Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/19/2001 HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD JULY 19, 2001 (Prepared by Paula Quinfieri) Present were: Chou'man Goehringcr Member Dinizio Member Tortora Member Collins Member Homing Panla Quintieri, Secretary Absent were: Member Homing PUBLIC HEARING: 7:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4976 - MICHAEL McALLISTER. (Public Heating continued) Variances requested: (11 under Article XXIII. Section 100-239.4A. 1, based on the Build'rog Inspector's May 31, 2001 Notice of Disapproval for new dwelling at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff at L.I. Sound, (2) under Article XXI~, Section 100- 239.4A. 1 based on the Building Inspector's May 31, 2001 Notice of Disapproval for an in-ground swimming pool at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff, and (3) under ~Article III, Section t0fl-3B.4 to locate a proposed garage at less than 20 feet from side lot qine. 17665 Soundview Avenue, Southold; 51-1-3. CHAIRMAN: I'm going ro open the hearing. Jim wants to discuss something, so the heating ~s open. We are ready for you sir. MEMBER DINIZIO: I spoke [o somebody concerning tiffs revetment. I got a good explanation from CHAIRMAN: Mr. Costello? Page 2 Jaly 19. 2001 2t~A PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIFT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMBER DIIxlZIO: I didn't speak to John because I understand it's his company that's going to do it. But I spoke to one of his workers, and we had a nice discussion. He told me it's nothing but a pile of rocks. CHAIRMAN: Right. What the difference is J/m is, these are organized rocks, as opposed to riprap; which are rocks containerized. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what I was thinking it was, because I had seen that. But really, like you said, they're organized rocks and they can move. CHAIRMAN: That's the nice part about it, because they then become the foundation for additional rocks in future years, if needed. MEMBER D1NIZIO: He said there is no erosion caused by the rocks because of their placement. He also said a hundred year storm might not happen again for another hundred years. CHA1R3/IAN: The heating is open Brace. we're ready. BRUCE ANDERSON: Thank you very much. During the last hearing there were a number of issues that were raised. My intention is to address each and every one of them with satisfaction to the Board. It seems to me one of the, probably the greatest area of concern was the question of how exactly we were going to stabilize this bluff. What is and was proposed was a very low profile, two rows of rock. Much lighter than really any kind of dry stabilization in very uncommon (inaudible). The (inaudible) of the bluff is stabilized by vegetation and in designing the various designs that we are going to present tonight, we hope you will look at them in a matter that you're excited about them, as we are; because ff you really look at this thing very hard and we want to get to this comfort level that if this project gets approved, will nol result in any damage to that bluff whatsoever. The contrary that the bluff will be restored (inaudible) to the condition it is today, To get the ball rolling I'm going to show you plans that we did for another client that was done who lived in Northaven and I mentioned this to you briefly at the previous meeting. I am going to hand each of you a prtrposed site plan that we did, in connection with a stairwell that we made down along the bluff. These clients are known as the Stems, and I think I said they live on the west bank of Northaven. If you're any boaters and you happened to go to Noyak Bay you took to the west and see Jessup Beck, which is for the most pan a completely sand bluff. And sirrdlarly if you took back towards Northaven you see the same thing at Northaven Point. When we had made that application, way back when, the concerns that you guys raised were very gimilar to the concerns that were raised even back then. The second thing I'm going to show you is here is the photos that were taken reflect the condition of that bluff prior to impl~nentation of this project, and what that blufflooks like today. I think they will give you a great comfort level. If you look at the first photograph you simply see the denuded bluff which is actually more sparsely vegetated than the bluff here on McAilister property. If you then mm to the subsequent two photos that are included in your exhibit there, you will see the stairway, now built, with this photograph a couple of days ago; and Page 3 - July 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCPdPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD you will see the vegetation the implementation of that site plan that's before you. and how that worked over time. Of course, die re-vegetation was limited to just eight feet or so on either side of the stairway. What you can see is we sent in a mixl:are of beach grass and Pceg0sa Rose. The railroad portion of the bluff is primarily dominated by the Regosa Rose, and the upper portion p~marily dominated b~v beach grass, that's wha~ shows on your second photo. The second photo being when you stand at the top of the bluff and look down. I th/ak what they demonstrate is that these types of plantings plan will be done successfully. Now it tums out, if you refer to your site plan and you look at the topography there, the slope in question here was an 83%, slope, which is extraordinarily steep. Referring to the surveys be£gr¢ yon in the Mc :A~'ster property indi~te th~! the elevation- of the tcr~ o£~the blmff ~ d'then the elevation o~fie b~)ttom of the btt~ff am~ ~e~ you simply meastffe that ia tiaear dis~age you'l]~ rise ov~ fgrmul~a, ~ calculate film om. The Mc3Jtister bluff on average is a 52% slope. So, ~ the Northave~ case We. were able to domonstrare a sneeess~l planning of that bluff or~ a larger blmff that is far steeper than what ~ve ~see in McAllister. So the analysis §ocs, if ~ can success ~ftg2y stabilize and plant a targer,.s~eeper bluff in Nordiaven, t can cereainly sucCess~y pla~t~ and stabilize a shorter and less deep bluff here in Southold. The way we do that, speci.fical~y for this project, is shown on the site plan that we prepared for this property. [ will hand these up so you can take a look at them, and I will show you how this project is physically implemented. That is the site plan over here on the board. What we've done is we've taken a photograph and so forth, and we defined where the erosion has incurred. What we've said i~s that, the maj~ofity of the erosion has occurred on the lower parts of the bluff and at the other portion of the bluff The upper most portion of the bluff is a grass area that is thick, lush and highly stable. As you go down towards the center of the bluff, you find more of a shrub type growth there; and then below that you have sparse vegetation in the bluff (inaudible). What we propose here is the plantings of Regesa Rose and beach grass one foot on center, which is the same specifications that were used in the Stern case that I submitted to you. The way it's physically done is that what one lays out is called a jute netting. A jute netting is made out of natural rope material, and it is pegged into the site of the bluff; and/ts purpose is just to hold the soil temporarily while the root system becomes established. So any area on the bluffthat is comprised of this sand and earth is covered initially by this jute netting. Generally the mesh side of the jute is between four and six inches. Either one is proved effective. Then within the openings ofthemesh you physically plug the site. Typical of what you do, it's best to go with a mixture of plants and the reason why you do that is so that one plant, for whatever reasons, may be better than the other. So when the day is done, you have full coverage over the bluff. We are very much confident that that type of planting will be successful. I am in receipt of the report given to you from Soil and Conser~ation Service, which I generally agree with. It speaks of two sorts of~ erosion, die first is, an overland phenomenon which comes from the land, over the-top of the bluff, down the bluffs base. They identify the source o£ erosion. I don't doubt that I would only qualify it by saying that it is a very minor source, because my reasons being, that clearly this bluff is eroded from the bottom and not the top. The top is highly vegetated. On the second page it speaks to the serious erosion that has incurred at the toe of the bluff, in lieu of the last storm event. It talks about stabilizing that toe, precisely what this application does. The ultimate solution being the planting plan that I have laid out for you. In any event, when we go back to the overland, Page 4 - Inly 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING-TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD upland storm water flow off of the bluff, is (inaudible) flow, it's not a concentrated flow. What we propose to do here is. we've extended a retaining wall, a low-profile retaining wall, and I~e~given you the cross-section here. The water is on. this side, and the house is on this side. It essentially acts as a physical tenement preventing that water-from gong over the top of the bluff. Set back a lbot landward of this ret~ng wall. The retaining wall is really alight and non-struCtural wall. They added 6 x 6 railroad ties, which is how we make it stable. Ihe idea is that the waler comes off the land and fails into this trench. Now this trench is 2 x 3 foot trenc~h, which provides significant passage o~er the land. What you're doing in this trench is you backfJl it with heavy ~co~rse gravel. It's known as a Fre~cit ~ and itfS technique MS been useit man? raagy ~m.~'~s. ~ eczt~tinly,~do s~i~est it; it's a standard, ace~tabl~ m~agemem, alteraativ~ We prOl~os,e tlmi. a~ ~I, md expect that you make it a colt~ti~n~ o~ this variance that could be impleme~ted~ That would eliminate any erosion, wl:dle not existing now, t!Saf, could occur from tJhe l~md over the top of thi's bluff. I thi~k what we've a¢complished here is we've prov~de~l a solution to,yards any threat of the overland .run ph~nom~on, as well as, as strong ~en erosion effect that wcmld operate on the lower pm:t'.of the blu~£ We re~ard this as a model, and I expect the next time I get involved in s6mething similar to this, I witl~ be coming in with something similar hopefully with pictures showing l~w suceessful ttfis is to the pubhc level. CHAIRMAN: So you'll be adding onto the stem walkway with the McAllister walkway in bluff area. BRUCE ANDERSON: rll take it to McAllister and I'll take it up to Northaven just to make it, but tha's right. We do that from t/me ~o time, we like to see what happens over t/me. Because I know we live in a world of paper, and am always pleased to see that the things can be implc~-nented and they can be implemented properly and they are appropriate. We've had no problem with Stem. Those stairs have be~a up now for, they were built I believe in the Fall of 1996. The 2001 are the most recent pictures we have. We also amended our design and layout for both, the house, the pool and garage. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Anderson gets onto the amended layout, could I ask a question about what you've just been telling us about the bluff?. BRUCE ANDERSON: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: Just to boil it down, I'd like to, your statement is with respect to the bluff there are two sources of water. One is overland and you propose, you believe it is not a severe problmn and you propose to deal with it with this French drain and retaining wall, as you just explained to us. The other problem is erosion of the toe of the bluff. Am I right that it is really erosion of the toe of the bluff is the thing that people have been focusing on, certainly the Soil and Water Report focuses on the toe of the bluff; and you said your plan deals with that? You gave us two el~ents; one is the rock revetment, and the other is plantings on the bluff face. Do I have the elements of your plan? Is that it? Page 5 -July 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANS CRIFF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BRUCE ANDERSON: The only thing that I would add is that the Soil Conservation Report places an emphasis on the run-off retaining wall thing that I think is perhaps a 1/ttte bit. MEMBER TORTORA: That's what I was going to ask you about, because they say upper scope, it has to be set back, the retmning wall would have to be, the concrete wall would have to be removed. BRUCE ANDERSON: That's simply not the case. We know that from the vegetation. If you have that effect, you would see the bluff denuded on the top, we really wouldn't see the denuded on the bottom. That is no~ to say tlmt it's not an impact, because it is. All I'm sa.ymg is, let's ad&'ess the , bemuse we're in. this proceeding and we have an oppommity to do so. MEMBER TORTORA: Bruce, I'm not au expert, but I do value expert opinions. Have yon run your ideas by Jay BRUCE ANDERSON: I could try. MEMBERTORTORA: Wejust go it today, I'm just re-reading it too. BRUCE ANDERSON: I know Jay, I've dealt with him before, l~m sure, there's no doubt that this is exactly the type of plan that the~re looking for, because I've dealt with them [n the past. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm sure you have. It's just I am not au expert and I do know this is a sensitive area, and we want to, all the Board Members want to do the right thing. I personally feel comfortable with, if it's not inappropriate for you to discuss your plans with him and get some kind of a, even a letter that says that that the plan submitted would negate the need for the ruling of a retaimng wall and the recommendation. BRUCE ANDERSON: The retaining wall he is speaking of is not the one up here. There's actually a small little bulkhead wall down in the slope shown on the survey. That's part of the D.E.C. condition of building the stairway. So we're in agreement on that. There is a small bulkhead. I don't want you to confuse that. What I was hoping though, better than my opinion, his opinion, our opinion, is a showing that these things are done successfully over (inaudible). My purpose of bringing in (inaudible) MEMBER TORTORA: I'm sorry I was not able to come to the inspection, but t would like to know that you've made this proposal, and I understand that you also proposed leaving the pool, we're going to get to that. MEMBER COLLINS: I had wanted to, what you're just doing, was to pin down the elements of the bluff, per say, before we get on to sighting of the property. Page o-July 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~ BRUCE ANDERSON: (hands out documentation to all Members). We have plenty for ~,_~ everyone. You will notice a revision date of July 18, 2001. on the survey before you. ., There was some confusion as to the actual setback, of the blt~ff, which is gradual, so it involves of professional . We have highlighted ajad located topographicallythe crest of the blv3'f. You will see that on here. You will also see the retaining wall in our bluff re-vegetarian plan. What you manage to see is. that the pool was originally laid out at 43 feet from the easterly return of the existing central wall. That has now been moved back to the and that the house, then existing at 65 feet from the topographical crest of the bluff as measured on the easterly portion of the site was relocated from 65 to 70 feet that from the topograph~cal~ er,est, o~the bluff. Keeping m,xmnd tha~ It s. sti~ll shows the existing ~eptic system to the then ~sting house and ~i~o0t that was m,~ach, much closer. I ~, what it ~¥es. you £s a level of comfort a~d a ~6vel ~l~at your regulation of the site progressed, in that, through t~s process you ~tetually retreat back from the topographical crest of the bluff. I also want to point out on other design chaage,.and that is the proposed garage wklch was subsequently relocated ~om 5 feet off the property line. to 10 feet offthe property line. Wedid that as an accommodation to t e neighbors to the west, the Niekolas. W6 discussed that in the hallway ~r the~ previous hem~g on this. In the Iast hearing we heard from virtually every adjaeen~ neighbor and one of them a couple Of doors down. It's very clear to me that everyane is satisfied as to the house and pool location. Even under prewous [inaudible). I couldn't imagine we would have a problem with the location of the structure, particularly given the fact. that of this historical location. What I hope I've done is glven you a level of comt3ort regarding the bluff itself. We're quite (inaudible on that, hopefully to your satisfaction that it can be done ~,~ successfully. That would conclude our presentation. CHAIRMAN: We had talked about the tying ofthe C.O. to the re-nurturing of the bluff. Basically, as you are aware, we don't really have jurisdiction in that particular area. Our jurisdiction starts at the top of the bluff and moves that 100-foot landward. However, a. decision of this Board is so important to, and is so relhang upon the re-nurturing of the reconstruction of the toe of this bluff and the scoring that you were mentioning, if that's the proper word, that I think we have no other choice but to do something. Let me just give you a brief reason why, okay. Let's assume that we collectively garner tba-ee votes on this Board and the decision, in the near future, is granted. Mr. and Mrs. McAllister, for some strange reason, decide that they no longer want to live on the Sound side; they want to now live on the Bay side. They now sell this very beautiful piece ofproperty to a second party and, for some strange reason, ttds second party builds a house in the location that this Board grants and forgets about the re-nurturing of the bluff. So that's why we have to, it's almost like a 280A aspect. Undek the 280A aspect, we suggest to the applicants that they don't do minor improvements on the right of way; so that when the fight of way gets beat up by a fifty ton vehicle going over it~ that those don't have to be re-done agmn, at a very costly situation. I just want to reiterate that that's my concern at this point, that it's A, B and C, all as one part. BRUCE ANDERSON: Right, my response to that when you ta~k about the re-vegetation of the bhifl5 we're really on the same side; because the scale and type of when you see the house is built, this is a large event as part of the McAllister's. It is to their advantage to Page7 July 19, 2001 ZBA PUBI2[C HEAR.lNG TRANSCKIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD protect that bluff. I have spoken with them, we met out in the hallway at the previous hearing, had contact before; they are completely in favor of doing this. This is something that they are perfectly satisfied in doing. As you know, when you granl a variance it runs with the lan& So if for whatever reason, let's say death in the fanfily or somethingof the nature that does l~appen, and it reverts m another party~ that party is going to build that house, tn that location; subject to this variance, and subject to the conditions. So, I ttfink the Board has a good comfort level. As far as the variance goes in general, keep in mind that it is indeed fortunate, that webce before this Board for a variance. Forget for a moment the house ang the pool that were there, and alt that stu£f that. we've already put in~ it's already centrally located 1 O0 feet from th~ btu~ff~ they've never liar~ tyrob~erns with this. before. This Board woul~ h.a~e no, anc~ the Town wo~'k[ have n~ .abi~ to address any of the health safety aspects that are p~ted byh'~'~a bl~uff that's unstable: So the fact that weYebefore you. I'think (jmand"~bl~). CHAIRMAN: When you refer to the word unstable, you're referring to the lower half of it whi5h kas been, you use the phrase denuded. Is that correct? BRUCE ANDERSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: Let's go from the French Drain back, from the French Dram back we are going to see whatever type of retaining wall is placed around the pool so that the pool, at a level position as it stands in front of the bluff, will be supported. Entirely around this pool, up to the deck area, wilt be what, lawn? BRUCE ANDERSON: We don't have a total landscape, but lawn is certainly fine. It's certainly supportive in your reports (inaudible). CHAIRMAN: We're not talking about; we're talking about living beings as opposed to non-living things. MEMBER TORTORA: What about drainage for the pool? BRUCE ANDERSON: Yes, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. what? BRUCE ANDERSON: (inaudible) dry well. Generally speaking you don't want to take pool water ('inaudible} CHAIRMAN: We need you to use the mike Bruce. MEMBER TORTORA: How long are the French Drains, are they 2 x 3? BRUCE ANDERSON: They're 2 x 3 and they run the entire along the entire perimeter of the property. Page 8 - July 19, 200I ZBA PUBLIC HEAPdNG T1L~NSCRIFF TOWN OF S OUTFfOLD MEMBER TORTORA: What happens when the French Drains get? BRUCE ANDERSON: All they do is they infiltrate~ You mean the contents of the French Drain, grave~ and rock. The air betWeen the particles are expanded. That's the capacity as~opposed to compacted earth, which has very little space between the particles. (Mr. Anderson conversation, almost enth-elyinaudible.) MEMBER TORTORA: I know they eventually do gel caught with debris, and leaves and muck that you accumulate and eventually create mulch over period of years, they do. BRUCE~ANDERSON: Well, if you look ar the way it's designed if, in the event, it were to be clogged twenty years down the road, what happens is the water actually becomes encountered by the walt itself. There would be an interest on everyone's part should some clogging occur to reactivate and MEMBER TORTORA: Well it depends on the depth, this is only three feet deep, correct? BRUCE ANDERSON: The capacity is more than that of the . You would see a foot would encounter water before you actually go over the top of the bluff. Which would be an unacceptable situation in any upscale development. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other questions in this here? '- MEMBER COLLINS: Oh yes, are we open for questions now? CHAIRMAN: Surely. We're going to start with Mr. Dinizio first, any questions Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER D1NIZIO: No, you can go ahead. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Miss Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Reviewing the hearing from last week I concluded that the Board trod not pressed you at all on the question of why did the house have to be where you want it, rather than further back. As you know, the law requires us m consider whether there is a feas~le alternative. I was really troubled when I thought back over the hearing because we focused so much on the erosion of the bluff issues, that I thought we kind of took that without talking about it. So IYn glad, that I'm sorry I wasn't there Saturday morning, I have been out on the land, I walked all over it and looked at it. I just wasn't there Saturday mormng. I gathered that you and the Chairman talked about that issue while you were out there on Saturday, and I'm certainly glad that you did because we have granted bluff setbacks for new houses on very much shallower sound properties, where we had them back further than this at 80 feet or so. I really was concerned about hearing the rationale of why the house, I guess the bottom line is why can't the house be 100 feet back? Simple question. Page9 - July 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCPdPT tOWN OF SOIJTHOLD BRUCE ANDERSON: Well, the rationale is when the Building Permit was filed; we had an immediate response, MEMBER COLLINS: We're not hearing you. BRUCE ANDERSON: When the Building Permit was filed, we had an immediate response by the Building Department that suggests the only limitation was a disconnect letter from the power company. That was interpreted by the builder to mean that was the only outstanxling~item in th~s Building Permit. It was quickly obtained, mxbmitted anti the orfi7 tli/ng tlmt hgppened:here was that weshould not have knocked down. the house uiSfil the Building permit was i~ hand. Because locaficm, you conld~ have expanded that hou~se, yo~* co~uld have lmilt within the exact same~£o0tpri~t. You could have completely g~tted and remodeled and so forth. Because there would have been no increase :non-conformity created in doing that, . C~ranted it was a mistake of his, but the desii'e now is to essentially put these things back in a more responsible location, that offer the same view, this with the same development pattern that has existed over this area for decades. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, thank you for the statement, and I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure how sympathetic I am to it, and I would say that I think that knocking down a house and rebuilding in a footprint when the footprint was ~on- conforming is not a done deal by any means and we hear those cases~ BRUCE ANDERSON: My point is could I not have completely. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh yes, of course you could. BRUCE ANDERSON: Could have put an addition on the side of the house. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, you certainly could have. MEMBER TORTORA: Not if it were closer to the bluff. MEMBER COLLINS: No. on the landward side he's saying. MEMBER TORTORA: Not if it were closer than 100 feet because the new interpretation by the Building Department now. BRUCE ANDERSON: He told me we were on ve,ry thin ice and thatts because there's a specific section in the Zoning Code. as I mentioned the last hearing, that permits this provided no new non-conformity is MEMBER COLLINS: Well, that's a separate ~ssue. I realize that because that's not what you're doing. I know you came in, in effect, saying we understood we could do this and now we've had the rug pulled out from under us and that's not fair. I mean, that was kind Page 10-July t9, 2001 ZB [ PUBLIC I-IEAKING TRANSCRIP'[ town OF SOUTHOLD of the message that we got. I really'wanted to hear you make a statement about the sighting of the house, precisely because we have generally taken the view that they should be further back from the bluffthan people generally want them to be. I think yom' statement is helpful. BRUCE ANDERSON: And also what I said before is forturmtety, the silver lining on this. is to give this Board the opportunity to actaally address the bluff than it would not have had if these structures were 100 feet back. MEMBER COLLI2qS: That's a cute argument. I'think I~would say, i~we were debating~ whch we are not, that the owners concern about the bluff is sort ofipfiramount. People aren't going m 8pond this kind of money, on this kind of property, without making sure ttre bluff is okay. That's my feeling. BRUCE ANDERSON: But you also realize that it is presented for the first time tonight. I don't know why, I mean we came in very late in the process, I'm not saying it wouldn't have occurred prior to my involvement in everything; but typically what we do ~n our business is if we dnn't put stairways down a bluff} as indicated with the Sterns, we protect the problem. Because if the property owner has the financial. means to implement such a plan, it certainly would. MEMBER TORTORA: The only other question I had was the new plan is now; you're still at 10 feet from the side yard? BRUCE ANDERSON: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's acceptable. That's not evan a variance. MEMBER COLLINS: I think he needs 20 on a bluffthat size. BRUCE ANDERSON: We represented 5 feet on our initial application, which on that very same survey the adjacant garage is 3 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: You need 20 feet according ro the Notice of Disapproval. BRUCE ANDERSON: That's correct. My point is we have represented 5 feet, the adjacent garage on the property to be less than some 3 feet, 2 t/2 feet from the property line. We then made a revision to our application to move it 10 feet at a deference to the neighbor, our concern being we really don't want to put it 20 feet from the property line because then it would disrupt the site plan and incurred upon the house as you look at it from the south, in other words MEMBER TORTORA: Well, I don't think I agree with you really because you have quite a large width of the property, and the size of the proposed driveway more than allow you to meet that 20 foot setback. Please u:y to convince me otherwise, other than some esthetic reason. Page 11 J~ly 19,2001 ZBA PUBLIC I-IF. ARLNG TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BRUCE ANDERSON: Well, the reason is consistent with the character of the neighborhood if the person 'supports it, and for those reasons, the environmental consequence looking at it from that standpoint it wouldseem to us m protect the MEMBER TORTORA: What do you mean consistent with the neighborhood? BRUCE ANDERSON: It's non-conforming, but most conforming than what you see fight across that property. CHAIRMAN: We're gcdng to yield to altemate relief, depending upon what we do when we get into the del~erat/on session. MEMBER TORTORA: What you're saying it's not consistent with the neighborhood. It's consistent with an adjoining property owner, one property owner. BRUCE ANDERSON; Right, to give you an example, the attached garage of the neighbors. I don't know where else you're going to look~ CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing and we thank yom BRUCE ANDERSON: Do you have a sense of where this might. CHAIRMAN: No, I think we just have to figure out whether we're going to close the hearing, and that's the first thing. So let's see what develops. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody else like to speak against the application? Anything you would like to add, Mr. Price? GORDON PRICE: The garage if placed, if it were further toward the house, that you come up the driveway which is the existing driveway on the original property, the garage, if you bring it over any further, the garage will begin to impede on the clear view of the house, which is main re-estheffc of benefit of it. That's why we were keeping it over to the side like that. That's my only comment. CHAIRMAN: Is there any reason, on this Board, why we should not close this hearing m this time? MEMBER TORTORA: Is there any desire on the Board to address the Booth letter, the concerns raised in that letter? CHAIRMAN: Have you seen the Booth letter? BRUCE ANDERSON: No, I've spoke with him at length. ( .... MEMBER COLLiNS: This is a letter dated July 16th, one page, single-spaced. Page 12 July 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTFiOLD CHAIRMAN: We can g~ve you a copy it. MICHAEL McALLISTER: I would like to see that. CHAIRMAN: We're going to have to make a copy of that for you Mr. McAllister. MEMBER TORTORA: He's very much against the revetment. MEMBER DtNJZIO: I spoke to somebody concerning th4s revetment~ Just so you know, I did speak to~, I found Out the person-that you're going to have do it, I didn't speak to him but I spoke to ~ worker ofl~. He explained to me what it is and I cormur with what you said before that. This is the least intrusive way tq try m conserve some o,f the energy that hits that bank. While t not convinced that it wouldn!t affect the neighbors on either side; I'm sure it woutd~'t hurt: them as much as. putti~,,g ~,h~lkhead ~ sometlfing like that l wanted youto know that I dirk because I know I r~aise~t that quesfion~ BRUCE ANT)ERSON: I appreciate that. MEMBER D1NIZIO: I don't want you worrying about it anymore as far as that is concemed. CHAIR_MAN: Thank you. Is that all Jim? How about that we close the heating pending receipt of com~nen~s from either the agent for the applicant or the applicant regarding Mr. Booth's letter. MEMBER COLLINS: With a time limit? CHAIRMAN: Yes~ With a time limit, no more than two'weeks. MICHAEL McALLISTER: I can read that letter right now. CHAIRMAN: I understand that, but it takes a little getting used to. I'm not saying that. We're going to digest the material Mr. McAllister, and there's a great possibility that we may want to comment on something ourselves. MICHAEL McALLISTER: I understand that. My issue is this. The material has been given. Whatever issues you favor or doesn't favor, obviously the residents of Southold enforces us to be heard and the Board should hear it. As far as the digestion of anything else, it's before you. Now I'm not saying that Board doesn't have the right to take as much time as the3/d like to make a decision, but I also an a resident, not as of yet, because obviously I do not have a house, but therefore I am not a resident, but I am a taxpayer. I understand the choices of what sort of time frame the Board needs. What more needs to be given to the Board so an answer can be g~ven. If the answer is no, I can live with that. But I feel that you have everything that you may or may not need. You've been to the site, you several times, from what I understand. As far as the bluff, of course. Page 13 ~ July 19, 2001 TOY92q OF SOUTHOLD the most important thing to is to protect my property. I think Mr. Anderson made it very clear that I'm forced to account to the bluff Now whether the Board wants to believe I'm an honorable person of word, that's,up to the'Board. CHAIRMAN: We take everybody as an honorable person. MICHAEL McALLISTER: That being said, the Board really has no jurisdiction over the bluff: I've been given permission already, by all the proper authorities, to do what it may or may not want to do with the bluff I'm not going against it. becanse I've been told by the D.E.C, .and the people ~at.allegedty should know, that that could harm the~ bluff and that eould"harm myne[ghbors. That's why I'm not doing it The onI, y reason I am doing the revetment is because they to~d me that's the best way thing to do, for myself a~d my neiglSb'ors. If they foist me the best thing to do was to just to leave it and whatever happens over time, happens over time, that's fine by me. Visually up to this point. I've done exactly what anyone who is a lmowledgeable person would-be these sort of things, l~ve paid consultants, architects because I've never built a house. IYe never dealt with bls,fi7 before. That being said I've done, to this point, cveryth'mg I'm supposed to do to make the bluff stable, to make the property as attractive as possible, ow I drmt know qnite now what the Board needs to make a decision. CHAIRMAN: Let me MICHAEL McALLISTER: What they need, what I need ro do and when a decision can be reached. CHAIRMAN: Let me just give you a brief analysis of what we did here tonight okay. This was a deliberation session, for the purpose of making decisions from the prior meeting, What we gratuitously did was allow you to hold a public hearing here, because you are the applicant. This gentleman is your agent, but we very simply allowed you to hold a p~blic hearing at om' deliberation session. Which immediately meant, on August 164h, did not have to continue this hearing. Because we will be sitting here with toothpicks up, keeping our eyes open, because we have twenty hearings on that night or thereabouts. At this particular point, there are a couple of Board Members that still want to comment on a couple of things. So that is the reason why, I mean amongst themselves. they may ~vant to talk about the specific project in itself I have no idea what the situation is. L myself, have no problem closing this heating tonight. I am gratuitously asking them if there is anything else that they want from you or if they want comments from you regarding Mr. Booth's letter whatever the case might be. Wlfich is a little lengthy, and it may take figuring out or something on your part or on your agent's part on making a decision on how you ~vant to answer this olxler. My suggestion is that if we close the heating tonight, that we will be ready to make a decision on August 16th and we will make that decision or at least start the deliberation on it a decision prior to the start or the commencement of that meeting. So if the meeting starts au 6:30, at 6:15 we will start the deliberation of what we are going to do. At fids particular point. I'm not sure tonight, that the Board is ready to close this heating and start deliberations on this matter at this time. I will tell you how welt, and I will reiterate again that because of Mr Anderson and Page 14 -July 19, 2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPI tOWN OF SOUTHOLD because of we know he probably worked tirelessly on this over the past week, because he gave qs fi lot of information tonight, based upon our meeting of last Saturday, that he has done a pretty good job in explaining m us exactly what has to be done with the further information he has given us. So we are exactly one month up on this application, based upon What he gave us hlmady. So don't be concerned that iiwe are just going to ask you to comment on Mr. Booth's letter, because I am ready to address this on August I6th which is the next regularly scheduled meeting. That'S the best I can do at this particular point. I can't do anybetter. BRUCE ,ANDERSON: My understanding of your suggestion is that yon want to close this to oral or leave it open fop written comments. If one of your fine staff will fax it over in the' morning. CHAIRMAN: We'll give you copies before you leave. BRUCE ANDERSON: We'll have that thing addresged. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think that's the issue. I think we're going to close it totally based upon on everything, other than the comments that you might have of Mr. Booth's letter or any other further comments you want to make. We're just putting a ten-day time limit on it, ten-business day time limil on it. So by next Frid,amy, which is really seven or eight days. I think that's really the way to go, which is the 27 . [ think that's what I suggest at this point. MEMBER COLLINS: So you're proposing we close the hearing to verbal testimony and, in fact, we close the heating to all testimony except that the Board offers the apphcant the opportunity to reply, in writing, to the comments from Mr. Booth regarding the revennent if they wish to do, and if they wish to do so they do so. Is that what you're proposing? CHAIRMAN: And if there is any question of any Board Member that after they've looked over all this documentation they have the right to request an answer from you on this. BRUCE ANDERSON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN: Because, I have to be honest with your Mr. McAIlister, this is, your agent has done a wonderful job in g~ving us everything that we need at this point, Because we know the backgrotmd of Mr. Anderson. He usually, this may be a play on words, he usually leaves no stone untamed. However, after looking at the whole thing tonight, between last week and this week, there may be something that we might want to commem on. We want to have the ability on Monday or Tuesday, to fax him over a letter based upon that. that'g all. Case closed. Right. MEMBER COLLINS: We would do that anyway. Between the close of the hearing. Page 15 -July 19, 2001 ZBA PUB'[IC EIEAK1NG TRANSCRIPT TOWN OF SOUTHOD CHAIRMAN: The hearing is closed. :MEMBER COLLINS: When we close the hearing and are having deh~berafion, we were always ~ree to ask for ali¢le more input il'we need it. CHAIRMAN: But I'm only explaining that to the applicant, just so he is aware of that situation. So I'll make a motion closing the hearing, pending receipt of any comments regarding Mr. Booth's lett~r~ now let's go with just next Friday, which is the 27th. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION END OF PUBLIC HEARING ~ 8:45 P.M.