Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/22/2002 HEAR SOUTItOLD TOWN BOARD OlJ APPEALS tRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC 1tEARINGS HELD AUGUST 22, 2002 & ~~ (Prc~ared by Paula Quintieri) Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer Memb~ Lydia A. Tortora ~ absent until 8;5( / Member George Homing Member Ruth Oliva Member Vincent Orlando Board Secretary Linda Kowalski PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9:50 p.m. Appl. No. 5084 - 540 Church Street LLC CHAIRMAN: Tlfis is an ongoing hearing. We'd like Mr. McCarthy ~o come up, since Mr. McCarthy was tardy at the last hearing and did nor arrive; we have to discuss with him certain things. Is there anything you would like to open the hearing with Mr. McCarthy? TOM MCCARTHY: I apologize for my tardiness. It was my mistake that I was not here. I didn't understand that we were going ro be on the calendar that evening, because I didn't ask that question specifically enough to your office. CHAIRMAN: Let me just say ro the entire group that is here, when a person is tardy they get t? the end of the schedule, so that is the reason why we are at the end of our agenda for tl~ particular application. Just so everybody is aware of that. We're ready to hear fi-om you. TOM MCCARTHY: I guess one of the substitute issues today that we had not discussed in the past, or at least was not advertised was the issue of' 280A access from 48. I believe it were to go back and look at the record we had offered to work together with the church to improve the right-of-way that travels across the church's properly ro whatever it is necessary to a reasonable or acce~ptable to the neighbors or the church itself, because the church owns the right-of-way. We offer to do that to whatever the specifications that are necessary. We bad spoken about this before but we hadn't amended the application to include that within the public hearing. CHAIRMAN: What have you done, the last hearing that we had you had supplied us with a second map indicating an additional change or a proposal of an additional change. I don't seem to have that right in front of me, but I'll look for it in a second. Have there been any other changes, ansrdxing other that you have proposed either you or your client in solving some of the variance aspects of this application? TOM MCCARTI-IY: No, I believe that we had submitted to you a possibility for an amendment. We have not made that application to the planning Board To the Planning Board we've made our application as you've seen our original. With all due respect to the principal Building Inspector that sent us to the Zoning Board and to this Board, I still feel that the issues that are in front of us are, I'm in disagreement with regarding the bulk schedule, the nonconforming bulk schedule, the fronl yard setback, the rear yard setback and the distance on the street. Those are really the issues that we. myself and Mr. Chituk wanted to get answered from this Board in an official fashion before we were to come up with any other official application because we feel wherever we've located this building is a legal location. We also understand that there are a lot of other issues here, they're complex issues that we've all read about in the papers lately. There's been issues that the Town Board has been involved in and trying to solve. Many different opinions as to what is the right thing to do. and weYe kind of here with our hat in our hands for a piece of property Page 2, August 22. 2002 Transcript of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Atypda]~ that was zoned in a particular fashion in which to/mprove ~t according to what we see as the law. And we respect the members of the church and the neighbors and we're trying to work together so that we can also be a good neighbor arid to whatever end that is, but still within our rights in a light industrial district with the improvements that we are lookin~ to make with this properpy. CHAIRMAN: We need you ro cut the building down. You need to make ir smaller. So that's an issue that concerns me. That's just my opinion. I have not; we have not deliberated upon this because we have not closed the hearing, conceivably. But the last discussion I had with you and Mr. Chitalc was that if this building was to go forward it's going to be a model building. TOM MCCARTHY: That's understood. CHAIRMAN: But, it is just too large. So we need you to look at that aspect of it4 you and your client. And I'll pass it over to Mrs. Tortora MEMBER TORTORA: You have contended that you are not subject to the provisions of 100-143A, which states, "all strucattes shall be set back 100 feet from the right-of-way", correct? You've maintained that it's not a right-of-way? TOM MCCARTHY: I maintained that it is a right-of-way and that it's not a s~reet. MEMBER TORTORA: That's not what the Code says. The Code says, "All slmctares shall be set back 100 feet from the right-of-way". According ro your own map_ it is a right-of-way, an undisputed right-of- way. TOM MCCARTHY: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: So as to the issue of whether this Board is willing to role that it's not a right-of- way and not subject to the provisions of 100-143A. I can guarantee you I am going [o. I can't read it any other way. The law is the law, the Code is the Code, it says what it says and yes it is. That's number one. TOM MCARTHY: Mrs. Tortora, May I ask you a question? MEMBER TORTORA: Sure, go ahead. TOM MCCARTHY: What is your opinmn on 100-244 for nonconforming lots? Under the definition it says the Section is intended to provide a minimum standards for granting a Building Permit, for the principal building of lots, which are recognized under, recognized under the Town and have not merged. MEMBER TORTORA: Are we talking about something in this Notice of Disapproval? TOM MCCARTHY: It is that particular issue of 100-244 is really where I stare my case and it was listed several times in my response and in my application to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the reason for my being here is both the variance and an intel?retation. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, what about the provision in the Code that says where two parts of the Code are conflicting and more stringem part of the Code applies? TOM MCCARTHY: I don't know. I am looking at the nonconforming lots and I feel thai the nonconforming bulk schedule was intended to address lots that are smaller than the standard bulk schedule And hi this case, the standard bulk schedule would say that this lot may be 40.000 square feet and we have less than that. So that anticipates giving relief from the main setbacks. MEMBER TORTORA: What you're asking for would be an exception to the way the Bzfilding Depanmem has historically applied the Code in this matter. It would be a deviation from past practice. Page 3, August 22. 2002 ]Tra~crip/of Public Hearing Zon~ag Board of Appeals TOM MCCARTHY: [ went to look at particular instances and have the oppommiry to speak with hLm CHAIRMAN: We have no problems with it. MI~MBER TORTORA: That's entirely up re you. What I~d hke to know a couple of things. I'd like m know really, why you need a 4800 square foot building. Because the size of the building is keenly fled to the degree of the variances that you need, so we asked this on several occasions, bat I really dofft have a clear understanding of why they need that size building. TOM MCCARTHY: I can let Mr. Chituk speak to that. but have you know that in addition to what he will offer to you, I know that he keeps ~ equipment and supplies and likes to keep them indoors or work on his equipment during the winter that needs periodic maintenance while he's not actively engaged in instaIluig or sermcing swimming pools. And he stores his goods in there; he stores his vehicles and his equipment. MEMBER TORTORA: That doesn't answer the question At the initial hearing that this question was asked, and it was asked by several Board Members. I believe, and correct me if i'm wrong, Mr. Chituk said that he would be storing two or three pool kits ar a time He ~ndicated that the pool kits were eight foot w/de by 20 foot long or 160 square feet each, or a total of 380 square feet. He indicated that he would have one track on the property at the time. He indicated that he would not be doing ~ny retail sales whether he would be storing some chemicals but very little, that doesn't ge~ me anywhere near 5,000 square feet. You're original site plan indicates nine parking spots on the right-of-way, a loading dock, a ramp; on the side, a crashed concrete parking area near the office and on rite north, a crashed concrete parkthg area near the loading dock and ramp. That does not indicate to me a small operation and that to tlfis day; you have not been able to account for why you need 5.000 square feet So I'm asking you re produce that for the record. I'hat should not be a complicated matter. There are dozens of pool companies on the East End who could put that down in writing. TOM MCCARTHY: Do you have an opinion Mrs Tortora. what size is appropriate for Mr. Chituk's business? MEMBER TORTOP~: I'm asking you. I'm asking you re prove to this Board why you need 5.000 square feet. The burden of proof is not on flils Board. by law it is on you. You are requesting the variance. TOM MCCARTHY: I'm requesting an Interpretation first and I guess based on tha~ Interpretation. then perhaps we need to re-shuffle our cards and take a look at the reasons why we were denied and what our relief may be from that and what Mr. Chitok would like to do. MEMBERTORTORA: Youneed280 access, correct? TOM MCCARTHY: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: That's nor an Interpretation. You need a rear yard variance. That's not an Interpretation. TOM MCCARTHY: I believe the rear yard is set forth in the ~onconforming bulk sclxedule additionally. MEMBER TORTORA: Then we're going to have to re-advertise for an Interpretation according to that. TOM MCCARII-IY: My application is plan and it's stated that, throughout that Mrs. Tortora that I was looking for tm Interpretation and additional relief if it was found, that a variance was required. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I think Tom what happened was at the hearing, you asked for an Interpretation but it wasn't typed in writing. It hasfft been applied for in writhag. I~hat's wliy it liaan't been advertised. TOM MCCARTHY: My original application that was submitted to the Board. Page 4, August 22. 2002 T~m~senpt of Public Hearkug Zoning Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh yes, you checked Interpretation here, but you didn't say the Section. You left the Section blank. TOM MCCARTHY: Okay, so we'll go another month and then maybe we can deal with that issue, ff thafs what the pleasure of the Board is. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure we can deal with that issue. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You're asking for an Interpretation Qf a 100-244B are you Tom? TOM NICCARTHY: 100-244A which, yes and B, the minimum standards yes. CHAIRMAN: Can I just say something Tom? TOM MCCARTHY: Sure. CHAIRMAN: And, of course, we're at the third heaffmg, when you file for an Interpretation you should do k as a separate application. Because when you do that we identify that aspect of it. Notwithstanding the fact thal these race people that are here tonight have issues that are totally different than what we're discussing. TOM MCCARTHY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN: And the problem is that when you embody it into an application, and I know that I've discussed this with you on the telephone, not the issue of the separate Interpretation application, but of the issue of your concern, concerning the discourse that you just gave Mrs. Tortora regarding your opinions of these issues But we should have had you do a separate Interpretation issue. We did that in Gardner's Bay Estates, and we've basically done it that way because what it does is, it stands out and those are issues that we may choose to hold the other application/n abeyance until such time that these particular issues come to bear. TOM MCCARTHY: I can understand that. and appreciate that. It's not a new issue that I'm bringing up. It was on my original application. We checked the boxes and I did ask for an Interpretation whatever you deem to be necessary. But it was cVn:ectly on here. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm just saying it's my mistake as much as it is anybody else's because we should have told you to file separately for that. Okay. That was a mistake that I made. Notwithstanding that mistake, if youYe not wilhng To go £orward with this until we make these Interpretations, and then let's make the Interpretations let's ask you To file that application separately and we'll hold tiffs in abeyance until we deal with those two Interpretations. Because, at th/s point, ali we're doing is spinning our wheels. Okay. TOM MCCARTHY: We'd 1/Ice to be able m move forward, but we're looking for guidance as to what is applicable from th/s Board. Do we put the Board in the shoes of Mr. Chituk to say 5,000 is too big or 2,000 ~s too small. I think we ali recognize that the underlying ~ssues are not just those of the setbacks in this particular application, although weYe all hanging our hat on them. CHAIRMAN: Let me just say this to you, okay, and I have to say this to the general public in general. 1991 we had before us an application for a fast food restaurant. Pm nowhere computing this to a residential community where there's an industrial piece of property that ex2sts. For nine hours and thirty-seven minutes I listened to testimony. Over a period of three separate hearings. To this date, I still have people coming up to me and saying, why did you grant that? We granted it because it was allowed in the district. And that is the way weYe stiI] going with it unless some legislative change occurs that stops us from doing so. Please remember for everybody that is in this audience, that we are an appellate Board, we don't do legislative things. This Zoning is still in place as we sit before you, and that's the way it's going to remain Page 5, August 22, 2002 Transcript o£Pablic He, ming Zoning Boarr[ of Appeals again unless there's a change. What we're trying to do is to get this applicant to say to us. that maybe I ', ~, dofft need 4800 square feet. Maybe I need less TOM MCCAR:21tY: I think I could ask Mr. Ckituk to come up and speak with you and express his ideas. CHAIRMAN: But we're spiunmg our wheels ff you want us to deal with the Interpretation first. And I know you've made that determination and several times both to me on the telephone prior to the actual submission of this application, and post the subm/ssion of this application; probably at erery hearing ttmt we've had. So I really d~l¢ that we thonld just have you make the application for the Interpretation. Let's deal with the Interpretation fa-st and then we'll go on after we make that determination. I think that's really the way to go. I said the exact same tiring to Mr. Bressler. exactly eight months ago on the Walz application, which I will not go into the merits on at lids particular point in Gardener's Bay Estates and he came in and he said I need an Interpretation and I said well you'x~ going to have to make it separately. And I think thal s what we'll have to do al this point and I sincerely apologize for taking everybody's time, including yours, up to this particular point. TOM MCCARTHY: I have a question for you Mr. Chizrman? CHAIRMAN: Right. TOM MCCARTHY: If Mr. Chituk this evening was to say, well 4500 feet is okay or 4,000 feet is okay or 3500 or 3,000 or 2500 or 2000. how would th/s Board proceed? What issues are there left to discuss while everyone is here this evening CHAIRMAN: The placement of the building on the property, the overall landscaping that's going to be done. the lancing that's going to be done. the gating that's going to be done. the paving of the right-of-way, the individual lessening of the inxpact of the speed of the cars or trucks on that right-of-way. Every issue that this community has shown wSll be addressed in that decision. And I will be chastised to the nth degree by the Planning Board because we will be doing some site plans at the same time, because we don't want it to leave here without site plan. I don't mean their definitive site plan, but the major sne plan issues that would concern us under the actual construction of this site. TOM MCCARTHY: Mr. ~Chalrman you've made it clear that this wSll be a model bulhYmg and we're in favor of doing that. If the Board is in favor of the alternate site plan and alternate site plan, we did supply a secondary site plan but you did not feel that perhaps were granted for necessitated different variances, then what was applied for. CHAIRMAN: No, but what it did was it put the building back a little bit farther, I happen to like that particular one. TOM MCCARTHY': I think it works better for us. CHAIRMAN: I like the building smaller and that is. But I like it back farther and I like the huge yard in the front because it g~ves you more of an advantage to screen from these n/ce neighbors that are here. And quite honestly I don't give a didly about the variance aspect, as opposed to what the overall aspect of the bhilding ~s going to look like in its finished fashion. TOM MCCARTHY: I'd be happy to take a seat and listen to any of the other folks that are here this evening as far as those substantive issues to give us direction on what may be acceptable to them and guidance from the Board on what may be acceptable to yom CHAIRMAN: What do you want us to do with the Interpretation? TOM MCCARTHY: I'd like to hear form the community and perhaps I can get up agaLn after they have spoken after they have spoken to address any of those issues. Page 6, August 22~ 2002 Transm~p~ ofPublic Heming Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'l/ start with the Commuinty Attorney. Yes ma'am. I don'; think I've had the .... pleasure of meetthg you ma'am. I understand youYe an attorney? i~EGINA SELTZER_ ESQ.: I am Regina Self:er. I'm delighted ro meet you. Even though k is almost I0:30. CHAIPAM_AN- This is early for us Ms. Seltzer. Very early. This is just the early twildght for us. REGINA SELTZER. ESQ.: I'm afraid that it's more than merely twilight for me. [ think you can hear me, Can't yOU. CIIAIRMAN: We cannow REGINA SELTZER, ESQ.: All right. Let me say I'm not going to discuss any of the issues because it's clear to me that you are all extremely familiar with the issues and I'm going to let the people in the community discuss it I'm an attorney. I'm represent~g Miss Cross, and I'm going to limit my comments to the legal issues that I perceive to be the case here. First of all I. congratulate you. I'm really impressed with the extent of work that you all have done on this application. It's really very impresmve. And I tl~r& the community is probably very, very pleased to know that you all taken the time to do that. Let me then just go quickly because it is so late into the points that I thir~ are/mponam. Uader Town Law. Section 267. you have the authority to issue variances. What those variances do is they permit somebody like the applicant ro do something that is not legal as far as the Code of this town is concerned. But you're authority ro grant that kind of exception to the Code isn't tmtimited. And one of the iLmitations is those variances g~mg to have any kind of adverse impact on the adjoining property and the adjourning community. I have ro tell you that from the small amount that I have been able to gather from the information that I beer_ able to research and from the commuff~ty comments and from Miss Crnss's commems, it seems ro me /~-"" clear thai while tl~s is now zoned L Industrial and you can indeed put au industrial building on here. it would be totally illegal m unconscionable to put in the kind of industrial strncmre, that is being proposed. Now, first of all the fact that there are going to be chemicals stored there is an immediate signal that you have to be concerned because ff there is a f~re, if there is any kind of emergency that occurs, the fact that there are toxic materials stored there is an immediate danger to Miss Cross and to ail of the people who live right near the lot. Now the other thing that l feel is really, really important for you to realize and perhaps you do realize it and if so. I'm sorry I'm being redundant is that Section 100-235A of the Town of Southold Zoning Code states that no building shall be erected .on a tot that does not have dkect access to a public street in accordance with Town Law 280A. [ know you all know this, ht~t I jnst wanr to emphasize that Town Law 280 sunes that no permit for the erecuon of a buildhtg shah be issued unles~ a street with an access m such structure has been placed on the official map and been suitably improved. This, as the applicant indicated, and as you all agreed, there is no street here. This is a laud locked piece of property. This is a right-of-way that was granted and that right-of-way on the assumption that this was going to be residential property and that these people who are using the right-of-way were getting In and out ro their homes. There was never any thought or any retention of having tracks or any other kind of massive equipment I've measured that road. that road is a dirt road 15 feet. You couldn't get an ambulance m there. You couldn't get an emergency vehicle in there and part of Section 100-235 says that you're mandated to have a road upon which emergency vehicles can have access. It's impossible, them is no way whether they reduce the size of the building or not, there is no way that they can get emergency vehicles on that 15 foot road. The other parts that I believe are part of the application as far as the variances that they want, is what you are talking about, which is the setbacks and I'm not going to go into that since you've obviously discussed it at great length and the par[ which is 100-142 which is the bulk area In parking. Under your laws you have to have 40,000 square feet for an industrial site And why did the Town say that? The Town says that and made that decision about 40.000 square feet because they are aware of the fact that when you have an industrial zoned area you are trying to make sure that it is not going to impa6t in any adverse way whatever the uses upon any of the adjoining property owners. This property is approximately 28,000 square feet. Why would you want m give this perso~ this applicant, and a variance ~'~'"' at all? It seems to me that the L1 Zoning in this particular spot, was poorly thought out. But it's there now. ~, ~ and I agree with you that you do not have the right or the aulhor~ty m change it. But you also have no authority to give variances that are going to make no sense, that are going to go contrary to the intent of Page 7, August 22_ 2002 Transcript of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals your whole Zoning Code~ that are going ro adversely affect the safety and health and the welfare of MAss Cross and all of the people adjacem to it. And unless there are some extenuating c~rcumsrances, and I don't know of any extenuating circumstances, and th/s if anything, is a self-created hardshiF because the person ~'ho purchased th/s property knew exactly what they were purchasing. It seems to me there ~s no justification none. to g/ye this variance at this particular time, whether they reduce the size of the bu/ld~ng or not for this use and I hope that you wil~ all take all the things I said into consideration I'm going tolet the other people here who have come and who have spent all this time waiting, give you the opportunity of hearing their views. It is my legal opinion that there is absolutely ao justification for giving a varmnce to this property at this time. l'har~k you. If you have any :tuestions I'll be glad to CHAIRMAN: No we're going to reserve comment on those questions. Yes. Reverend how are you tonight sir? REVEREND FULFORD: I'm doing good. How are you? CHAIRMAN: I just had ro explain to you the reason why this hearing ended up to be the last hearing. I apologize for that and I hope it doesn't affect your day tomorrow. I know it will effect my day tomorrow. REVEREND FU~LFORD: It's going to afi'ect mine but I'm going ro stick it our. But I'm going to say something tonight and then I'm just going to leave. I apologize for leaving you all here, but I just got to get back on the South side. My wife and I supposed to be taking our son to college, so she'll probably end up taking him with a fi'iend, but I thought I end up rest up because I've been rumaing all day. But I just wanted ro say tonight thai I'm Reverend Cornelius Fulford, and I'm pastor for the First Baptist Church in Cutchogue and my whole concern is as a member of the church and also don't forget I Iive around that area. To go over what the lawyer was just saying, it was in the paper that a big deed was faund me and the trustees Richard Turpen, if yon read it. Now I got a call fi.om our church lawyer and a long t/me ago the /~'~ chureh owned all the property. But they cut it up in pieces and they sold it And at the time they did, they did big deeds back then and a lot of times when you look at the papers of the Town of S outhold, the church ~ name ~vas still on some of those deeds. So we go a call to appoint that Mr. bought the place, somehow that our name was on this. where it said we must be getting the land cleared so once you get your document paper and says you can sign it so you can clear the land. Anybody that buys land fi.om the church standpoint fi'om the road standpoint, then I don't want the church to be the one that keeps from anybody buying land that they can develop. So what we did -,vas we went and signed the document to the point that our name was on with the street. At the same time they concluded semehow or another that the easement to the property. My concern is that tlmt easemanr like the lawyer says was a dirt road and was used for them to get back and forth. It wasn't used for heavy traffic, because church would come out there. It was the side of the road to the church. So my concern always been is that this coming in the community and right on top of the development that's there because there's no other place to go then to me that is not safety for the people in the commtmity and so I myself, I always u2~ to be firm when it comes to people so I can look ar the real thing, the benefit of the people that is in that area. l'hat should be all that I am concerned about whatever is going in that area. That at this particular time we did not know also that it wouldn't be for somebody to start a business there Because it was for access, easement for the residents. Because we came here and we also asked if you have an easement that the church owned is there any way we could stop anybody fi.om getting in and out. The thing was that you can't land lock somebody from getting in their houses or whatever and so that's a way that the road was since it forces them to come there. Not for business and trucks to come there or whatever. So at the same time we own the road. So because we own the road, if somebody gets hurt and it don't have ro be a member of our church inaudible - speaking too rapidly) you never know what's going to happen. So if somebody get hurt from the company, fi-om the pool company that that they're going to be in there working and going back and forth if somebody get hurt and even though he might have insurance and ~ve might have insurance, but they're still going to sue us. And that is somethLng ~hat the church along with the members that does not want that m even go through. We don't want them bargaining suits and we know this because we own the road. So/fl had the oppommity myself I would let nobody use that road no more than those people that are in there because it's ~ just a dirt road its just an easemem. It's not even a high~vay to go to the highway; it's just an easement to go ,~, back and forth to their home. That's why we're here tonight and that's the reason why warn you to think this out thoroughly. We want you to use the best judgment when it comes to that, but at the same time always Page 8, Au~st 22. 2002 Trarmcnpt ofPubhc H¢oMng Zoning Board of Appeals think about the benefit of the people in that area l'lmt's why a lot of people are down there, they have the information they feel that it's best not to. He met with us and we sat down with a meeting because he was even thinking about fixing the road up. Fixing the road up is one thing, but at the same time you still liable. or we're still liable because it's sffll not a public road that goes back and forth. If he puts kis busir~ess there and then the house, he's going to have traffic and havin~ umcks back and forth in there and at the same time people live there and raise the/r faro/lies there and their children there. And ar the same time the church ~s there. So anything could p >ssibly happen~ So that's the reason why we are here tonight to voice our opmion CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes ma'am. Excuse me for pointing at you but that's the only way I can indicate that you're next. VIOLA CROSS: I'm Viola Cross and Pm right behind the church, across from the proper~z that is in discussion. Now I've lived there almost 20 years and it's a very quiet neighborhood, we don't have a lot of traffic and we have these clYfldren. Now I am a disabled person and aisc Mrs. Brown who is not here today she is disabled and she lives ~ight in front of the pmper~y. Now with the cheimcals and what have you being in them, it's not safe and we know it's not safe. And with the traffic that passes it's going to be something different because I'm used to being, Pm retired and I'm back there because itZs quiet and nobody disturbs us. I am totally against the building because I understand it will be a steel building and to wake up in the momthg and look at a big piece of steel is not going to be very relaxing. I feel that the people that have been there for years this being the only property in the 20's that people of color could buy, so we have been there, we have token everytlfmg that has come along from that landfill and now that it's bemg recapped and they're fixing kup everybody wants in. I am totally against it and it will disrupt our mode of living. CHAIRMAN: Thank yorr Yes? GWEN SCHROEDER: I~i. Gwen Schroeder. North Fork Environmental Council. One of the issues that I know that you folks are not directly dealing with is supply- of water to the properv/. I just, I want to read tiffs into the record or at least summarize this letter from Steve Jones from the Suffolk County Water Authority to Josh Horton and they say the Water Authority is saying equivocally that they will nor provide water m any new uses and they feel this commercial use is definitely a new use. tn order to provide water to those commercial estabhshments that may crop ul: in that community, the Town would really have to look at the water maps again. And they would have to go thi'ongh the SEQRA process again and hold public hearings agam. I know that the applicant has every right ro pursue bis application because the zonmg allows him to. But I think the future of that whole area is in question Nobody knows ultimately what the zoning will be there in the end and the Town. in fact. has hired or is in the process of hiring environmental consultants to do a land re-study for that area to see what the best possible use is. So I want to submit this letter from Steve Jones into the record and the other question I had was is it bothers me that the appheant can't quantify the amount of pool chemicals that are going to be stored at the facility and I have something here from the EPA and if he's going to be storing eqmpmear and petroleum products, one of the problems that, and with my limited knowledge of pool chemicals, is that if it mixes with mappropriate substances that can be very volatile. I think that at the very least, there should be some clear ideas of what's going to be stored there, how much is gmng to be stored there_ and I'm not sure all of this fall under your purvey but, personally I feel that this community has not been treated well by Southold Town We really have to use utmost care with this application. I know that if a pool company was going to be in my neighborhood I would be very concerned I think that Mr. McCarthy is a very brighl businessman and he knew gomg into this vemure, what was at stake. I just ask that you consider these things in your deliberations tonight. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Sure, I'm ready. MIKE DOMINO: l'hank you very much. [ am Mike Domino I'm a Southold resident and a member of the Anti-Bias Task Force. and with all due respect we hstened hem at this late hour to a number of discussions concerning the esthetics and the applicants and the attorneys that have been extremely cooperative. They agreed m information at previous hearings to members of this community. I'd like to remind you did not Page 9, 3a~gust 22. 2002 Transcript of Public Hearing Zoni~xg Board of Appeals oppose the commercial venture they just raised questions concerning safety, size of rite building asked to provide documentation, why they needed such a big building, what were they going to do about a fire and so forth. And none of these have bean provided at tins point I too, I share those concerns, concerns about the chemicals_ concerns about the fire deparmaem. Also I'd hke to raise the issue of lzaffic. And the traffic commission/s studying lkis the landfill because it has been identified by Ty Cochran as a hotspox, and there have been numerous accidents there. Because of the down slope of the road the hmited sight, the speed of the veincles to pat commercial venture there that it will have large tracks uggng to move in ro rum in on a road thut~s only 15 foot wide is not going to make the area any safer. Not only to the members of this commuinty, but to everyone else who lives in the landfill/compost in the future? So I really question that you need to do that. I also want to mention that I'm going to grieve it When someone comes before the Board they have to prove a hardshiF or should be able to prove a hardship when they ask for and that hasn't been demonstrated to my satisfacticm. The applicant stands to benefit fi:om the property no matter how it is sold. [ would also like ro mention a buffer zone. Very often we wy to mi'figate the impact on the community with buffer zones amd these are never maintained or their bond in perpetuity. So we may ,be able to mitigate the situation in the initial stages But it doesn'l guarantee that this community will be safe or will be protected from hazards long term and that's a considering pothr Because many of the issues that arise it deals wi& chronic not acute illnesses; and the last thing it seems to me that there's possibly a better use would be to re-zone this area that is now light industry to residential office. That would seem to be a better possibirtty for everybody including the applicant. Residential office seems to be better for everybody and we've still have LIO and we'd still have Agricultural you'd still have C ommercial and you would have Residential Office. This is a point that the Anti-Bias Task Force has asked the Town Board to consider. I realize that you're not an appellate and that's not your responsibility. But I want to bfing that point out that is open for consideration from this point on. Thaulc you very much. CHAIRMAN: That& you Mr. Domino. Is there anybody else? Mr. Wickham we'll be fight vdtth you. TOM WICKItAM: My name is Tom Wickham, Main Road in Cutchogue and I have personal knowlecige over the years of many of the homes and families who live in that community. The applicant in this hearing appears to have the right to put up a modest commercial building to suppor[ ins business. The multiple variances he is seeking would, if granted, result in a much larger building, winch would negatively impact the quality of life of the residents in that community, l'hose residents have a same quality of life fights as the rest of us. But in this case_ the Town has a special responsibility to insure their welfare because of the Towns ownersinp and decisions regarding the adjacen~ landfill. I urge the Board to express this responsibility by allowing the applicant only the building permitted without variances. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Sir in the back? I would like. and I apologize for this but we would like to wrap this up in about 15 minutes. So yes ma'am? Lady in the blue. MRS I'm I live in East Marion and I'm on the Anti-Bias Task Force and I'll only take two minutes. I em in some sense mazed that we have a contrast of people who were complaining about looking at an artistic esthetic deer at some distance, and we are considering having a community looking at a steel building as though the people in that community don't have an esthetic sense, which, of course. I would have to assume they do. And that although they had been litemlly damped on for a number of years, they have done their best to make their own place as comfortable and as attractive as they can. So ffyou consider lookin~ at the deer a reasonable complaint for their neighbors. I certainly hope yon would consider a reasonable complaint for Viola not to have to look at the steel building including her neighbors. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Who else would like to speak? Mr. McCarthy I guess you're up. REGINA SELTZER: I just wanted to ask would it be possible for you to put my name and address and send me any notification that you will have and any comments or any other things that you might have with respect to this hearing, any future hearing? CHAIRMAN: Ma'am, we're going to set that future hearing fight now tonight, so you dofft have to worry about it Page 10, Angast 22. 2002 Trattscripr or Public Hemiag Zoning Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But we would still like to have your name end address PdEGINA SELTZER: It's Regina Seltzer, 30 South Brewster Lane, Belcrofi, NY ] 1713. ]'hank you very, very much. CHAIRMAN: We're ready Mr. McCarthy. TOM MCCARTHY: Just a few comments based on the other speakers. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you a question is the fight-of-way 28 feet wide or is the right-of-way 15 feet wide? TOM MCCARTHY: The right-of-way is 28 feet wide. CHAIRMAN: It is paved at 15 feet or it is stoned. rOM MCCARTHY: It's traveled. I don't know exactly if its blue stone crashed stone_ d/rt. MRS. : May I clarify that since I've just been there? On the map and on your survey the driveway is marked 28 feet. If you actually go there, you wilI see that there are trees growing all along there. There's grass, that the actual walk able drivable area is 15 feet and it'sjnst packed dirt. And I'm sure if you have a bad srorn~ which we haven't had unforamately for a while, it wouldu't be a mess end a muddy mess at that. I think they must really have a hard time keeping it, but they're doing a good job of trying to keep it nice. CHAIRlViAN: Excuse me sir. we're ready. TOM MCCARTHY: If you go to the right-of-way, om' application is different because we're a commercial application end there's another 280A application that's before your Board The Board and rite Applicant has worked together m find a reasonable degree of improvemem for the right-of-way, for whatever we see is possible. And we're wflhng to do that. because the fight-of-way is 28 feet wide. So if the Board deems that it needs to be 16 feet whether it needs to be blue stone_ whether it needs to be paved, fftrees need to be trimmed, so that it's 16 feet in height 1 believe also is a portion of the Code for emergency vehicles, we're willing to accommodate those requtremears. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER OLIVA: Emergency provision of the Code is 15 x 15. TOM MCCARTHY: 15 x 15; whatever it is we're happy to comply with that. I'm a little surprised, I know the Anti-Bias Task Force has been vew actively involved with the church end I read the letter to the editor today and also in it from the other speakers that there's a proposal, that they would consider going to Residential Office I don't know ff the speakers have looked at what Residential Office will allow, you could certainly have a restaurant I believe in Residential Office. I don't know/l'you'd went to consider that sort of a chenge of zone application for that area because I think it would really compound the issues and compound the problems if you were to change that area to RO without chenging some of the allowable uses within our. Mr. Wickham. I appreciate his comments, and his last comment only ro allow a building, which would be allowed without variances. If this Board were ro determine that the 100-foot setback from the right-of-ways as we discussed with Mrs. Tortora before ~s appropriate and the 70-foot rear yard is appropriate, that would give us a 30-foot negative bufldthg envelope. So I don't know what size building Mr. Wickham would propose to put on this property, because if the Code in the nonconforming section is m apply to this property end our front yard needs to be 100 our rear yard needs to be 70, we have a 140 foot piece of property, so I don't know what size Mr. Wiclcham was thimkhig about when he said whatever is allowable without a varience. Page i1, August 22, 2002 Transcrip; of Public Heanng Zoaing Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: That's kind of strange because I'm confused. Becanse the second plan that you gave us showed an 80 foot building, 30-foot front and 30 foot in the rear, right? Is that right? TOM MCCARTHY: That was to require a variance. So if the commem was without a vanance~ and this Board says thatl need to be setback I00 feet from the right-of-way, and the rear yard is 70 feet from the rear yard. that's 170 feet. I have a I40-foot deep lot that creates a negative bu/tldthg envelope of 30 feet. If we're looking atthe bulk schedule setbacks and. not the nonconforming bulk schedule setbacks. We're happy to work, together with the community for buffer zones if the community, members of the community, I ha,~e not heard from this evening say yes, move the bu/lding, yes pur ir here, yes put it thru'e, Pd like to speak with them and open that conversation which Ibelieve we had several months ago. But at that t/me. it wasn't necessarily the location of the building which was their issue, it was the other things that are perhaps not being dealt with at the Town Board level about whether or not we should be left to do auything at all. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not sure where to go because you requested an Interpretation before any action ts taken and right now we're looking at the variance aspects, but you really don't want to address the varmnce aspects because you want us re do an Interpretation which really reqmres you to file a separate applicafion. CHArRMA2q: That's my whole issue at this point. MEMBER TORTORA: And it would have to be re-advertised. I mean, you've kind of have our hands tied behind our back and_ at the same t/me. we're saying, oh gee, let's go forward. TOM MCCARTHY: I appreciate you saying before I sat down before 1 mentioned that I would sit down just to hear whatever the substitutive issues are of locating that bulkrmg on the site and I'm still happy to discuss that with the Board As far as front yard, rear yard and side yard setbacks go, I'd love to have an open conversation with the Board as to what the Board may feel is appropriate for the location of the building on the property or any members of the community that are here. I'm happy to have that conversation. But I haven't, to be honest with you. received any feedback from the Board except from the Chairman that he favored an alternative plan but we really didn't speak about what that alternative plan would be as far as the front yard, side yard, and rear yard. Because they would hivolve again, different variances than what we've applied fon So I'm happy to receive any feedback with anyone on the Board or in the and/ence has to offer to us if that means reshaping the site plan that would be more amanable~ MEMBER TORTORA: The variance goes to the need for the s/ze of the building, l'hat is Town La~v. You won't address that. You will not say why you need such a big building. You won't explim, you won't give any kind of analysis of it. TOM MCCARTHY: I'd be happy to have Mr. Chituk come up and speak what I did offer to you, and you said that I won't explain anything, is his trucks, his equipment and perhaps he can give you a list of what he'd hke to have in building truck room to work on things. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you just have him subafit it to us? MEMBER TOROTKA: We've been asking you this for three hearings. MEMBER OLIVA: Mr. McCarthy what do you want first? Do you want the Interpretation or do you warn us to address the variances? Which comes first? TOM MCCARTHY: I'd like to have a conversation with the Board and the community as to if we were to move the building, if we were ro move the building which may hi fact change whether we go for an Interpretation or a different variance, where would it be and what would be necessary in order to do that. Because I'm not willing to go back with come up with another scenario without feedback from this Board and from the community as to what may be acceptable to anything. Page 12, August 22, 2002 transcript of Public Hearing Zoning B om-~t of Appeals MEMBER OLIVA: What the community is try/ng to tell you is that according to the Code tiffs is an adverse to their llealth and welfare and safety. An& therefore, the variance should not be granted at all. TOM MCCARTFF'f: I understand that. MEMBER OLIVA: And that is. now how are you going to, yon better sit down and discuss with the community what you feel is agreeable to both of them. But I don't think that's agreeable to them at all. ]'OM MCCARTHY: I think we have to bring it to objective renus that are the Board can decide on an issue the variance is for, which I believe would be setbacks. And I believe it has to be still to objecnve lerlns CFIAIKMAi'q: Can I say something? We're going to ~wap this up on October 3rd, aX a Special Meeting. Yes. We are going m firdsh this: it's going to ,be done. It's incumbent upon you to file a separate application for the Interpretation. if you so chose to of which we w/l/ advertise. I don't know if we'll advertise it for that night, but we'll advertise it. What I need yon to do is to take that alternate plan, modify it, push it back closer to the rear of the prol~e~y, or the side yard of the properly closer to the fence of the landfill, but not to prevemt fire vehicles fromgoing in to the side of/t, between the building and the fence, [ neet[ you m change the configuration of the exterior of the building and I need to see a nice landscalymg plan in reference to what yon intend to do around the per £erity of the property and the normal ingress and egress from the right-of-way and we w/Il then, I'd lilge you to submit that plar~ and subin~t tkis plan to us no later than our next meeting which is arounR the 22 of September so that we have time, to look at it. And send a copy to counsel and weFll see what we can do with that plan. I'hat's the best I can do for you at this time Mr. McCarthy to be honest with you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The only thing we would need to know before you recess this if he is definitely tiling for an Interpretation and when are you going to put it on the calendar. Because you'd have to put it on the calendar to have a decision before October 3rd. CHAIRMAN: No there won't be any decision. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So why are you recessing tiffs to October 3rd if you don't have an application yet? CHAIRMAN: [ em leaving it open. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Without a date Jerry. You need a new Board resolution anyway, so you might as well do them together. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's the issue I'm not getting a determination. Are yon going to file for a separate? TOM MCCARTHY: I need to be able to speak with my client and seem what the ramifications are of that versus movnig the bnilding. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. CHITUK: I'll move the building. I'll make the building smaller and I'll move it We won't have to go through that other thing. CHAIRMAN: Okay. That's it October 3r~; we'll see you then. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION