Telecommunications Law in our Town Code, Article XVI of our Code, whether in fact that is the applicable law. That was not really the question that was put to us, we were presented with a Building Department denial that presumed that that was the applicable law and denied it on that basis. Mr. Cuddy has asked the Building Department to reconsider on that question and they have not. And there is difference of opinion that has become clear among members of this Board about that issue - of whether Article XVI of our Code is the applicable law. I know I have said publicly that I don't think that it is, but I'm not here to argue that now. It seems to me that issue has to be addressed - that it has to be addressed head on and squarely, and not on kind of an adjunct to our deliberations, and we are governed by the Laws of the State of New York regarding public notice, public hearings and being public in our deliberations, and my proposal to my colleagues has been that since it's become clear that we are not unanimous on this, and it is a critical question, that we undertake to address it publicly with proper notice to the public, and that we are going to address the question of whether the appropriate law for judging this tower is the law the Building Department invoked, Pa, ge 64 H. earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals which is Article ×VI, or whether that is not the appropriate law, and that we do it with the formal hearing process. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: adjunct to this hearing. During this hearing. I mean, as an MEMBER COLLINS: Yes- procedurally, Mr. Chairman, I don't have a clear grasp of exactly what, how, you know, how you do it, but in principal I think it has to be, and I know Member Tortora agrees strongly that - MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MEMBER ,COLLINS: - that question: (1) has to be addressed and (2) has to be addressed with due notice to the public that that is what we are addressing, which we really have not had occasion to tell the public. BOARD SECRETARY: Legal Notice read? I was just wondering how does the recent CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The original Legal Notice? In the interim would you like Mr. Olshin to speak, or do you want to address that issue? MR. CUDDY: I understand, I think, precisely what was said, that is, we should have a Notice to the public at large so that they are aware that the Board is interpreting that crucial question. I don't know that the Notice has said that, I can't say that it has or hasn't. But certainly it could not have said that because that was not originally that was not the application that was made. And I agree that that's illustrated. As to the power to you, I think you have the power, but you raise a different question and that is whether Notice was given, and I can't argue that it was. I understand. Yes, and I have Mr. Olshin ready to speak. BOARD SECRETARY : I just wanted to ask if the Notice that you~ are talking about, is that the Notice that there is an Interpretation on file and that the Board is addressing an Interpretation? Could you tell us what the Notice was, or is, to say? CHAIRMAN: We'll be talking about it. MEMBER COLLINS: Slow down. Let me just say, I went through - we all have been thinking very hard about this, and I went through the file paper by paper. And your application and the Legal Notice to the public about our hearing your application was based on the Building Inspector rejecting an application and citing three things: two of them are in Article XVI and have to do with the 100 ft. setback from the dwelling, and also a principal use setback, and that it what we told the public what we would be hearing, and we certainly did not tell the public that we were going to find ourselves in the situation where we weren't sure if the Building Inspector was citing the right law, and I, what I am saying, Linde, Pa~ge 65 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals is I am not sure exactly how we do this, and we obviously are going to have to discuss it, but I think that if we are going to formally address that question, we have to tell the public we are addressing it because we haven't told them that. MR. CUDDY: One thing I don't know, and that I know the original notice, but whether there was a subsequent notice? That it did indicate that some where? MEMBER TORTORA: No, there wasn't. MEMBER COLLINS: You, Sir, wrote to the Building Inspector back in March, March 23, I think, saying on reflection that "I feel that Article XVI doesn't apply to my client's tower and will you please, Building Department, re-consider this," and they never did. You certainly mentioned it here in our hearings, but not - I think in a formal sense you were asking the Building Department to do that, and I think in your Memo of Law that was the position you took, and I think entirely correctly. You said, "I am here for a variance but at the same time I am asking the Building Department to tell me I don't need the variance because the law doesn't apply." So I really do think that our deliberations have never noticed the public that we might very well decide we have to fact this question, and I think we do. MR. CUDDY: I understand. I have Mr. Olshin - CHAIRMAN: Surely. DR. OLSHIN: I guess you know me by now. It seems to be that the bone of contention is whether or not the structure Mr. Rosen wants to erect comes under the provision - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Fred, you can't hear? You want to sit right up in front? Bill, see if you can pull that mike a little closer? FRED BOUFFARD: Thank you. DR. OLSHIN: As I was saying, whether or not the structure which he wishes to erect, the radio tower would be governed by the provisions of the Town Code as written which seems to reflect on the Telecommunications Act of 96. OK. How can I start? I guess you get involved in semantics and definitions to a certain extent. There's a difference between communications and telecommunications. Communications is merely an activity such as what we're doing now. It also can be done a lot more complicated if we're very far apart by utilizing electronics, either wire or wireless. Telecommunications as defined is the process. And the process would be as simple as two cans and a string to accomplish what you want to do which is communicate, or it can be vastly Page 66 H~aring Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals complicated such as the existing public service telephone network which is in place of this Country. OK? Telecommunications refers to the ability of one individual to send you voice or data to any other individual in the world, and that's what the existing System does regardless whether it's wired or wireless. Because of the advance in technology, wireless communications have come to be a better way of doing things than plain wire. There's certain advantages having wireless communications mainly because you're not tired to a wire in any one location. So technology advances, and as technology advances our FCC responds because they are the buffer between the manufacturers, the sellers, and the population, right? And it is their mission to organize things so that things will work, right, so that nobody steps on your toes. Alright, so I have to give you a certain amount of history. There always has been wireless communication. It goes back many years. Perhaps all the way back to the thirties, at least I rated, OK? But because of technology, it was limited right? Not too many people were able to have a phone, right? It was limited. Technology advanced into the eighties where the concept which we call 'Cellular' was developed, and the FCC saw fit to go ahead with this plan, and what they did was they assigned two companies in every Metropolitan area to deliver cellular service to the public. Right? Wireless communications, and the two companies they picked at that time happened to have been NYNEX and Cellular One in the N.Y. area. Today, these two new merged, and buying combined those two companies now happen to be Bell Atlantic and AT&T. OK. A bunch of people got together at a company called Qual-Com in the nineties and they said, "OK, we have found out a way how to deliver wireless communications using the existing frequencies which were set aside for that purpose in a different way because you won't interfere with the existing cellular service." And because of that, and because it worked, the FCC was forced to rewrite the rules in 1996. And using the Qual-Com technology, right? - a whole new set of cellular devices became available and that's why now you have companies like Omni-Point~ Sprint PCS, and NEX-Tel~ who are offering you cellular service but they have to be regulated also which is why they wrote the Act of '96 and which now allows them to also put in their networks which also is tied to the PSTN so that you can pick up your cellular phone and talk to somebody in China, or even send them some computer data if you wish. What Mr. Rosen has is a wireless radio communications system. It's only commonality with a PSTN is the fact that his is wireless. It's a system that goes back before cellular. It's a system that's in common with the original police radios that you see, or the taxi services that you see. It's a radio communications system, alright? It has nothing to do with the public service telephone network as defined. You can't take one of Mr. Rosen's instruments and do anything except talk back to the radio in his office. That's it. Or, talk to another radio in another one of his trucks, that's it. Pa~ge 67 H~ earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals It has nothing to do with the Public Service Telephone Network, OK? And that briefly in a nutshell is why I say what he wants to do has nothing to do with Telecommunications Act '96 and as written in your Town Code, OK? That's what I can offer you based on my background. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have pertaining to your code, you know, the Telecommunications in general - which also by the way is one of those new words, I think they just added to 2,000 more to the dictionary. You go back a number of years you never heard the word Telecommunications. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The word was telegraph. MR. OLSHIN: Well, yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask you a quick question. There came a time when there was some apprehension regarding this tower and its ability to reach to Mr. Olshin's business in Oceanside. MR. OLSHIN: Mr. Rosen's business? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I said Mr. Rosen. Did I say, Mr. O1shin, pardon me, I apologize. Is there a need for another tower in between or will this -I had this mike turned down before, I apologize. MR. OLSHIN: Oh, there's no doubt in the world that Mr. Rosen's tower in Oceanside will be able to talk to the Mattituck tower. He won't be able to get, can't get vehicles on the ground but he'll be able to get that tower easily. No problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: vehicles on the ground? Right, how will be be able to get MR. OLSHIN: Well, you get vehicles on the ground from Oceanside only as far as perhaps the Riverhead area. Once the vehicles go beyond the Riverhead area, they would have to come under the cognizance of the Mattituck tower. But, they can talk to the Mattituck tower. The Mattituck tower can talk back to the Oceanside tower the way it would work. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, what's the story on the South Shore in reference to that question? MR. OLSHIN: The story on the South - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: tower to the South Shore? How far could he go on the Mattituck MR. OLSHIN: About the same distance. If you drew an arc from Oceanside to Riverhead, just draw that arc, that's his coverage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Page 68 HSaring Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. OLSHIN: Once it gets behind the arc, he starts to lose the trucks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so in other words, what you're saying is that a truck in East Hampton can talk to the Mattituck tower. MR. OLSHIN: Sure. Sure. At an 80 foot tower with a gain antenna or an antenna which is actually a movable type of antenna so we can direct his vehicle is no problem at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. OLSHIN: Very easily. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody have any questions of Mr. Olshin? Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: I would just like to know, what exactly is the weight of this antenna? MR. OLSHIN: The weight of the antenna? MEMBER DINIZIO: Just the antenna, that's all. MR. OLSHIN; The antenna is very light. They're made out of either plastic or aluminum. MEMBER DINIZO: 100 pounds? MR. OLSHIN: Pardon me. MEMBER DINIZIO: 100 pounds? MR. OLSHIN: Oh, no. MEMBER DINIZIO: Ten pounds? MR. OLSHIN: It's possible that the actual antenna which we use which will be, we call a yagi beam which looks like a version of a TV antenna, the whole thing would approximately weigh about 3 or 4 pounds. MEMBER DINIZIO: How many elements does it have? MR. OLSHIN: How many elements? It depends upon how much gain. We would decide that - MEMBER DINIZIO: Well we're talking about your specific - MR. OLSHIN: Yeah, it would be perhaps 6 or 7 elements. MEMBER DINIZIO: They would be how long? Pa~ge 69 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. OLSHIN: The elements? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MR. OLSHIN: At his wee great length, we're looking at an element of approximately three (3) feet. MEMBER DINIZIO: Three feet. They would all be three feet? In other words they wouldn't look like a TV antenna. It would all be 3 feet? MR. OLSHIN: Well the size of the element is referenced to what you call the wave length which is a function of the frequency right now. MEMBER DINIZIO: Which is 159 mega bites. MR. OLSHIN: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, and then you're going to have a rotor on there to turn this thing? MR,, OLSHIN: You must have a rotor to turn the yagi if that was the way to go. The main problem is to get the power up. Whether or not you suggest a fixed gain antenna which would radiate in all directions, or whether you use the yagi has to be decided. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I don't think we're in a position to regulate what gain antenna to use but all I'm looking for is just the size of this thing. MR. OLSHIN: aren't heavy. Oh, you're looking at a few pounds. These things MEMBER DINIZIO: But more than likely, you would want to be able to turn that antenna in some fashion, you know, to hit East Hampton, Southampton, whatever. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No I have no questions of Mr. Olshin. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I just wonder what the height of the tower would be from the base to the tip of the antenna? MR. OLSHIN: Well, if the yagi antenna is to be used, it doesn't exceed the height of the tower. It would go on the side of the tower so it wouldn't increase the height of the tower. If you put an antenna on top of the tower, antennas vary in height, and it would be as short as three feet which would be a metal antenna sort of the type that sometimes are installed on roofs of cars, or it could be more of elaborate affair going to perhaps 10 or 12 feet, if it was a Pa~ge 70 H~ earing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals fiberglass type of antenna which is similar to the types you see on boats. MEMBER TORTORA: Is there any chance that we could know that so that we know what the total height is? MR. OLSHIN: Well if it's going to help you make a decision we can simply tell you, yeah this is what we're going to use. It may be that he puts more than one antenna on this tower, also, so that he has the ability to switch off from one to the other depending upon what he wants to do. MEMBER TORTORA: It would be helpful if we did know. I know on that on the other tower application - MR. OLSHIN: Well the other tower in Oceanside we use a yagi antenna. So the chances are on this antenna we would go the same way. It makes for a good communication in which case the tower height wouldn't be exceeded, you know, wouldn't be exceeded, although we would probably put as a backup a small, what we call a small 5 DB gain antenna made out of metal which would be about 3-foot high which would be on top of the tower. MEMBER TORTORA: And that the base of the tower is how deep? MR. OLSHIN: How deep? How do you mean deep? MEMBER TORTORA: From the ground level? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Above grade, she's talking about. MEMBER TORTORA: Above grade? MR. OLSHIN: The tower as I understand is 85 foot tall,- MEMBER TORTORA: The base of the tower? MR. OLSHIN: Right from the ground level, the base of the tower to the top of the tower. MEMBER TORTORA: Two feet in the foundation in other words? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. OLSHIN: Yeah, each leg of the tower is set in concrete. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So appreciably what you're telling us is that the weight and the mass of the antennas are absolutely nothing in comparison- MR. OLSHIN: Negligible. Pgge 71 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, in comparison to the actual size in the magnitude to the top. Yes, negligible. OK. Lets see what develops. We thank you, that was very helpful Mr. Olshin.. Anything else you'd like to say Mr. Cuddy, no? Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Yes, Mr. Forkholb? MR. FORKHOLB: Good evening. Has anybody looked at Mr. Olshin's credentials, I mean, it seems that he's speaking as expert testimony on communications. We got the whole rundown of history communications which I didn't think that was - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was my understanding from my conversation with him and please don't take it as the conversation was quite a- that the gentleman basically is involved in physics and his expertise in communications was something that he became very, very familiar with. OK - MR. FORHKOLB: OK, so, so what I mean- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I mean, I mean he can, why don't you tell us right now, Mr. Olshin. ME. OLSHIN: My main reason for being an expert is that I have had my own communications company some 30 years. That's the truth of the matter. As far as credentials are concerned, I got into the business because I have a Bachelor's Decree in Electric Engineering and a Master's Decree in Physics plus qualifying for the Doctorate in Physics. I also teach the subject, Telecommunications at different institutions which I say but having proved to you tonight I have only () with me, you know cards from the institutions. Beyond that, I don't know what else to tell you, you know, experts, you know, are experts. MR. FORHKOLB: OK, so basically what you're saying, you don't have a degree in telecommunications? I don't know that one is ever offered. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: here, Andy. OK? You have to ask those questions up MR. OLSHIN: I teach students that try to get a degree in telecommunications. MR. FORHKOLB: telecommunication. Right, I believe there is a degree in MR. OLSHIN: Yes there is. MR. FORHKOLB: Which which you do not have I assume? MR. OLSHIN: No, I don't. It wasn't offered when I went to school. Pa. ge 72 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. FORHKOLB: OK. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Olshin. MR. FORHKOLB: So basically we're having, it appears to be a physicist with a degree talking about communications. I must admit he is knowledgeable about communications. Probably a little bit more than I am, OK. I'm knowledgeable too. Maybe I'm not in the business, but I do know a bit about it, OK. I must say that, and I've said it before, the VHF frequency that Mr. Rosen tends to transmit on does not have the range of Oceanside to Mattituck, it's got to be 50 miles, I assume? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 80. MR. FORHKOLB: It does not have a range of 80 miles and if you go back to the minutes - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, this was the issue, Andy though. Excuse me for referring you by your first name, but this was the issue that was brought up and that's the reason why I asked the question of Mr. Olshin. That was my ultimate concern because I have spoken to people, I've tried to do my own homework to a certain degree, OK. MR. FORHKOLB: OK, if you go back to the minutes of previous meetings, OK, you'll find that they've stated that the perfected range of VHF is, I don't know for exact, I think they stated 20 to 25 miles, something to that effect. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think your brother said 23 miles. MR. FORHKOLB: Yeah, in fact, if you go back to the minutes, I believe that, Mr. Olshin or Mr. Rosen said that also was 20 to 25 miles, OK. Now, tonight I don't know what has changed since the last meeting or the one previous to that, until tonight, but now they say the transmitter can go back and forth from Oceanside to Mattituck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think they always said that, but I don't think we understood it to be the case and that was the reason why I asked the question tonight. I do have (interrupted). MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment on that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Having spent 18 years working for Cablevision, and another four years working in Telecommunications, if I put an antenna up in Orient Point and point it towards Manhattan, I can get, snowy, but I can get Channel 7 which is a higher frequency than 159, which is Channel 19, Discovery Channel on Cablevision. MR. FORHKOLB: UHF frequency - Pgge 73 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, now, hold on a minute- I'm looking at a band with of 6 megahertz, OK. This particular antenna is looking at a very narrow, probably 3 kilohertz, I don't know, 5 kilohertz, I don't know what exactly it is, but certainly not 6 megahertz, which is hundreds of times wider than 3 or 4 kilohertz. So I can imagine that antenna, OK, that's specific to that, tuned to that particular frequency on the receive end and also on the transmitting end, could conceivably go to Montauk on a good day. OK? Now, considering all the interference that's in the way between Oceanside and here~ I can't imagine that you can tune out all the interference that's going to be in there, OK. Certainly side bands. I mean you've got other things to worry about. You've got, you know, a co-channel, you've got cross modulation. You've got a lot of things that can involve that, but certainly to stand up and say that 23 miles with VHF, Sir? If you're questioning this gentleman's credentials, you've got to come to me with some credentials also that's going to tell me that, OK because what you're saying to me and I'm like, I say, backed up with 22 years in the business, OK, is an unfair statement. OK so if you want to stand by that statement, fine. Offer me something in writing that shows me that. MR. FORHKOLB: Let me put it this way. I've operated VHF. I operate VHF pretty much on a daily basis, OK. And I've also operated VHF in very close to 159 megahertz. OK. I know on a daily basis what it will do, OK, different wattages, truck to base, truck to truck, so I am very familiar with it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Give me something in writing that says that. 159 point whatever it is, OK, cannot transmit more than 23 miles with (). MR. FORHKOLB: range, OK. Well let's not say that. Let's say the effective MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I contend that the effective range of 159 megahertz in a 5 to l0 kilohertz span is much, much further than 23 miles. Now, if, certainly if you can, if you can somehow show me not just standing there, but, show me somewhere in writing that, OK, then I'm willing to consider that. OK? MR. FORHKOLB: I'll have to do some homework, but, one thing you neglected to mention is wattage, OK. How many watts, that has a lot to do with distance, OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree. MR. FORHKOLB: And DE gain on that antenna and I - MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree. All that is taken into consideration. Certainly that's regulated by this gentleman's license. MR. FORHKOLB: Absolutely. Pa. ge 74 Hearing Transcripts ~ugust 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Which is not something that we are really concerned about in this instance in what we're trying- what we're trying to do here is determine whether or not this gentleman you know, passes the test that the Town has set forth concerning a tower. Not even 159 megahertz, but rather just a question of the height of this tower and the need for it. MR. FORKHOLB: I'm just, I'll go back at the meetings from a prior meeting. I can recall them saying, the effective range was about 25 miles, OK. I could be mistaken. I'll go back in the meeting minutes. MR. ROSEN: Mattituck. From Mattituck. Mattituck to East Hampton, how far does a crow fly? MR. FORHKOLB: Probably about 20-25 miles. MR. ROSEN: About 18 miles. MR. FORHKOLB: Yeah, but, what I stated, you stated tonight, Mr. Olshin stated tonight was that he can talk from the transmitter in Oceanside to the transmitter in Mattituck and that's where I'm saying it's not going to happen. MES~BER DINIZIO: Yes, but I'm wondering what relevance would that have? (Testimony interrupted for tape change.) MR. FORHKOLB: Well it's no secret all along you've known that my issue is, not really that we object to the antenna going up, but a cell phone antenna is going up, OK. Now, some of the discussions tonight have been about a yagi antenna, OK. The overwhelming majoring of people that operate VHF use omni-directional antennas, OK. If you look at any municipality, fire departments, police stations, service companies, oil delivery companies, you don't see yagi, you see an omni-army directional antenna. Fiberglass pole is about 22 feet high, a DB gain, 11 DB gain, whatever it is, OK, - MR. ROSEN: 16 DB gain it is. MR. FORHKOLB: That is usually what's used on VHF, OK. Yagi antennas are usually used for UHF and also cell phone. Now, this is what worries me, OK, using co-face yagi antennas together and you could put seven of them on there, OK. You go down to the, I think the tower, the cell-phone tower on Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, has yagi antennas, all mounted in each direction. It gives him great gain all around. This supposed VHF tower goes up with all these yagi antennas around, OK, are you going to go in there or anybody else and see if that's transmitting cell phone or VHF? Who's going to know. Then, at that point obviously it falls under the Telecommunications Act, but are we going to know what's up there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's an interesting point that you bring up because in prior applications of not necessarily antenna applications, we have requested inspections on a yearly basis. That in all situations could still exist. What we try to do in these Pa, ge 75 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals decisions is limit it to the specific source of what the person is looking for. So if it requires, you know, a technical evaluation sort of speak, I assure you that, you know, that we are empowered to do that on a yearly basis, or a monthly basis if we have to, but I meah that would be an extremely costly operation. MR. FORHKOLB: It sure would be, and it doesn't (hesitation). MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to explain something else to you? MR. FORHKOLB: OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, the line of my questioning tonight was, you know, I wanted to know just exactly, I wanted in my mind to somehow put together why we need an antenna with an 8 foot base, to carry 10 or 12 pounds of antenna with a rotor. I mean, that's the questioning that I was asking. Simply the way our discussions have been going, we've been considering that and certainly it seems a like a little overkill, and I think that you've commented on that. MR. FORHKOLB: Yes, and if I was to erect a tower, OK, and it was a flimsy tower and I approached Bell Atlantic or AT&T, OK, and said, "hey, you know, you guys can put, you guys can lease this here space for $3,000 a month, do you want to put your antenna on here?" They'd laugh at me and say, "Hey forget about it." But I put a Roam 85 up, OK, that was super structure, OK, they'd probably say, "yeah, here's the check." MEMBER DINIZIO: I tend to agree with you in that respect. MR. FORHKOLB: So I want to mention one more thing. I know that the last meeting Mr. Rosen stated that he had a house in Jamesport. Now, he's obviously spent a lot of time and a lot of effo~,t and a lot of money, et cetera to try and make something fit where it shouldn't be. I don't know - if it's 1/4 acre lot whatever he's in, it's a real small piece of property. I don't know what he's got in Jamesport. I've never seen his home in Jamesport but wouldn't it make sense that he put it up in his backyard? I mean from Malktituck to Jamesport, it's only, it's got to be 4 miles, maybe? So, I just want to bring that point up and leave it at that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Rosen? MR. ROSEN: What's your first name? MR. FORHKOLB: Andrew. MR. ROSEN: Andrew and Ladies and gentlemen. Andrew just stood up hear and mentioned a lot of good points if you don't have the right answers. The reason that I'm putting up a Rome 85 and not a two foot tower is for a safety factor, for those two ladies right there - and yes it's a lot more money, OK, it's an overkill. P.age 76 Hearing Transcripts . August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals What Andrew has forgotten to mention to you, and I've become a nut, I've become a pro at this since I've been coming here. I mean talk about being bounced around you have to excuse me, cellular doesn't use yagi antennas. They use directional antennas, and I apologize I don't have the right name for them, maybe Mel does. Do you know the right terminology for antennas? MR. OLSHIN: Panels. MR. ROSEN: Thank you. It's called a panel antenna, not a yagi, rarely up on cellular, but they are not yagies. And yes if there was a cellular company on this tower, any imbecile would be able to tell there was a cellular company because he's right. You've got three this way, three this way, and three another way, to achieve what he calls Omni-directional. Well I'll tell you I said any imbecile could tell. I'm going to have one, two, three, maybe four sticks, Omni directionals for my frequency. That's for me and this Board is welcome to come in everyday of the week and check out my radios. OK? I said before, this whole problem is over cellular and Bell Atlantic. I told you they won't go on my tower. I'm not here for them. He thinks this is in disguise. I'm telling you, this is getting crazy with hearing this. You people have the decision to make where they're going. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no objection to the issue of an annual inspection. MR. ROSEN: Absolutely none. Absolutely none because whatever is going in my tower will not be cellular. There may be a ham oper- excuse me, Mr. Chairman. It's very possible down the line that the fire department may want to go on there. Would you like me to turn to the Mattituck Fire Department and say, "No, Andrew doesn't want you on there?" Or maybe, maybe the Police Department may be, although I don't know. Andrew can you explain to the Board why out of the clear blue sky there's a cellular tower on the Police Department now, if your so concerned about cellular? I look at the Board, maybe he can come back up and address it. Now that tower has got a lot of cell panels facing all directions and yes, believe me I'm not here to give you a hard time. I know it's a municipality. So be it. I don't care. You've already got from what I've check into NEX Tel is out here already. Omni-Point is out here already. All the cellular companies you have granted different locations except NYNEX. I don't know what's going on. I don't want to know what's going on with that. My application stands alone. I've already told you NYNEX is not going on this tower without your OK, and I'm not putting it up for them, I'm putting it up for me. And Andrew is 110% wrong when he tells me that the Tower of Oceanside won't talk to Mattituck, which brings me to another good point. For 10 years I've lived in Jamesport now. I'd like to know how Andrew knows I have such a small piece of property? Andrew can you come up and tell me why? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: counter-productive here. Wait. This is becoming P,age 77 ~ Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. ROSEN: OK, he's right. I do have a small piece of property and apparently he's been checking into it. I have nothing to hide. I'm lost for words to really understand why I am being pushed around like the evil one. I am going along to better a piece of property between these two houses to where it would be a difference in night and day; and yet I feel like I'm the bad one instead of being commended for the monies that I'm going to put out. True, it's for my business. And if the day ever comes that I give up my business, I don't know what's going to happen to the tower. Somebody once asked me that question. But you know something? That tower is going to be mine. That property is going to be mine. I'm paying taxes and if I decide to get out of the trucking business, don't ask - I don't know what'll happen. Maybe I'll sell it to somebody who has a trucking business. Maybe Andrew, he said he's familiar with trucking. Or I may open another type of business. It's my property and as long as it's legal and OK with the Town of Southold, I may open up a welding shop. I'm very good at welding. OK. I apologize, I know there's a sense of arrogance tonight. I guess I'm getting upset. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Rehm? CHRIS REHM: Chris Rehm, Mattituck. I really, just a question to the Board. It's neither for nor against, but when there's a public hearing for the ZBA, isn't there suppose to be a posted sign saying the date and every time there is a meeting? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, we don't require that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's only on the first one and then it's Notices in the paper and we continue it from date to date. Only if there's no continuity. If we were to close the hearing without a date, then we would be required to Notice it in the paper again. In this particular case, we have had continuity in the dates so everything has been pretty much (hesitated). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: date, with a new date. Yes, it's was recessed it with a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We recess it with a date. MR. REHM: Right, because quite often I have a hard time finding it in the paper when the next ZBA hearing is. I was just curious about it because the Planning Board brought it up to Town, a Councilman brought it up about bigger posters and all that stuff and I just thought maybe there's suppose to be a posted hearing every time. But that's only when it's not continuous. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Only the first hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. REHM: OK. Only the first hearing. Pa. ge 78 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, it's really encumbered upon the citizen to continue that continuity either through calling the office if you don't see it in the paper, and, you know (interrupted). MEMBER DINIZIO: Well it's posted on that Bulletin Board out there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it's posted on the Bulletin Board. MR. REHM: Right it's posted on this one. And one other question - did the Building Department ever come with a decision whether they could cut the building in half and go on with the building construction of this office? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no. It has not been done. MEMBER TORTORA: That's part of the problem. We don't have a Notice of Disapproval or a proper application before us for the office so that's one of the problems that we've had on this. MR. REHM: OK. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think you walked in late Chris, but I mentioned that. That was one of the first things I mentioned to Mr. Cuddy. MR. REHM: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. please state your name for the record? Yes, ma'am? Could you MS. ROBBINS: My name is Joan Robbins. I live in New Suffolk, not Mattituck, but I've lived here for over forty years and I know that part of Sound Avenue, Mattituck. It is usually my route to the A&P and over the last oh, quite a few years, the neighborhood has changed, with the decline and the agricultural use of the properties a lot of the home properties have been upgraded by the owners, homes and buildings. And I just feel very strongly that the Town has an obligation to be concerned about the property values of the residents of that neighborhood as well as other neighborhoods, and in spite of what Mr. Rosen says, somehow I do not see how an 85-foot tower between two homes on a small lot is going to do anything but decrease the property values. I think that the Town Government as a whole has ought to being more proactive than it has been in determining how it wants this Town to look and how it doesn't want it to look, and saying too that one happens and the other doesn't. I don't think that most of us want to see a lot of towers, 85 foot or otherwise, and I don't care what kind of a tower it is or what kind of antenna. I just think that that's the business that is proposed is not one that would enhance the neighborhood, the hamlet or the town. It would be degrading to the neighborhood and ought not to be allowed; and I hope that if there is an issue as to why their proposal falls within a certain law that there will be a Notice to the public at large so that it can be discussed further. Pa. ge 79 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I guess we've arrived at the point of a the first beginning statements to council, and that is we will Notice this is a public hearing on the basis of what Ms. Collins has stated. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I have a question. re-noticed and I wanted Lora to look at that. It was CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Let's let - MEMBER COLLINS: You want my views, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Forhkolb? OK, while we're discussing this, Mr. MR. FORHKOLB: Jerry, may I for a minute? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. FORHKOLB: I'll make it brief. I just want to make a point that I'm here not to attack Mr. Rosen. OK? I do not know the man. I do not know where he lives, OK? I don't care, OK. I am the adjacent property owner. I have interests. My adjacent property is why I'm here. That is why these two women are here, OK. We're not here to attack him. OK. We're not here to put him down, OK. We are concerned about this, OK. And this is not a personal issue and just want to say that for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Cuddy? MR. CUDD¥: I just want to complete the record, I'm not going to speak. But Mr. Olshin, Professor Olshin is humble. Besides having degrees in Electrical Engineering and Physics, he teaches. He's a Professor, a regular professor at New York Institute of Technology. He teaches classes each semester. When the Bell Company wants somebody to teach them about Telecommunications, it's Mr. Olshin, Professor Olshin who does that. Those are good qualifications. I haven't heard qualifications from anybody else. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you again, Mr. Cuddy, that my discussions with Professor Olshin have been and of course in no way am I saying a person to critique anyone in this particular area. But I have felt not really a terrible need to swear this gentleman in because I know this is expertise after my discussions with him. He ranks very simply with one of the engineers that Bell Atlantic brought in to explain in my opinion and this is no-one else's opinion, this is just my opinion. I have felt that my discussions with him have been easy to understand. He's brought it down to lay person's terms and I do appreciate that. In no way has he tried to sway me in any way toward anything other than to P~ge 80 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals explain to me the specific questions that I've had, you know, that I posed to him. And I do appreciate that as a Member of this Board. MR. CUDDY: qualifications. I just wanted the record to be clear as to his CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: I just was reviewing this. As a practical matter, Mr. Cuddy, to get over this issue of the Notice- MEMBER COLLINS: I have some views, too, Lydia. MEMBER TORTORA: The proper thing to do at this point is to in order to get the application before us, you can't apply directly to us. You do need that Notice of Disapproval for your omitted application. There's no question about that at which time then we can advertise it for that application. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman could I suggest, oh, excuse me, I know, that's why I was following on what Mrs. Tortora said. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, go ahead. MR. CUDDY: I'm just not sure if I'm following what you are asking us to do. You're saying there should be a Notice of Disapproval, but the Notice of Disapproval normally comes from the Buiiding Department. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're waiting for it. MR. CUDDY: We can't, I mean I guess I could mandamus the Building Department. MEMBER TORTORA: We can't make them move. recourse through a Writ of Mandamus. You do have some MR. CUDDY: I would point out to the Board that I don't think it's powerless to do an interpretation. I believe that the Board always has ( ) jurisdiction right to interpret the code and I think you can do it Sua sponte, "on your own motion," and I think if you look at the Code, the Code itself has a very specific provision for Interpretations. It has one for variances, it has one for special exceptions,it has one for interpretations. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Cuddy, I agree with you but we can't do it, to be very candid with you however. I think you know that if we did it and it was not properly noticed, and there was a court challenge to that decision, I think you know where the challenge would come. MR. CUDDY: No I want it Noticed. What I was saying is that I think the Board can direct to give me a Notice, that's the only P~age 81 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals difference because it may be next to impossible to move the Building Department when they haven't moved in five months. I will try and I think at this point I will go directly without a question but then I would get back to you because then I may say to the Board that you're really forcing Mr. Rosen to go to Court to ask us somebody to give us a Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER TORTORA: We're in a very bad position because we can't in this instance, we cannot, you know, initiate a re-advertising of a hearing without a Notice of Disapproval, beside the point you've cut off half of the application which is the "Office." MR. CUDDY: You don't have any objection to me going to the Town Attsrney and also suggest it to him that we can save ourselves some effort in it? MEMBER TORTORA: If you can coordinate a legal method of getting this to go forward through the Town Attorney's Office, I personally endorse that. CHAIRMAN: Lora. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cuddy, I think that the only difference between the original building permit application many months ago, and the one that you submitted at our request, an amended one recently. The only difference in substance is that the second application mentions the office building -- MR. CUDDY: And radio tower. MEMBER COLLINS: Well and uses the term 'radio tower' indicating that you're asking them to judge which law, it was very suttle and I don't think that they are likely to pick up on the fact that thai was a request to judge which law applies. But the point is the office building is like an added starter as it were from the original application, and the original application was clearly denied on three bases. Under Article XVI the lot is not big enough, Article XVI the tower is too close to the nearest dwelling, and under Article XIV which deals with that use district, the setback is wrong. Those were the three grounds for denial and that is what we were holding hearings on, correct? MEMBER TORTORA: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: It seems to me that we can, it would be very nice if the Building Department would act on the revised Building Permit Application, but if they don't I think we can notice a hearing that says much more clearly this hearing was advertised as follows: "Applicant is requesting an Interpretation regarding a proposed tower in the Light Industrial District and/or variances under Article XIV which is the use article for that district, and then it just cites sections. It's - BOARD SECRETARY: General. Page 82 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: It doesn't give you any of the blood. I think, this is my feeling, Lydia, that if the Building Department doesn't budge on this that we can re-notice a hearing, on the denial that we have in which we say that the Board has concluded that in order to handle this application it must directly address the question of whether it was proper to cite Article XIV in denying the original application. And that we are going to address that question and I think that tells the public what we are up to and I don't think we need the Building Department to act. That's my sense. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not 100% sure, Lora. I think, you know, I'll- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: question tomorrow, Lora? Will you ask the Town Attorney that MEMBER COLLINS: Sure. I was going to talk to the Town Attorney today but I didn't have a chance. CHAIRMAN: Let's get to him, tomorrow or Monday and get that issue resolved. MEMBER COLLINS: We do know informally that he certainly agrees we need to give notice. MEMBER TORTORA: That still would not take care of the Office. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no. Let's clear up the Office issue at this particular point, and that is that I did discuss this again with Mr. Forrester this morning. He says you are on-line and you will get your Notice of Disapproval, but there are a variety of people before you. And that is basically the issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than the fact that there are other people before you, and they are writing Notice of Disapprovals based upon when they get the requests. And that's it. And that is what he has informed me. MEMBER TORTORA: It's funny, because we heard another applicant earlier this evening who was really saying in essence I am hear before you, just speed up the process because I couldn't get my application reviewed by the Building Department in so many words. So there must be some ( ) to that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I think - I mean, Mr. Forrester and I have very good dialogue, and I think that that was an issue that I dear with him this morning, and we are going to get it. OK. I mean, you are going to get it. But I think they prioritized it in reference to the date of the receipt, and I think we'll get it when they get to the point of getting it. And there is no other reason. I don't think it's necessary for you to go any farther on that basis. Let's deal with this issue and see if we can Notice it so that we can deal with that specific situation and then hopefully by that time, you will have gotten it, and then we'll complete it. P~age 83 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY: I was just wondering, are we going to have two additional Notices then? A Notice for this, and then another Notice when he gets another Notice of Disapproval? MEMBER COLLINS: I wouldn't think so. MEMBER TORTORA: That's why I said, you - even if you do it your way, you're still out the Office. MEMBER COLLINS: I agree, you are out the Office. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Office. So you re-notice the next one with the MEMBER COLLINS: this. Some how the Office is not at the center of MEMBER TORTORA: principal. Only if you are looking at accessory or MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it's very relevant to it, but I - can I? MEMBER COLLINS: Ok. MEMBER DINIZIO: Something seems to be going on in this particular application - I don't know, something underlying here that I don't quite understand, but am I to understand here, I guess I should ask you, Jerry because you are the Chairman, that the Inter-Office Memo of August 3rd explaining a conversation which was in the ZBA office and Gary Fish - it is no longer the position of the Building Inspector that -- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no it should -- MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know if this should be public~ that's why I'm not reading it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Every - I testified in Federal Court, I will go down on the record that everything is public. I said everything is public. MEMBER DINIZIO: It is him saying that "he is not going to issue one because we've taken a straw vote" is now something that is not so? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What happened was exactly what you said, OK. I had no idea how they found out that we were anticipating a vote on the issue, does this -- (interruptions by several voices and inaudible). Pardon me. They found out before the newspaper hit, that's it. Now let's get down to basics here. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well~ then will you let me ask this again, Jerry, to get this straight? I wanted to just follow through - now, you P2ge 84 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals have written a letter of August 5th requesting that they give us a new Notice of Disapproval? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of course, because it is exactly what we asked Mr. Cuddy to do. That's continuity. MEMBER DINIZIO: So in writing do we have from them now concerning that? In other words, we don't get anything in writing then? This is an Inter-Office Memo, Linda's usual efficient self. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before the telephone line was even cold, OK, my conversation with the Board's Secretary was: "Draft that memo" and that memo went out so fast and went down that end of the building, OK, that it took I would say probably 14 seconds for the printer to act before that Memo went down that side of the building, because I was not going to hear the possibility of a vote stopping a Notice of Disapproval that an applicant in good faith requests from the Building Department, all right? This was a request. We asked him to amend his application. He did so. And based upon some, will reduce it to a writing situation, OK. Let's assume it was read in the paper or it was hearsay, sort of speak OK? It happened, OK. But today we still have not taken a vote. So that has absolutely nothing to do with the request for the Notice of Disapproval. And it doesn't. OK. And so therefore, that's what precipitated me to write that memo. MEMBER DINIZIO: And so we haven't received any correspondence back from them? (Chairman Nodded Affirmatively.) MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, if I read the Suffolk Times correctly, this week, where four to six weeks away from night, or from whenever he put his application in (interrupted). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. If my memory is correct, on July 10th he requested it. We are now past August 10th. So I would assume that if they are talking four to six weeks, he should get it in fourteen days. MEMBER DINIZIO: All right. I guess that was my -- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I try to be as above board as I possibly can, all right. And that precipitated me to ask Mr. Forrester today if he had seen the Notice of Disapproval, and he has indicated to me that you are in the rack prioritized and they are going to - you know, it is going to happen based upon that particular situation. That's all I can tell you. MR. CUDDY: I will cheek. BOARD SECRETARY: My question is, when you get the Notice of Disapproval will you authorize me to advertise that for Mr. Cuddy if he amends our application to include that? P~age 85 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. BOARD SECRETARY: And also the additional Notice that Lora is talking about that she wants to do so we can have both of -- MEMBER COLLINS: Excuse me, I am not talking about an additional Notice. I think we are hearing Mr. Rosen's appeal. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not amended. MEMBER COLLINS: Right now Mr. Rosen's appeal is the original one, based on the original Disapproval, and I said I think we can address this important question of which law applies based on the original Disapproval. I don't think we need the revised. (Change of Tape). If the Building Department had stopped beating around the bush and has assured our Chairman that they are indeed treating the amended application in order and that they will come up with another Notice of Disapproval in due course, that's terrific. That's just fine. When we get that Disapproval, then we notice a hearing that reflects the wording of that Disapproval and that brings out what it is that we are going to talk about. And since we have decided this evening to make our next regularly scheduled hearing is going to be later in September than originally planned, we have a big window of opportunity here. BOARD SECRETARY: And so if there is no Disapproval, then the Notice is to read how? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll ask the Town Attorney that. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, and we can take care of that when we meet the next time though, right? MEMBER COLLINS: We'll have another meeting. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean we have to make a decision, in my opinion. I agree with Mr. Cuddy that we can, I believe right now we can make a decision on this, certainly in the interest of fairness and certainly in the interest of openness advertise what we have become, what I have become convinced of as to how this application should go. And I've beeome convinced or should say, I have become of the opinion, whieh I will not say now, because of the testimony that I have heard concerning this application. In other words we got the Notice of Disapproval, in my opinion it turned out completely different than that Notice of Disapproval, and I guess that's why we are saying now. We have heard the application. What we heard is not the same as this Notice of Disapproval. Now we are asking for one more that matehes the information that we have received. Am I eorrect? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, do we after we now advertise this, do we have to hear that information against? P~age 86 Hearing Transcripts August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: No. MR. CUDDY: I would ask you to permit us to incorporate all the entire record. CHAIRMAN: Of course. Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: In fact I beg you that you don't do it again. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So at this particular point, we have no other option but to recess without a date. We will then speak to the Town Attorney. We will incorporate what Ms. Collins has just referred to as a situation which we probably can deal with on our own based upon the first Notice of Disapproval. In the interim you will get yours, and we will incorporate it all into one if that hearing doesn't exist at one time, we will have two separate hearings and incorporate them together. OK? All right. So I make a motion to recess without a date. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for. formal Resolution. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And we will get back to you to let you know exactly when we are going to hear that based upon the original Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER TORTORA: Attorney tomorrow. Well, Lora is going to talk to the Town MEMBER COLLINS: from the hip. Sure. I was somewhat reasonable but shooting CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. coming in, and safe home to everybody. Thank you, gentlemen, for