Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/21/2003 HEAR 2 / TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE DF NEW YORK 3 5 TOWN 0 F S i UT H D L E 6 Z O N I N G B OARE C F A P P EAL S 8 Southold Tewn Hall 10 53095 Main Read Seutheld. New Yerk 11 August 21. 2003 12 9:00 a.m. 13 14 Beard Members Present 15 LYDIA A. TORTORA Chairweman !6 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 17 GEORGE HORNING. Beard Member 18 RUTH OLIVA, Beard Member 19 VINCENT ORLANDO, Board Member 20 LINDA KOWALSKI. Board Secretary 21 22 23 24 2S COURT REPDRTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631 878-8047 2 1 2 2HAIRWOHAN TORTORA: I'd like te s~arn Lhe public hearings, and the first 3 hearina is a carryover hearing on behalf ef E. and R. Trippe. And ~ would like to knew if there's someone here mn the audience who would like me speak en behalf sf the application? 5 MR. HRi~M: Good morning, Steven Hamm, 45 Hampmon Read Southampton. for the 6 applicant. I just have ~ few brief commenms. 7 After the last hearing, I went to the buildinc department and wenn ever the 8 plans that were before you at that hearing and was adviseO that the office and closet should 9 be removed Dn the garage level and the vestibule changmng reem and a supply closet on 10 the first level be 2embined into a single teem, and that would satisfy the design aspect 11 ef hhis prolecu. And the architects revised the 12 plans, which I sen~ mc you, I sent them simultaneously me the buildinc iepartment. As 13 I indicated mn my letter ne you, they raised the goal poses ~g~mn Hr. Verity had some 14 commenns and suggested that the bathroom wall be eliminated so that there ms a half bath as 15 well as a vestibule and changing room all be a single room. 16 If you're inclined te grant this application. I would ~sk no keep that bathroom 17 wall lusE for the sake of privacy, but if it is eliminated and we chance the name of the 18 exercise room that was just ~ name change not a iesign change -- mccording to the 19 building deparEmen£ that surucmure would be acceptable from a design point ef view and 20 would be, if placed mn a rear yard in ~ccordance winh the requmremenu for accessory 21 smruc~ures, would ne~ need any variance, of course we ie need the varmance for the front 22 yard location. My only Dther communE, and I 23 didn'~ gem the chance to address this at the last hearing, Dppesmng counsel had suggested 24 am both hearings. ~ctually in May and in June, that this was m self created hardship. Now 25 you may see ~lternatives which we do net, but this ms certainly nou ~ self-created hardship COURT REPORTING AND TRANS2RIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 3 1 2 as indicated mn my -- by the survey in my May memorandum. This sEructure has been in this 3 location about five feet off the rear property line s~nce przor nc 1957. The Trippes did ~ expand z~; they have a C.O. for that expansion, but they have ne rear yard and 5 historically this property has had no rear yard. sc in is a case efa practical 6 difficulty am least in that respect. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I am in recelpn of your Augusn 8th letter at which nime you said that you had gone back te the 8 buildinc lepar£men~, and the building deparnmen~ is now suggesting that the wall in 9 the bathroom be taken down so that that's part of nhe main room? 10 HR. HAMM: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's all eno 11 room? MR HAMH: The wall between the 12 bathroom ~nd the 2hanging room, net the wall -- 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. The plans that you have submitted don't reflect 14 that though. MR. HAMM: No. After my meeting 15 with the building department, after the June hearing, he suggested that the only changes 16 that needed to be made to allow that to be sustainable from a design point of view would 17 be the elimination ef an office and closet, which would be in a prior plan, and the 18 combination efa vestibule and changing room, which had been separate rooms in that earlier 19 plan, and the elimination of a closet which was adjacent te the vestibule. 20 I, therefore, had the architect change the plans, and I sent them te you and 21 copied them te Damon Rollis ef the building department, ask that he confirm with you that 22 that was, in fact, the case. He called me subsequently, I had been away in early August, 23 and on my return, I spoke to him and he said on further review with Michael Verity that 24 they wanted a further change, the elimination ef that bathroom wall, that that would allow 25 the structure te net need a variance. Se, I did not make a further I COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 1 2 lid nee ask ehe architect to change the plan ag~,n; however, if that's something that's 3 necessary, I w,ll. CHAIRWCHAN TORTORA: Here's the issue: We wan~ to keep the hearings moving. We have nothing other than your comments as to 5 what ute building department is required and is ne~ required. We have nothing 6 substantiating the fact that Hr. Verity said this, or Mr. Rellis said that in the record. We need that au this point. HR. HAMH: Ail right. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We can't ge off ef hearsay. HR. HAHH: And I asked them te so suaEe that. and they said it was net their 10 pracE~ce, but I will get them to submit whatever you need. I'll ge ever there this 11 morning. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Since this 12 process is involved in a revised plan, which we ~11 agree ~s necessary te keep this as an 13 accessory surucuure, which you are applying for. then I don't think it would be 14 inappropriate for you te submit an amended plan ue them ~nd ask for an amended notice ef 15 disapproval. If, indeed, the building deparumenu is no longer going to deem this as 16 a second dwelling as in the original notice ef disapproval. Because the initial notice of 17 disapproval said by design this structure was a second dwelling. 18 KR. HAMM: Right. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If you're 19 tellinc me that the building department will new leem this as an accessory structure if you 20 make the following changes. MR. HAMM: That's right. 21 2HAIRWOMAN TORTO~: So you need ~n amended notice ef disapproval and this 22 Beard needs aN amended notice ef disapproval reflecting the changes. 23 MR. HAMM: Would this Board consider this design as proposed in the last 24 plan with a variance to allow a bathroom wall where it is, then, if that's not the case, 25 then I will -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Our COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 5 1 2 lurisdiction is appellate only in this mauEer. Our jurisdiction is limited to 3 reviewing the determinations of the building deparEment. The building department has 4 determined that by design this is a second dwelling. If you had redesigned the structure 5 in light ef the building department, then by law, an amended notice of disapproval is 6 required. Se that we have en our record substantiation then it's ne longer before us, as you have said. HR. HAMH: Well, that's right and 8 I will certainly de that, if you need that, or if you could rule en the location, but I guess 9 if it's tied together, then I'll do as you say. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: I'm trying te keep it as simple as possible, se we can step 11 going around and around and around with these hearings. Let's see what the Beard members 12 have. Mr. Herning. 13 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I think the site plan needs te be altered te be mere 14 accommodating te what the cedes are. I'm not Eec concerned about walls inside the building, 15 but I am concerned with the usage ef the building, and if, in fact, indeed it is a 16 ~econd dwelling. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 17 leehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As I 18 started out, Mr. Hamm, just quickly, the site is an interesting one because it really is a 19 hill, and it really truncates the existing driveway, and for the life ef me, I can't 20 understand why the Trippes want to put it in this location. Of course, a picture is 21 basically an interesting thing, but the site inspection really brought a whole world ef 22 issues out, and there's a lot ef overhead easement wires involved, and so on, and so 23 forth, and we understand that; but, for the life of me, if I was constructing it, and I'm 24 not putting myself in your client's position er in your position, I would push it back 25 farther up the hill as we had originally discussed at eno point, and that is it would COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 1 2 make things se much easier. And again, I realize that same of those issues are utility 3 issues. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I will make % one ether comment tee. If it sees fit te somehow design it te be attached to the 5 existing building, then they would alleviate probably 50 percent of the current problem. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's something that Mr. Hamm, yen touched upon. 7 HR. HAi~M: I had the architect, I wanted him back here, but he couldn't came, te 8 address that issue. I thought it had been addressed and then yen were going to confirm 9 the topography, but it sounds as though in your view what he says doesn't make sense as 10 far as the design; that there is ream te attach it. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What you have, Hr. Hamm, is a very, very beautiful 12 house sitting on a parapet, and with this huge, huge beautifully foliated lawn and 13 garden area, and they want te build it right into that garden area and actually reroute the 14 driveway, and just for the life of me I don't understand. 15 MR. HAMM: I think that garden area is what they were trying te preserve by 16 having it farther away from the house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They're 17 going to wreck it anyway with the construction, but the point is there appears 18 te be roam en the gazebo portion of the house, which is probably the northeasterly portion ef 19 the house; isn't that true? MR. HAMH: That would be 20 northeast, right. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: To 21 somehow attach that and then discuss where the placement ef the peel should be. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Orlando. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As the 23 ether board members said, we all did visit the site, and we got a hands on leek at the 24 terrain of the area, which is unique, difficult on a hill, being en the side ef the 25 hill te that put that addition in that location, but I agree with the other beard COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 7 1 2 members that maybe we should look into having it attached to the house. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs. Olive? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Per brevity I 4 agree with the ether members of the board. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Hamm? 5 MR. HAMM: Well, is there any point in going back for disapproval? It 6 sounds as though I could come back here with disapproval eliminating all the design 7 questions asking for this location, and you would tell me. we don't like this location; we 8 think you have an alternative, and, therefore, denied. That's the sense I get from these 9 cemmen£s. And I think I don't -- short ef bringing the architect back te argue with you, 10 I think maybe I should discuss this with the Trlppes. ~nd I'll leave this open and de as 11 you say for the time being. BOARD MEMBER GOE~RINGER: By the 12 way, I jusE want te point out they were not there; only the baby-sitter was there. We 13 actually didn'T ge up into the house. We smayed within the area of these proposed 14 ~mprovements. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Hamm, 15 what would you like te do at this point? HR. HAMH: Can you put me down for 16 the 25th ef September? 2HAIRWOMA~ TORTORA: Ne, we 17 2annDm. MR. HAHM: I imagine it would be 18 resolved mn some way before the next hearing ~nyway, but I would like the opportunity 19 2HAIRWOMAN TORTORA: October 23rd. HR. HAMH: 23rd, okay. 20 MS. KOLOWSKI: 9:30, would that be okay with you, Mr. Hamm? 21 MR. HAMM: Okay. MS. ROSEBLUM: Could I just -- 22 Helen Reseblum, 1287 East Main Street mn Riverhead, for the neighbors, the 23 Olinskis and I have no further comments than any ef yours ether than they matched my 24 client's feelings as well. It's just that all of these letters and revised plans, and se 25 forth, would have been complete news te me had I not been Ee see Linde yesterday on another COURT REPORTING AND TPd%NSCRIPTIDN SERVICE {631) 878-8047 8 1 2 maener. I would request that I be copied with all of these things as they emanate from Mr. 3 Hamm's office. MS. KOWALSKI: Mr. Hamm, we would 4 need me ask you if you would furnish these to Mrs. Reeeblum. 5 MR. HAMH: Absolutely. I apologize for lack of doing so last time. 6 MS. ROSEBLUM: What time is it en the 23rd? CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: I'm going to make ~ mo£1en Ec adjourn the hearing en 8 October 23rd an 9:30 a.m.; is that convenient for you? 9 MR. HAHM: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~: Is that 10 convenient for you? MS. ROSEBLUM: Yes. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Anyone like Ee second that motion? 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor? 13 Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor.) 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion 2arried. 15 The next hearing is on behalf ef Debra Victereff. Is there someone here who 16 would like ~c speak en behalf of the ~pplicatien? 17 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Jim Pltzcerald for Miss Victoroff. 18 I think we knew that many ef the factors involved in this request for variance 19 aE the last meeEing. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Bring the 2{ microphone up so we can hear you. You're such a small man that we're not able te hear you. 21 MR. FITZGERALD: How's that? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Better, thank 22 ~OU. MR. FITZGERALD: The Board had a 23 number ef suggestions and concerns, and we revised the plan in an attempt te accommodate 24 these concerns, and you have a copy ef the new proposed plan. The new plan -- Oh, and also 25 lus~ ~o address the question of the location ef the swlmmmng pool, as I advised the Board, COURT REPORTING ANE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 9 1 2 I went back te the building department and Hr. Rellis indicated that since the peel and 3 the surrounding deck was attached te the house, it was not considered an accessory % structure but rather as an attached part of the house; and, therefore, its location was 5 not a problem and not a problem to the building department, therefore, was net part 6 of the disapproval. CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: I'd like te 7 just ge ever the revised plan and the revised plan shews the 27 and a half foot front yard 8 setback te Dogwood Lane, and it shows a 25 rear yard setback, at its closest point for 9 the deck addition. The only thing that is of a little 10 bit ef concern is that if you leek at the new map that you submitted, the eight by 20 deck, 11 because ef the property angle at a slight slant, I would guesstimate that that deck will 12 be on the -- I guess it would be the east corner, eas~ sidel 13 HR. FITZGERALD: The eight by 20 deck. that's wesE. 14 2HAIRWOHAN TORTORA: The 25 is west? 15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah. It's at the wesE end. I think. 16 2HAIRWOMAN FORTORA: Fha east end Df the deck if you look am the preper£y angle 17 Df the rear yard, I think that you'll probably lind that ~E will be slightly less than 25 18 [eet. HR. FITZGERALD: I'm sure it will. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So that that number may no£ be accurane. 20 MR. FITZGERALD: Scale's to 23 feeE aE hhe wesmern end 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Sc the closest point is nom 2~ ~t's 23. 22 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's see if 23 there's anyone in hhe ~udience that would like ~c speak in favor. 24 MR. PITZSENALD: Excuse me, have a few brief commenes, very brief. I 25 think I should make the point that all the while the Ewe adjoining lets are essentially !OURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 631) 878 8047 10 2 the same lepth. The one en hhe wes~ is a little looper, the eno en ehe rloht ~s a 3 little less dee~. The house that we're proposing, lus£ the house, is only 24 feet 4 deep. So that. regardless ef whether it was a deck ar nee, we would ne~ be able £c meet beth 5 the front and the backyard setback requirements as presumably neither of the 6 adjoining houses do~ although, I haven't measured them. The pemnt being that they're all shallow lots and pueeing a relatively shallow house en ~t ought ~c be acceptable. 8 So I think the poin~ really is as we have juse discussed ms the fact that it 9 sticks eu~ another em~ht feet ~nec that rear yard setback. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Dkay. MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. 12 Is there ~nyene in hhe ~udience that would like ee speak zn favor or agamnse 13 this application? MS. ROSEBLUH: Yes. Helen 14 Roseblum. 1287 East Mamn Street. Riverhead. I have jusm meu this morning with a group ef 15 ad]acenm landowners. Hr. and Hrs. Karensik, who ~re here. Jenny Curley, who is their 16 laughter, and Thomas Rusakis~ who ms alsc here. You granted them an adjeurnmene of a 17 couple of months, and they had spent that £mme with another ammerney, who recently told them 18 he couldn't take their case, that he feels there's ~ conflict. Sc they came ~o me 18 yesterday, and I haven't exactly had a lot ef tmme mo go over the file. and I mum with them 2{ hhis morning. But there are a 2ouple ef things 21 that I did wane ae say. The first thing ms that the neumce of disapproval identifies the 22 lot as being approximately 13.000-plus square feet. The applicant herself indicates that 23 it's 89-plus square feet, 8948; se that is a material problem in the notice ef the 24 disapproval, and the reason it becomes a problem is fur a couple ef reasons. One is 25 that it changes some of the setbacks because you've made certain revisions in that zeno, COURT REPORTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 11 1 2 and 1~ also. I believe requires them to get an additional variance for let coverage. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: One moment. As far as the setbacks fez a 13,000 square % feet let ~r for an 8.}00 square feet lot, the setbacks are identical. 5 HS. ROSEBLUH: My understanding is if there's less than 1{.000 square feet, the 6 setbacks have changed slightly. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There have 7 been proposals ~e make those !hanges. Those changes have no~ been acted upon by the town 8 board; so the currene code exists. MS. ROSEBLUM: Oh, okay. 9 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Your point is well-taken re~ardinc lot 2overage because let l0 coverage on a 13 000 square foot lot versus the surveyor's 8 9%8 ~quare feet is accurate. 11 MS. ROSEBLUM: Well, the iHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's 12 accurate. 1~ would need reassessmen~. MS. ROSe,SUM: There would need te 13 be a variance for that? 2HAIRWOMAN TORTOP~L: I don't knew 14 because I den'~ have a breakdown for let 2overage. The lot coverage from the notice ef 15 iisappreval ssases that the conssrucsien censuses ef 11 percene_ However, if the lot 16 is as the survey clearly indicates, square feet, then we would have te have a 17 breakdown, or we would have te have a review by the building department to determine 18 whether er net the proposed plan exceeds let coverage. 19 I'm just going te propose te Mr. Fitzgerald -- I did net see that before, 20 hut that is a very valid point. De you have any ether thoughts en 21 this? MS. ROSEBLUM: Naturally, again, 22 I'm very new te this, we have some ether concerns, naturally. We just received a 23 single and separate search that needs to be studied. It appears some of the D chains 2% don't match. I want te leek at that more closely. 25 Another big issue is whether er net there are wetlands. We had had an COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 12 1 2 informal visual inspection done by Hr. Bowman of land use, and he indicated that there were 3 some fresh water wetlands, se we would like the trustees, who said they would like te come 4 out to take a look and notify the DEC if there should be a remapping. I think we also have 5 pictures, apparently there's always been standing water en the let, but that gees into 6 S~QNA and other types ef environmental stuff. So I think initially, what I would 7 like te de is ask for some time te familiarize myself with the file, ask that this matter be 8 adjourned so that you get what you need and also so that the trustees de what they feel 9 they want to do. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOR~: We will grant 10 an adjournment, but as far as any further adjournments after this, it will not 11 happen. We granted an adjournment because the neighbors wished te obtain an attorney, and 12 now you tell me they obtained an attorney and because efa conflict the attorney could net 13 handle the case, and therefore you came en beard. In all fairness te Hr. Fitzgerald and 14 his client, we would like to conclude this at the next hearing. 15 MS. ROSEBL~IM: And I explained that te my I said that te my clients. And 16 they said, you knew, we've used the two months, besides talking te the ether attorney, 17 we've used the two months, it's been productive. We have come up with what we feel 18 are some real issues. But I did explain to them that time has to ge en and things have to 19 progress. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. 20 Mr. Fitzgerald, we are going to need te have a breakdown of the lot coverage that's proposed 21 based on the actual survey. The eight thousand net 13,000 square feet, that is 22 something you'll have to get corrected with the building department so that they can 23 review it te see if, indeed, you exceed lot coverage er if you don't. It may be the plans 24 de not exceed the let coverage, but we can't guess, and the building department needs to 25 make that correction for the record. The only ether thing I have is COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 13 2 ~hat on the survey you don't show - en the plan, you dc net shew any steps to the deck. 3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Are we ~ falling off the deck? HR. FITZGERALD: One would hope 5 not. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I just want 6 mc knew. HR FITZGERALD: The steps will be 7 shown. ~nd they will not intrude any further into the setback 8 BOARD HEMMER OLIVA: Will we need any further nemice of disapproval? 9 HR. FITZGERALD: With regard to the wetlands, we have a letter of 10 nen-ur, sdictien from the DEC indicating there are ne wetlands en the property that they 11 found in an onsite inspection. CHAIRWOMAN TONTONA: Okay. 12 MS. ROSEBLU~: I have to disagree with that. I have a letter; I'm leaking at 13 it. The letter of non-jurisdiction, it merely seaEes that it's mere than a hundred feet from 14 reculated freshwater wetlands, therefore there's no jurisdiction. That's net an 15 indication, number one, that they do not need To come in and remap and take another leek. 16 We're nee dispuElng the letter of non-jurisdiction, and what it says. What 17 we're ~ayzng is that their maps are very eld. We have ~n independent person saying that 18 there ~re fragmites and there are also a number ef freshwater trees and ether plants. 19 We wane the DEC to come back and take another look. I couldn't disagree with how he's 20 characterizing it. They do say that it's mere than one hundred feet from freshwater 21 wetlands, but their maps are very, very old. MR. FITZGERALD: This was not dena 22 from a map. It was done from an ensite inspection. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Please address the Board. 24 MR. FITZGERALD: Would you tell the attorney that the DEC letter of 25 nonjurisdictien was a result ef an ensite inspection and not the result ef in-office COURT REPORTING AND TPJ%NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 14 1 2 review }f the existing old maps. MS. ROSE~LUM: It may be, it's 3 based on the information you submitted. Se I don'~ knew ~hat. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We're going ec gee ~is information cleared up, and this 5 is going to Be adjourned until October 23rd. You will ge back te the building department 6 and have them revise and indicate the correct let coverage the let size; see if there is an issue with lot coverage se that we can go forward with that. I don't k~ow if there is 8 ewe er ne~, but certainly it would have an ~mpac~. 9 MR. FITZGEP~ALD: De we have the time? 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: October 23rd a~ 9:%0. 1i MR. FITZGERALD: Our lucky time. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that geed 12 for you? MS. ROSEBLUM: Thank you for your 13 2eurnesy, it's very much appreciated. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going to 14 make a mo~on to adjourn the hearing te Dctober 23rd. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. IHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. 16 Whereupon, the Beard Members responded in favor.) 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motie~'s 2arried 18 The Next hearing ~s on behalf ef Charles Becklet. Is there someone here who 19 would like ~c speak en behalf of that ~i~1%~ ~ 5 ~pplication? 20 MRS. WOOD: Is that in the name ef Charles Bocklet? It's an acre and a half 21 ~ owned by his wife CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just a 22 memenn. The application MRS. WOOD: Is he the tax payer ef 23 record? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, he is. 24 New we have se let Mr. Strang ge first then you can speak. Just sit down, Mrs. Weed. 25 MRS. WOOD: I have te tell yen another thing, I have taken medication fur COURT REPORTING AND TP~INSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 iS 1 2 sinus and my ears. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Why don't you 3 sit here in the front row, that way you can hear. Please state your name fur the record? 4 HR. ST~ikNG: Good morning, I'm Garrett Strung, architect, 1230 Travelers 5 Street, Seutheld, representing the Becklets in this application. 6 Essentially, what we have here is there's an existing improved let with a one 7 and a half story frame dwelling that was built in my estimation probably in the '40s. Town 8 records indicate that it was in existence prior to 1961, but there's no indication as to 9 exactly when the house was built. The existing house has a setback to the easterly 10 property line of 39 feet. There originally existed a screen porch addition to the house, 11 which has a setback to that same easterly property line of 35 feet. 12 At a point several years ago, the owner of the property engaged a contractor to 13 take that screen porch and enclose it. The contractor secured a permit from the Trustees, 14 cause he was aware that he needed to do that, but he never applied for a building permit 15 because he felt the fact that the screen porch already existed and all he was going to de was 16 enclose it, that he didn't need a building permit. So this obviously is inaccurate. 17 So one prong of this particular application is for this Board to address the 18 issue of enclosing that porch with the pre-existing nonconforming setback se we ca~ 19 proceed with getting the building permit and CO fur the work as it exists, which was 20 completed several years ago. The other prong ef the application 21 has te de with my client's desire te have a screen perch addition in front ef the enclosed 22 perch, and by ~'in front of'' I mean toward the water side, which due te the nature ef the 23 fact that the house is askew en the property and the property line runs at an angle te the 24 ho~se, would further reduce that yard to 32 feet if the variance were to be granted fur 25 this proposed new screen porch. It's, again, te remain and can be COURT REPORTING i~ND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 16 1 2 conditioned as such to remain unenclosed te perpetuity if that's the Board's desire. So 3 we're leaking for an additional reduction, if you will, of three more feet te the side yard. % As I previously mentioned, it's sort of a unique situation in that the house 5 sits askew te the property, and that the house was existing prier to the adoption ef zoning, 6 kind of a unique situation at that point when the house was built, it would have been 7 assumed that the east side would have been a side yard and net a rear yard, but once zoning 8 came into place and definitions ef front yards, side yards and rear yards were made and 9 because the relationship to the property to Robinson Lane that east yard is defined as 10 being a rear yard, and obviously necessitates a larger setback that it would if it were a 11 side yard. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So you want 12 te extend the enclosed porch er part ef the deck that's already there. I saw the porch; 13 you want te further extend that reef? HR. STP~NG: The enclosed porch, 1% yes. They'd like te push that out another ten feet and have it as a roofed ever screened 15 portion of the addition. It would line up with the open perch that's there in the center 16 ef the house new. Se again, it would be symmetrical. They want to do it en beth 17 sides, but the ether side doesn't require a variance. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: A couple of things here. 19 MR. STRANG: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The enclosed 20 porch that you're asking for a variance for now, it's non-conforming. 21 MR. STNANG: That's correct. CHAIRWOPLm~ TORTORA: Do you have 22 a CO for the existing 39 foot setback? MR. STRANG: Te the best ef my 23 knowledge there's a CO en the house as it existed prior te the enclosure ef the porch. 2% CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: There's been quite a few additions onto this house, though; 25 if you go back and leek at the assessor's card, there's not even a faint resemblance COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 17 1 2 between the assessor's card and what is here as it exists now. 3 MR. STRANG: I reviewed the assessor's card with the building department 4 and they didn't have any challenge with that. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This was not 5 here. HR. STRANG: The perch was always 6 here. The porch that's now enclosed was originally a screen porch and has been there 7 for years. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As the 8 ether side leeks new? HR. STRANG: Yes, exactly. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We're not starting off with a setback ef 35 feet because 10 that was simply built without a CO; we're starting off with a setback from what you're 11 telling me that existed of 39 feet? MR. STRANG: Well, the 39 feet is 12 £0 the house. 2HAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: Correct. 13 KR. STRANG: The perch was on the house originally, and that's the 35 feet, but 14 in was an }pen porch, a screen porch or an Dpen porch, nee enclosed as it presently is 15 today? 2HAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you have a 16 CO en that as iE was? MR. STRANG: Ne, because -- oh, as 17 1E was before. I believe -- well, I have to research that because I was of the 18 understandinc- from the building department that the CC tncluded that original porch en 19 beth sides ef the house, as well as the eno in the cen~ez that sticks out even further. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Can you get us a copy sf the CO on that se that we knew 21 what we're dealing with? MR. STRANG: Absolutely. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: My only commenE is it's a very large piece of 22 properEy. Your original application was for three lets combined. Since that time, you 24 have revised the application to say that it is only this let. That it has nothing to do with 25 the ~wo lets to the north. HR. STRANG: That was an error in 20URT REPORTING A NE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 18 1 2 my application and having listed the three tax map numbers on the application. I should have 3 just listed the lot in question, which is Let Ne. 2. % CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: That's Number 1 and Number 2, it is a large let, and I'm not 5 at all convinced that there is a need te continually reduce the required 50 foot 6 setback and to continually go from 39 te 35 te 32. Yes, symmetrically it leeks very nice, 7 but you do have a lot of options and it certainly -- 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's as built, you know, all of it. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This part of it. This is net built? 10 MR. ORLANDO: That's dena. MR. STRANG: Well, the setback te 11 32 feet is there, and that's the one that existed as a porch and is now an enclosed 12 perch, if you will. That's already existing. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: But you want 13 te extend it. MR. STRANG: We want to extend as 14 part of our request far relief since we haven't dane that yet, se that's up to the 15 Beard's discretion. May I approach? (Whereupon, Mr. Strang approached 16 the dais.} CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is the 17 as built. There's twa perches? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's 18 get this down here. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOPJ%: This eno is 19 built. This is one you want to extend, right (indicating)? 20 CHAIRWOM~ TORTORA: This is built. 21 MR. STRANG: What's existing, this was the original screen porch, which they 22 then enclosed. That's the one that doesn't have a CO far the enclosed part ef it. I'm ef 23 the belief, and se is the building department, that it had a CO as an open screen porch. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And that's the one we want te knew if it had an open CO. 25 MR. STRANG: Right, and I'll research that. This is a proposed addition, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 19 1 2 it does net exist there now (indicating). BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's a 3 covered perch there new. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: He wants to % extend it. MR. STRANG: We want te extend in 5 front. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Existing 6 covered porch. MR. STRANG: I want te come out en 7 ten feet with either open or screened. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's open 8 now. MR. STRANG: There's no roof on 9 1E. Just a deck. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was 10 there, it's roofed. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: There is a 11 pare that's reefed, he wants te extend the reDf ten feet. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEMRINGER: Is there a deck there new? 13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, I saw 14 MR. STNANG: I have te leek at the survey, I don't knew if there's a deck. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Covered with a reef ever it with cedar posts, right, 16 with cedar posts? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Here's a deck 17 that comes out here and he wants to extend it. 18 MR. STRANG: This is the survey that I'm working from. The survey shews this, 19 which was the screen perch which is new a reem and nothing in front ef it. 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You have te gc look at it, it's there. 21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I agree. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because 22 that's why he wants to make the exact same covered perch on the other side for symmetry. 23 MR. STRANG: Nothing in front of this is proposed to be new -- I'm sorry, this 24 is open, existing, he wants te bring this over this line straight across. 25 BOARD MEHBER HORNING: Is it shewing en the plans? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2O 1 2 MR. STRANG: It's shown en my plan. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This already has a roof. % MR. STRANG: That's the room that's enclosed. 5 HR. ORLANDO: In front of it is a covered porch? 6 MR. STRANG: I'll have te double check that, because -- 7 BOARD HEMBER OLIVA: Because I even asked the person, you mean you want to 8 move that and extend it more ever the deck area? 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They built that when they built the enclosed perch. 10 KR. STR~G: Do you have a copy? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would 11 you mention te them that I'll be ever this weekend, unless there's terrible rain? 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's 2orrece 13 MR. STRANG: I'll look at it myself, r~ght after this meeting. We have an 14 ~lien encounEer here, and they popped in a lock I'm non aware of. 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think we should find that out. 16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Strang, would you provide some photos, please? 17 MR. STRANG: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We've got to 18 ~eE moving here so I'd like to see if there's anyone in the audience. We're going to have 19 ~o hold hhis open, Garrett, to confirm whether or nee ~t's as built er a mirage. 26 Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor er against 21 this application? Hrs. Wood, did you want te say 22 something? MRS. WOOD: My name is Patricia 23 Wood I am the widow ef Edward Wood, property owners from the Town of Southeld. My family 24 gDes back one hundred years. We own 3.70 acres ef land, which has been kept in its 25 vlroln s~a£e practically until up until new. We have had two neighbors. We had one COURT REPORTINB ANE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 21 1 2 by the name ef Frank Robinson. and we had eno by the name of Elsie Adams. Our deed clearly 3 identifies that there are ~e be no roads; that there is £o be a buffer zone~ that there is te 4 be ne building en either side. I am here to s~aee right new that they have been violated 5 ee ~ leoree ef disgrace. Hr Becklet purchased the property 6 fram ~ Hr. Beaucham~ who has new gene ente see his maker. There have been a series ef develepmen~ unlike which I have ever seen in the Town of Southold Far a properey of three $ acres, divided between him and his wife. My question to you ~s this: Who awns what en the 9 bluff? The Frank Robinson house and another preperey that bends into Robinson's Lane, I 10 have lived through ~ ser~es of horrors. There have been permits granted. ~n environmentally 11 sensitive bluff has been weakened that if any }thor thing goes an. there will be a collapse 12 ef the bluff, e seawall that proEec~ed Indian Neck for many, many years after the hurricane 13 has been demolished. Hy seawall is threatened by the abuses set forth by the Becklet 14 ownership. I want my record to reflect that I 15 request every, every permit that was granted by the Trustees, by the Town, that I have 16 never received any information on who granted what. Why have I get a chimney apposite my 17 chimney, within spitting distance with a going fireplace that they cook on at night, three in 18 the morning, twa in the morning, cars running up and down the bluff. If Seetheld is to 18 preserve any, any, any ef its heritage, they better put a stop te this again. Again, I 20 strongly, strongly, resent and request that there be no further permits granted en my 21 property. Hy buffer zeno had been violated. There is a free-standing building en which 22 they received -- they said a permit te build a garage a little distance from their 23 regular Name which emerges as a two-story place. They bought the Robinson property, 2% which was a one-story house, is now a three- story house. I request an inspection of the 25 entire property, whoever it was that issued these permits; and, a denial, a denial of any COURT R~PORTING ~kND TR~kNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 80%7 22 1 2 furthers granting of any building at er near the bluff, which is very, very, serious. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Can I interrupt you and let me ask you a question? 4 MRS. ~OOD: I urgently -- CHAIRWOM~ TORTORA: Let me ask 5 you a question. You said that you had in your deed -- 6 HRS. WOOD: I'm sorry, I cannot hear you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You said that in your deed, in the deed that it said that there is to be ne further building along that prepermy line; do you have a copy ef that that 9 you could give to the Board? MRS. WOOD: Pardon me? 10 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Maybe write her a note. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You said in your deed, you said there would be ne further 12 building. HRS. WOOD: My deed clearly states 13 there is ne easement right te ge across my preperny, which is anything across, and which 14 developed Indian Neck. There are ne papers, LIPA cannot shew it, Long Island Lighting didn't have it; I have ne information fram the town en it, and yet, when I came dawn eno 16 night, wire hit me, which was dawn on my proper£y, which upset me no end. 17 CHAIRWOH}~ TORTOPA: Can - HRS. WOOD: Here I want te say 18 this: I have leaned back to try to be as fair as I can. I didn't say anything about the 19 easement as yet. I requested Mr. Bocklet, if he is doing all these things, te take and request a change ef an Indian Neck resident and becoming a Robinson Lane person, with an 21 acre and a half, dawn te where they get their lighting. I did not want his wires going 22 across. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going to 23 have to step you right now because we have te keep our hearings going. We're going te leave 24 this hearing open. Would you please give the Beard, bring a copy ef your deed into our 25 office? MRS. WOOD: Absolutely. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 23 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much and we will look at all of the 3 questions that you have raised. MRS. WOOD: When did you want it? 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: At your convenience. 5 MRS. WOOD: I request a denial ef this. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. 7 Mr. Strang, we are going te adjourn the hearing and you heard some of 8 these comments. I hope you're prepared te answer these comments. I de note that in the 9 survey there is, I guess, that there's two dwellings en this property? 10 MR. STRANG: After I had made the application, it became evident te me -- it was 11 brought to my attention that there was previous applications before this Beard on 12 this property, which I researched, one of which allowec for a swimming pool and a side 13 Dr front yarc, which exists. Another of which prier to that allowed for the conversion of an 14 exismlng barn te become a caretaker's cottage, wi~h the provision that at least 80,000 square 1~ feet be allocated te the, I'll say, the front let, which is the waterfront lot; and although 16 iE was a condition of the ZBA, it was never done as a let line change or anything, so I 17 believe, if I understood the wording of the decision at that time, it was with the 16 understanding that ne further development on that middle lot could occur, since it would be 19 considered allocated toward the front lot te gain the 80,000 square foot minimum. That's 26 the only history that I was able te find on 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Right now. You have three lets. This application is, 22 you're maintaining that you only have eno lot, is for eno let, and yet you have two principal 23 dwellings on it, and there is no CO for that; is that correct? 24 HR. STRANG: I'm not sure. I believe, going through this process with the 25 building department, they felt that everything en Let Number 1, Tax Let Hap Number 1 -- 2, 20URT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 24 1 2 I'm sorry, is in order. And they wrote the disapproval accordingly, that it was relative 3 only to the improved let. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: But the 4 caretaker's cottage, which has new somehow become a second-story dwelling, the zoning 5 board required that there be 80,000 square feet? 6 MR. STRANG: That's correct. MS. KO~KI: Also the 7 disapproval by the building department, they mention in there that they require a single 8 and separate search in the future, that it was not necessary te review at this time. 9 MR. STRANG: Right. MS. KO~eSKI: So they didn't 10 finish their review. MR. STRANG: Okay. That being !1 understeed~ the middle let, which is vacant at the present time is understood based en the 12 previous condition of the variance that it is merged partially er part of it is merged 13 with the -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Waterfront 14 lot? MR. STRANG: -- with the 15 waterfront let to gain the 80,000 square foot necessary for the two dwellings. 16 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Even if you merge it~ you still have two principal 17 dwellings, on eno let. MR. STRANG: That was permitted 18 per variance if there was 80,000 square feet. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: For a 19 caretaker's cottage. MR. STRANG: Per a caretaker's 20 cottage. MS. K0~SKI: On all three lots. 21 MR. STRANG: Ne, no, just en the two. The northerly-most let was described in 22 the hearing and continues te be a single and separate let with ne need to merge it with the 23 other two. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'll tell you 24 what, we're going te have to go back and try te sort out this. 25 MR. STRANG: It is quite convoluted, and I'm learning as I go. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 25 1 2 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Is there anyone else in the audience who has any 3 questions or comments? MR. HORNING: I have a question. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, Mr. Herning. 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We would like evidence of what is going on on those 6 other two lets, any information; is there any intention of relocating the driveway? 7 MR. STRANG: Te the best of my knowledge, no. 8 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Also, can you provide the names of the live-in 9 caretakers, please? MR. STRANG: Sure. 10 BOARD HEMBER HORNING: And hew long any particular caretaker has been there 11 since the 2onstructien ef the building er renovation thereof. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And shew us the 80.000 scuare feet that's required under 13 the prier ~ppeal. One of the things that the Beard's very reluctant eo do. Hr. Strang, the 14 Beard renders decisions throughout the year, then the application comes back before us and 1S we leek ~u zu and we say, gee, you didn't comply with the 2onditiens that we set forth 16 ten, 15 years ~ge; yeE you're back here far more and more variances, and zE gets rather 17 discouraging. MR. STRANG: I can appreciate your 18 position wleh respecE Ee that. I was somewhat blind-sided by the fact that the existence ef 19 these ether variances that preceded my application. I was lead nc believe that this 20 was the first ~pplicatien made en this preperEy, incorrectly se. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm not faulting you. Let's clear u~ the record here, 22 let's gee a copy ef ~11 the CO's; let's see where we're zn compliance, where we're not in 23 compliance, and we're ~ozng ~o. if the Board pleases, we're going ce ~djourn this te 24 October 23rd an ~ :50. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 25 Strang, am I ennerlng this property -- if you gl ever there new~ would you lust tell the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 26 1 2 Bocklets or whoever's there that Mr. Homing and I will be over et lunchtime today and 3 we're just going te do a brief inspection ef the erea that we've been discussing. 4 MR STRANG: Fine. BOARD HEMBER HORNING: Could you 5 possibly put this off beyond October? MR. STRANG: I'm going to go te 6 ask that 'cause I'll be out ef the country on that date. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next hearing date 8 MR. STRANG: -- well, the 23rd that was suggested, se the next date after 9 that KS. Kd~SKI: Would be November 10 20th at 9:30 a.m. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Hew is that 11 for you? MR. STRANG: That would be fine. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ]use ask a question? Am I entering this 13 preperEy from Robinson Lane or through Mrs. Wood's property? 14 HR. STRIkNG: Robinson Lane. There is no encroachment on Mrs. Wood's property 15 hhat I'm aware of. Just talking about utilities. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We're going zo have that clarified. I'm going te make a 17 motion te adjourn this to November 20th at 9:30 a.m.. 1~ BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor? 19 (Ail Beard Members responded in favor.) 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next hearing -- I thank you Mr. Strang 21 MR. STRANG: Thank you, sorry for the confusion. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: -- is en behalf of Donald Annine -- am I pronouncing 23 that right? MR. ANNINO: That's perfectly all 24 right. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Geed morning. 25 MR. A~NINO: Good morning, Beard Hembers. 20URT REPORTING ANE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 27 1 2 I submitted an amended application requesting relief efa ten feet setback as of 3 8/1/03 te add an addition to the side ef the house, 12 feet in a southerly direction, and 4 the depth of 22.%, and the survey came back, the surveyor changed it te 22.5. The building 5 department researched the adjacent properties and came up with an average they told me ef 6 setback of 34.7. To my knowledge, this building, which was built in approximately 7 1955, is one of the eldest. The house immediately adjacent te it may be one or two 8 years older, presently owned by William Stevens. The other houses are all more 9 recently constructed. That pretty much -- 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We do have your amended survey. We have all the 11 information. It seems fairly clear. I don't have any questions at this time. Mr. Horning? 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: Mrs. Oliva? 13 BOARD HEHEBR HORNING: No. I was down there and actually, the ethers might be 14 34; they vary. I don't have a problem. C~AIRWOMAN TORTORA: Hr. Orland©. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yen saved my eno big question. 16 MR. ANNINO: Yes, sir. BOARD MBHBER ORLANDO: And I 17 couldn't figure out why you wanted te put in that addition kind ef off center to the 18 initial, original plan. I was confused and I was there. I was going to ask yen 19 MR. ANNINO: You sound like my son. 20 BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: He's a smart man, your son. 21 MR. ANNINO: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But, I have 22 no problem with this. This is fine. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's see if 23 there's anyone in the audience that has any comments or questions. 24 MR. ANNINO: May I kind of go back te this? 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The original plan was a more expensive addition. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 28 1 2 MR. ANNINO: Yes, it was. Going back 15 feet and 20 foot widtN coming back up 3 and so forth, and, ef course, the land behind our lot was owned by the same people, the 4 Antensons, and brother-in-law and se forth, and they subdivided the land. And when they 5 subdivided it, they made it a nonconforming let, se on and so forth. And I thought I had 6 enough room going back in tNat direction, that's why we did it, and then found out, no, 7 we didn't meet the 50 foot setback. But we had enough ream te the side, se that's why we $ went out. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Seems te have 9 worked out well. Let's see if there's anyone in the audience that has any questions or 10 comments regarding this application? De the Board Members have any further questions? I'm 11 going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 12 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor? 13 (Ail Beard Members responded iN favor.) 14 MR. ANNINO: One question: Could you give me an idea of what later is? 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We are a little short of staff right now. We are going 16 te de the best we can, but we are quite overloaded. 17 MR. ANNINO: I realize that, and I appreciate all ef the help and advice people 18 have been giving me from the Board. BOARD M~MBER ORLANDO: Whether you 19 wanted it or net. MR. ANNINO: From here and the 20 building department, believe me, I appreciate it. Thank you very much. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You're welcome. 22 The next hearing is en behalf of Donald and Vivian Sennenbern 23 HR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert, Boulevard Planning East, Architects. 24 The application we have in front ef you guys today is basically to construct a 25 second story addition ever an existing garage and extend a deck that exists currently en the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 29 1 2 house to the edge of the property. The property is a narrow, 3 nonconforming lot. The deck extends toward the side yard. It's an open structure and ~ minor in size as it relates to the scale of the property and the house. It's set well 5 back from any of the wetlands. We already have a DEC permit for this project. 6 The application is basically in the character ef the neighborhood. Most ef 7 the surrounding properties on ether either side have the same problems. Most of them are 8 very narrow and the houses, the side yards on all the houses don't comply, and that's it for 9 our application. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let me ask a 10 couple of questions. How did you end up three feet from the property line to begin with on a 11 huge lot? MR. LEHNERT: That was the 12 existing house. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Which was 13 built when? MR. LEHNERT: Which was built, I 14 figure it was built sometime in the '60s 'cause there are existing COs for the house as 15 it sits. CHAIRWOMtkN TORTORA: We have a 16 site plan here; I don't have a survey in the file. 17 MR. LEHNERT: You should have one. I've get eno if you need it. 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We would all like copies. 19 MS. KOLOWSKI: Full page survey, there were sections ef it that were given -- 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: On the survey, I have a part efa survey. I don't 21 have a date ef who it was prepared for, by, stamped seal, any ether information. 22 Your site plan indicates that there is an existing side yard setback for the 23 house of three feet? MR. LEHNERT: Yes. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's not confirmed on the survey. The only place it 25 says house three feet -- this, I guess it would be this corner right down here COURT REPORTING AND TRAiqSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 30 1 2 (indicating), but the survey does net coincide with what you have en the plan, because what 3 yen're showing en the plans shews a little jut? 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Five foot setback. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And what you're showing on the side site plan shows a 6 little jut into the second story addition. MR. LEHNERT: Yes. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And the survey shows that as a straight wall, the side 8 of the house being 21.7, which is correct? HR. LEHNERT: The site plan is 9 showing additions to the project. The addition en the front of existing garage is 10 going te be -- the 5.1 is actually less than what's there new -- I mean, mere than what's 11 existing new, it's 4.9. CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: The existing 12 house is 21.7. The second story addition is -- looks as though, according to the 13 survey, it looks as though you're extending that second story addition further south; is 14 that correct? MR. LEHNERT: Te the edge of the 15 existing garage. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Does it ge 16 beyond the original footprint? MR. LEHNERT: Ne, it does not go 17 beyond it, net te the south. We're extending the existing garage te the north. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would yen tell us which one the garage is again? 19 MR. LEHNERT: Can I just show you guys? 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sometimes it's 21 MR. LEHNERT: If you look at the property, this is the existing house, this 22 piece over here is the existing garage {indicating). That's as it sits now. We're 23 proposing te do the addition out in front and -- well, this is the deck, this piece is 24 just the deck and we're going to go over the existing garage, with the second story, 25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Not over the deck? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 31 1 2 MR. LEHNERT: Not over the deck. The second story addition is actually 3 smaller than the footprint below. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The notches 4 were confusing. CHAIRWOMA~ TORTORA: Right. 5 Because the two didn't jive. HR. LEHNERT: The way the roof 6 works, the walls are set in. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: As far as the 7 deck, is there any reason why you can't keep that in line with the house? 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: With the five foot setback instead of two foot? 9 MR. LEHNERT: Well, it's three at that point. We're just trying te keep a 10 straight line to the house for aesthetics. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Can you tell 11 me hew you can maintain anything aE nwc feet from semebedy's property line indicating ? 12 BOAR£ MEHBER ORLANDO: That's mere than Ewo feet 13 MR. LEHNERT: It's a deck. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You can't 14 walk; you 2ar't paln~ without going on someone else's preperEy; and while this may be 15 existing, ~et's no~ make l~ any worse~ MR. LEHNERT: Okay. We can kee~ 16 the three [eet wlEh the lock. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~: Beard 17 Members. de you have any questions? BOAR£ MEMBER HORNING: Nc. ma'am. 18 BOAR£ MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. BOARE MEMBER ORLANDO: Hy Drily 19 concern is I hope you ion't nave any cesspool problems, because you're not getting back 26 ~here. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's see if 21 there's anyone in ute ~udience who has any questions about this application. 22 Yes. sir, please sEaEe your name for the record. 23 HR. SHER: My name is Hichael Sher. I live nexE deer on the proper£y line 24 that they're proposing ~e make their addition. I have ne problem 25 MS. KO--SKI: Sir. spell your last name, please. COURT RE~SRTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE 631 878-8047 32 1 2 MR. SHER: S-H-E-R. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Which side, 3 sir? MR. SHER: On the side they're 4 making the extension. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 5 very much. MR. SHER: I just wanted to say 6 that I have no problem with the extension and if they have te paint en my property, it's 7 fine. I think it can only benefit the area by making it mere symmetrical, and a nicer 8 looking home. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'd like te 9 note if there are any further comments. Seeing ne hands, I'm going to make a motion to 10 close the hearing and reserve decision until later. I1 BOARD HEHBER OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOPd%: Ail in favor. 12 (Ail beard Members responded in favor.) 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion carried. 14 The next hearing is en behalf of Linda Fasbach. Is there someone here who 15 would like to speak en her behalf? MR. KRAMER: Hi, my name is Meryl 16 Kramer, I'm the architect en the project. I would like to say that the 17 proposed addition is a very modest one. It's 197 square feet. The addition is on an 18 existing bedroom that is really inadequate to be used as a bedroom. It is -- doesn't have 19 any closets and really has barely enough room for the minimal furniture, which is a bed and 20 two night tables. Se the proposed addition, I believe you have a copy of the plan, is just 21 to have some closet space with a bed and two night tables. And, like I said, I think 22 you'll agree it's fairly modest. The proposed addition is net out 23 ef scale with the neighborhood, Host ef the houses are ef similar scale. The lets are 24 mostly nonconforming lets with side yard setback violations. And I believe that the 25 proposed addition will improve the appearance ef the house and address the streetscape mere COURT REPORTING Ai{D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 33 1 2 than what is there right now. In addition, the existing deck, I 3 made recommendations to the owners, and they plan te de improvements te the deck in terms 4 efa railing itself. Right new what is there was there when they purchased it, and it's net 5 meeting today's cede in terms of the railing. Se I've recommended that they replace the 6 railing with a railing that is the proper height and design. And Richard Lark will 7 address the ether issues with regard to that deck. And the owner, Linda Fasbach, will 8 address a little bit mere about her concerns er requirements. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The questions is why the four feet extension and 10 not exhume it into the existing side yard? MS. KRAMER: Mostly for 11 cross-ventilation, so that we can get some air moving through the space. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The other question is, you're here for three variances. 13 KS. KRAMER: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You're here 14 for lot coverage, and you're here for the existing deck, that you're talking about does 15 not have a CO; it was built out without any COs er permits er anything. 16 MS. KRAHER: Richard Lark will address that; that was basically something 17 that the owner and I both thought, were led to believe was approved prior t© the purchase ef 18 the property. But they'll address that issue. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They didn't 19 have a CO when they purchased the property? MS. KRAMER: They thought that 20 they did. They have a Trustee's permit, but nothing else. They will address these 21 issues. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The let 22 coverage, you're going to address the lot coverage issues? 2i BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That got delegated. 24 MS. KRAMER: Well, obviously the existing is in violation and the new is going 25 to also be in violation. We pared the addition down as much as we could by making it COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 3% 1 2 a functional space. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The question 3 is simply, let me get right te the question: The existing let coverage, is what? 4 MS. KRAMER: You should have a copy ef it. It's 31.%, we're proposing 33. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The existing let coverage is 31.4 with the deck. 6 MS. KRAMER: Yeah. CHAIRWOM}~ TORTOPJ~: With the 7 deck? KS. KRAMER: Yes, with 8 everything. CHAIRWOMA~ TORTORA: And with the 9 new extension? MS. KRAMER: It raises it te 33 10 percent. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Because the 11 notice ef disapproval had said that the let coverage was 27 percent and with the deck is 12 33. So you're saying that with the deck it is 31, and with the new addition it's 33? 13 HS. KP~AMER: 33. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~: Is that 14 accurate? MS. KRAMER: That's what I have en 15 my site data sheet that was submitted. I don't know -- there were a couple of typos 16 that Linda and I were working on this disapproval. We thought that we get them all 17 this worked out, but may be we did net. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It was 18 confusing. The building department said in the notice ef disapproval they said it was 27 19 with the deck -- without the deck, and with the deck it's 33, but there's no mention of 20 the new addition. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We'll need 21 a new amended notice ef disapproval. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mine says 22 31. MS. KRAMER: There were several -- 23 there were different issues of that disapprovals because there were several typos, 24 or errors. Mine says 31.4 as well. It was amended on July 17th; do you have that one? 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have the July 22nd eno. 2OURT REPORTING AND TPIZNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 35 1 ~ 2 MS. KRAMER: Yes, but it was amended July 17th. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, correct. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct. 5 MS. KO~SKI: It's in the file. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's see if 6 there are any further questions. Mr. Lark? MS. FASBACH: Geed morning, I'm 7 Linda Pasbach, the owner ef the property, and I just came forward to answer a few more ef 8 your questions. My husband and I bought our house 9 about five and a half years ago, and it was a second home at that time. So the room size 10 was adequate for us for Weekends and for occasional winter weeks that we came out to 11 Southold and out to Greenport. Two years ago we sold our house in 12 Nassau County and made this our primary and legal residence. And last year I retired and 13 moved out here on a full-time basis. What was really cozy and quaint in terms of a ten foot 14 by ten foot bedroom on the first floor, is really not adequate when you're living in the 15 space full time. My husband has no closet at all. I have a closet that's very inaccessible 16 in terms of trying to get things from the closet in terms of its layout, and actually, 17 that ten foot extension plus four feet will give us a nice size, not a huge bedroom but a 18 nice size bedroom for us. It's the only bedroom on the first floor. We'd like te stay 19 en the first floor, and the second fleer bedroom space we only use in the summer as 20 it's not heated. We have a floor register, one ef the old registers and se only the first 21 fleer ef our house is heated in the winter time. 22 In terms ef the deck, and I'm going to let Hr. Lark discuss this a little 23 bit mere. I'll be honest, I was shocked when we found out we did not have the CO. When we 24 bought the house, we bought the house "as is." It really needed a lot of TLC, and se with the 25 broker, we asked her te please get a CO for the deck. What we were given was a permit COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 36 1 2 that grandfathered the deck, and my husband and I were really surprised te learn that this 3 was ne~ actually the CO that we needed. We really were shocked. We only found this out recently. We went te the broker who sold us 5 the house, and we were under the impression that she had gotten all the ~T's~ crossed and 6 ~'I's dotted, and unfortunately she didn't, but Hr. Lark can discuss this a little mere. 7 Are there any questions? 2HAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Not at this 8 ~lme. BOARD HEMBER HORNING: I have 9 Dne. 2HAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Herning. 10 BOARE HEHBBR HORNING: I don't kn~w if you san, but perhaps your architect, 11 can you mere thoroughly explain this cress ventilation theory? 12 HS. FASBACH: Quite honestly, we're Dn the wa~er, so the way the bedroom is 13 situated. ~ ien't knew if you've inspected the property, it's actually facing the west, and 14 we have ~ne window on the west side and right now one wind}w's facing south. By having the 15 four feet extension from the house, it gives us both ~n ess£ern exposure, west -- actually 16 north, eas~, sooth and west, which gives us cress ventilation se we can catch the breezes 17 from all directions Personally I don't like air conditioning. I really like natural flew ef air. And when we were designing this room we really thought that this could be the way 18 eo cap~ure all the breezes without having te pu~ in air conditioning. 2{ BOARD MEMBER HORNING: One further ques~mon: Is there some way you could 21 con£1nue mo remain the side yard setback; you're only talking about windows? 22 MS. FASBACH: I mean this is something I'd have te discuss with the 23 architec£, naturally. BOARD MEHBER HORNING: If you would, please. HS. FASBACH: Yeah. 2S CHAIRWOMAIN TORTORA: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTIDN SERVICE (631) 878-8047 37 1 2 or against the application? MS. FASBACH: Thank you. 3 CHAIRWOM~ TORTORA: Thank you very much. 4 HR. LARK: Richard Lark, Hain Road, Cutchogue, for the applicant, Linde 5 Pasbach. Here again, at the building 6 department I think the Board needs a little bit of history, which you don't have in the record. The immediate prier owner was 8 Larry Mitchell ef Hitchell restaurant family, and he had purchased the property on July 24, 9 1978. At that time, when Mr. Mitchell purchased it, he had a preexisting CO. I'm 10 going te hand that up te you, 'cause the house was built way prier te 1957. As a matter ef 11 fact, all the lets in this whole area are all 50 foot wide going from Bay Shore Road down to 12 the bay, and I'll cover that agaiE on the let coverage because the file map talks that there 13 was no bulkhead er anything in these days. It was a 1927 filed map, and the lot size was te 14 the high water mark. They've all been virtually -- yes, all have been bulkheaded at IS my last inspection down there. So it's a question whether you're going to measure the 16 let from the bulkhead er the legal title, to the high water mark. We're back te that issue 17 again. Anyway, when Mr. Mitchell bought 18 he had got a pre CO, because there was a bank involved at the time, and he had purchased the 19 property. Sometime in late '78, '79 sometime 20 in that time frame 'cause I talked to Larry after this problem emanated when they found 21 out they didn't have everything. There was a storm, and the closed perch, there was a small 22 deck that went off ef the small porch down to, in effect, the beach. He, for reasons best 23 known te him, built this thing in '78 or '79 like a fortress. There's pilings, this is 24 never going to suffer a hurricane loss, he told me, when he built this thing. It was 25 substantial. I've get some photographs taken by the broker in 1997 ef it, and I'm going te COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 38 2 hand them up te you. He built it really substantial, and, it's true, he expanded what 3 was there prier to him purchasing it, whatever was there prior te zoning, he did expand it; 4 there's no question about it, and Larry admits 1£. But he did a pretty good job in building 5 the thing and it's held the ~est ef time through all the storms we've had since 1980. 6 Because of the exposure that they face there, when you got get a northeaster, it gets pretty 7 sno~y that backyard area. Thee when ~inda Fasbach bought it 8 in late 1997, they bought it without a bank because it was a second home, and the question 9 of the CO, and the deck, and bulkhead, and all of that came up. The broker, and I get the 10 2orrespondence, went to the trustees and what they, the trustees called the "grandfather 11 permitTM which they issued for the deck, they looked at the bulkhead and looked at the whole 12 ieck and said it was fine. Then they went ahead with that preexisting CO and purchased 13 ,~. And I think it was represented te them at the time that that was all that was 14 needed. Of course, we all know that something should have been done about that deck and 15 Larry was less than forthcoming on that issue, ~nd they did net knew, and there was no one, 16 apparently to check it for them, and life went en until they decided te de this bedroom 17 application, and the building department went down there and looked and said, hey, you don't 18 have a CO for the deck. Originally they couldn't even find the CO for the place, but I 19 de have the original CO, I was able te find it. 20 So at this time, without any further ado, I wish to hand up te the Beard, 21 on the issue the preexisting CO, which shows that the house was built prior to zoning that 22 was dated July 21st '78. I have a broker's photographer taken some time in '97, '98 of 23 the rear, standing on the beach which gives an oblique view of the deck, and then, in 24 November '97, the broker's application with a survey and shewing basically all of the 25 dimensions, and then the grandfathered permit from the Board ef Trustees dated 12/18/97. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 39 1 2 And when Mrs. Fasbach found out about this, she went back te the beard and en June 18th 3 they leaked at it again, said it was fine and gave her approval to transfer that % pre-existing permit over to her. These are quite law abiding people, and they were 5 shocked by all this happening, and the trustees said everything was fine. She also 6 get, se there would be ne problem, a letter of nenjurisdiction, a letter dated May ef this 7 year fram the DEC. So I think you should have that in your file. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You need to give that to the Beard secretary. We're going 9 to have to move this along because we are running behind. 10 MR. LARK: I only got two more comments. So you have that. As to the 11 application for the 197 foot addition, when you look at it from the front, it is a plus. 12 And, as I said, this 1927 map had all 50 foot lots, and I respectfully submit to you that 13 the application for variance considering the standards in the town law for granting an area 14 variance are met here far this application, and there will be ne adverse impact. I did 15 look at the neighborhood again. A let ef the let coverages are similar, if net larger, 16 because of the expansions of houses. And keep in mind far your deliberations, that this 17 property in the front yard, ten feet off the street is the garage, as there are a couple 18 ether properties down there. This addition will still be behind the garage. The side 19 which they're coming out four foot is net very - talk te the next deer neighbor and the 20 next deer neighbor says she's fine there's still plenty of roam to go around. The other 21 comment I had te laugh, because it was my first comment where's your cesspool? The 22 cesspool's in the front, in the driveway area, se that's okay, and it's serviced by public 23 water, as you knew. Se that's basically all I have. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There are a couple ef comments. We recognize that it is a 25 small lot and that there are limited possibilities for expansion on the lot. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 40 1 2 Hewever, I think in keeping with Mr. Goehringer's comment, the Board, because 3 you are requesting such a substantial variance in terms ef let cay©rage, I hhink the Beard is 4 lo©king to mitigate the side yard variance to the extent that we can, and, in keeping with 5 Hr. Goehringer's cemment ef moving that flush te the heuse, we can't have everything. We 6 have 33 percent let ceverage. HR. LARK: I understand that. 1 That might net be accurate; that might be fram the bulkhead. If yeu measure to the high 8 water, that might be fram the bulkhead. I want to warn yeu en that. Because I leoked at 9 that, because I loeked at some of the ether heuses in the area wNicN Nave mere in terms ef 10 the lot cay©rage, and I questien if yeu ge te the high water mark, which is the legal 11 ewnership, ef course, with that percentage just what it is. There's No questien it's in 12 excess ef 20 percent, t~at I'm net arguing tNat issue at all, but whether it's 21 er 13 whether it's 33, I den't knew. Yeu knew, but it is true that what she's pr©posing with the 1% 197 square feet is an additional almost two percent, that's ab©ut what it boils down to. 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We need a firm figure en the let coverage because tN©re 16 is a discrepancy. I have the breakdewn en her site plan, the let ceverage. Yeu don't have 17 te came back for that, you can send it te us in writing, because there is a discrepancy in 18 the notice ef disapproval and this is the July 17th notice ef disappreval, which says tN© 19 total let cay©rage prier to the as-built deck was 27 percent. 20 MR. LARK: I understand that. I saw that also, and I'm net sure that's 21 accurate. That's sum©thing the surveyer will tell us. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~I: Somebody Nas to. 23 MS. KRAMER: I'm pretty sure that the numbers on the site plan are accurate and 24 that 27 percent, I guess, is something that Damen came up with by subtracting the deck, 25 just so that he c©uld show what the percent is with©ut the deck, that was never included in COURT REPORTING AND TP~kNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 41 1 my calculations. CHAIRWOMA~ TORTORA: You're 3 suggesting to use your figures that it would be 33 point what percent? 4 MS. KRAMER: 33 for the proposed and 31.4 for the existing. 5 MS. KOLOWSKI: Is that te the high water line? 6 KS. KRAMER: Yes. HR. LARK: You did ge te the high 7 water line? KS. KRAHER: Yes. And other thing 8 I wanted to address was the comment earlier about can you do the addition without going, 9 without encroaching on the side yard. Obviously, we can de it, but I respect Mrs. 10 Fasbach's desire te net use air conditioning, which I think is very -- in today's world, is 11 ~ very nice thing ~o do, and te be able to lesion an addition te take advantage ef the 12 waEer breeze zs, zn my opinion, what I call [reen architecture, something te preserve the 13 envlrenmenE and £e use the advantages of naEure. And the idea that they're living en 14 hhe seree£ side ef the house, and they've chosen Eo make their bedroom on the street side as Dpposed Eo people that want that massive masEer bedroom with the deck and the 16 view and everything. 2HAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: There are pros 17 and cons about 1E because essentially, just as she wanes the sea breeze, the town cede wants 18 separaEien and distances between houses, which is the purpose and function ef the setback to 19 becln with. Are there any more comments? Any 2{ more questions? Seeing no hands -- yes, Mrs. Fasbach. 21 MS. FASBACH: I believe you have also received letters from our neighbors? 22 CHAIRWONLXN TORTORA: Yes, we have those in our records. 23 MS. FASBACH: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOPA: Seeing no 24 hands, I'll make a motion te close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: Ail in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTIDN SERVICE (631) 878-8047 %2 1 2 favor. (Ail Beard Members responded in 3 favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We're going % to take a ten minute break right now and then we will resume at exactly ten minutes after 5 11:00. I make a motion to recess. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~: Ail in favor. (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor, and a ten minute recess was taken.) 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Make a motion te reoenvene? 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor? 10 (Whereupon, all members responded in favor.) 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Before we get to the second hearing, the attorney for the 12 applicant, Linda Pasbach, has asked that we do net close the hearing and reserve decision, 13 and would like an opportunity to submit a revised plan. Therefore, I want to make a 14 motion to rescind the prier motion closing the hearing reserving decision. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Make a motion 16 now to adjourn the hearing until the next available calendar date, which would be 17 October 23rd at what time, Madam Secretary? MS. KOWALSKI: At 9:50 a.m. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: At 9:50 in the morning, I'll make that motion. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOBHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in 26 favor. {Whereupon, all Beard Members 21 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. 22 The next hearing is on behalf of Andrew Nikelich. 23 MR. NIKOLICH: My name is Andrew Nickelich, and I am the owner and the 24 applicant. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What would 25 you like te tell us? MR. NIKOLICH: I would like to COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 43 1 2 give you a brief history. I purchased the property, 850 Budds Pond Road in April 2001. 3 The house had an existing deck and a shed en the property. Prier of closing, I found out 4 that the deck didn't have a CO. The only permit that existed was the DEC permit to 5 build the deck; and subsequently, I proceeded te legalize and obtained the CO for the deck, 6 and I discovered that the deck is within 55 53 feet from the bulkhead. So my application 7 is here to reconstruct it as it is, the same size, and to rebuild the accessory 8 building. I did obtain a DEC and Southold Beard ef Trustees permit. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have a copy ef the site plan here. The site plan, I 10 am trying to determine, is B4 feet from the bulkhead? i1 MR. NIKOLICH: Yes. CHAIRWONLAN TORTORA: And is te 12 reconstruct the deck. And the only ether question I had was, there is, I notice in beth 13 the trustee and the DEC, the size ef the deck is somewhat slightly different. I realize 14 it's an irregular shaped deck but perhaps you could confirm what the size ef the deck is for 15 us. MR. NIKOLICH: Yes. I believe I 16 made a drawing, exact drawing. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: I have 50 and 17 a half feet, and then it's irregular shape because I believe it goes down to about eight 18 feet? HR. NIKOLICH: Hay I approach the 19 bench? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. 20 MR. NIKOLICH: This is the drawing. 21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You have the deck now is three levels, and you want to make 22 it one level? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It's 23 plateaued. MR. NIKOLICH: Yes. I want to 24 make it one level and on the side of the deck is a jacuzzi and with a stockade fence, I was 25 thinking of putting a jacuzzi in the deck. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You'll have COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 44 1 2 eo speak a~ the dais so we can pick this up for the record, please. 3 The only }thor ~ues~ien I have the eight by ~en shed -- 4 MR. NIKOLICH: Yes. CHAIRWOMtkN TORTORA: that would 5 be about five feet from the bulkhead? MR. NIKOLICH: Ne. 15 16 feet 6 from the bulkhead. BOARD MEMBER DLIVA: There was shed there before? HR. NIKOLICH: There was ~ shed 8 there before. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Dkay, let's 9 see if the board members have any questions. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I have 10 none. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 11 leehringer. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: I was 12 down inspecting the propermy, seems mo be in order, and your application seems ~o be 13 ~ccuraEe. Thank yen for the preseneammon. HN. NIKOLICH: rhank you. 14 2HAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Mr. Orlando. BOARE MEMBER ORLANDO: Is the shed 15 ~oing £0 be stick built or prefabricated? HR. NIKOLICH: I am going eo build 16 in. I believe I submitted a drawing ef the size and dimensions, and I'm going ~o side 17 similar me the house, same siding, what the house has. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't think the mmcrephene picked up what you said 19 before, yen 2hese ne~ me lnseru the lacuzz~ lnEc the deck? 20 HR. NIKOLICH: Yes. I made the decision net te insert a jacuzzi into the 21 deck. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Okay, ne 22 ether questions. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Will you 23 have a jacuzzi? MR. NIKOLICH: There is a jacuzzi 24 on the property next to the deck and a stockade fence surrounding it, which I intend 25 to eliminate. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The jacuzzi COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 and fence are cc be removed? MR. NIKOLICH: Yes. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Any questions from the audience? 4 8OARD MEMBER OLIVA: You didn't ask me. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: Just a moment. Any ~ues£iens from anyone in the 6 audience? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Ne, I was there, besides E wanted to tell him he has a very nice coy pond. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Very lmporzanz for the record to note a nice coy 9 pond. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How many 10 coy were ~n the pond? MR. NIKOLICH: About 16. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~A: I'm going to make a motion te close the hearing and reserve 12 decision te later. Ail in favor. (Whereupon, a Members ef the Beard 13 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 14 hearing is on behalf of Joseph Dorothy and Susan Ulrich. Is there anyone here who would 15 like te speak on behalf ef the applicants? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Jim 16 Fitzgerald on behalf of the Ulrichs. We have a deck that has been in 17 existence for over 30 years which Mr. Ulrich built with his own hands at a time when he 18 thought it was okay to do it without a building permit, and it has existed all these 19 years. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: How many 20 years has this deck been there? HR. FITZGERALD: Thirty. 21 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Ne, no, no. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's 22 been painted. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It leeks 23 like it's brand new, but let's chalk it up te the paint. 24 MR. FITZGERALD: It was built in the early '70s. The paint was made some time 25 later. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 46 1 2 incorporating the deck with the stairs down to the lower deck to the dock, it was all built 3 ab©ut the same time? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Well, ever 4 a period of time. I'm not sure that it was all under construction. The Ulrichs are here 5 and can answer that question specifically, if you would like. Would you like? 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. MR. ULRICH: Yes, all around the 7 same time. It just kind ef grew like topsy. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's a very 8 well-kept, 30 year old deck. MR. ULRICH. I told any man that 9 put a nail in it he was fired, there's nothing but screws and bolts and built t© stay. 10 BOARD MEHBER HORNING: In what year, sir? 11 MR. ULRICH: Around '73, I think, and we have had as many as 40 people out en 12 the deck at a party, and nothing shook. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 13 very much. Beard Members, any questions? Mr. Herning? 14 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 15 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had 16 an extensive discussion with your wife last Saturday regarding this deck, and I am with 17 the belief that the deck Nas been there the amount ef time that you are telling us it's 18 been there. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Orlando. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The purpose ©f coming here today is? 20 MR. ULRICH: To get a CO -- te get a permit te get a CO. 21 MR. FITZGERALD: Getting things in order. 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Coming up te compliance? 23 MR. ULRICH: Yeah. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Because your 24 rear yard setback should have been 50 feet and you're asking for additional feet? 25 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Are your COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 %7 1 2 clients looking to sell the house? MR. FITZGEP~LD: I don't believe 3 se. As a matter of fact, their plans are to add a dormer and it was Mr. Ulrich's 4 understanding that it would be necessary te presenn to the building department COs for ail 5 the existing structures before they would consider an application for new structure. 6 BOARD MEMEER ORLANDO: That's what I was trying to get at. The purpose of coming here today was te get a CO for this before they can de future plans on the house. 8 MR. FITZGERALD: To get a variance approved to get a building permit to get a CO. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But not to sell the house? 10 MR. ULRICH: I'm a cancer victim for the last five years. My position in this 11 world is very tenuous. If I go, whether Dorothy will want te keep a house this size er 12 no£ is her decision. I feel it should be marketable. What more can I say? And it's 13 nee marketable without a CO. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs. Oliva? 14 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Ne further quesEions. I must say it is a beautiful deck for 30 years old. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Anyone in the 16 ~udience who would like te speak in favor er against the application? Seeing no hands, 17 move to make a motion to close hearing and reserve decision until later. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. 19 (Whereupon, all Beard Members responded in favor.) 20 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Motion carried. 21 MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Ulrich says hew much later? 22 MS. KOLOWSKI: Could be three or four weeks. 2! CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. 24 The next hearing is en behalf ef Ann Marie Kelly. Is there someone here who 25 would like te speak en behalf of the application? IOURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Andersen. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Before you 3 begin, Mr. Anderson -- MR. ANDERSON: Uh huh. 4 CHAIRWOlVLAN TORTORA: Mr. Anderson? HR. ANDERSON: Yes. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~A: I know that yeN're representing the applicant. The 6 question that is of concern is that the plan that was reviewed by the building 7 department -- MR. ANDERSON: Right. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: -- and the plan that yen submitted e~ August 15th are 9 substantially different, and this plan that -- I don't see any indication that the plan that 10 yen are new submitting to us has been reviewed by the building department. 11 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. We received a letter from the secretary yesterday perhaps 12 and the concern there had to do with the foundation. Was the foundation changing ever 13 the previous plan. The answer is ne. The project that we have before us 14 entails raising the house to comply with FEMA. There is no expansion ef the foundation; 15 there's no change to the foundation over the previous plan, and that is noted in the 16 building inspector's notice ef denial that it will be elevated to comply with PEHA. 17 The difference in the plans is that since the original application was made 18 zhe size of the second fleer dwelling, the second floor addition was scaled back for 19 budgetary reasons and the barn, which is out in the back, is ne longer going te be 20 relocated. The purpose ot shewing you that plan was to show its smaller addition so that 21 there would be no confusion later on. But there are ne changes to it that would affect 22 put variance application or a building permit Dr anything else. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's just se dramatically different from the initial plan 24 chat was submitted and reviewed by the building department. 25 MR. ANDERSON: It is the same house, less perches, less the second story COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 49 1 2 addition has been reduced additionally. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The new 3 walkway that you -- is that a walkway next te the stone driveway that was in the original 4 one? MR. ANDERSON: Your question is 5 I'm sorry? MS. KOLOWSKI: There's a section 6 on the new map that you're not identifying er labeling on the site map, we're net sure what 7 that is. It's a new area that you added te the map. 8 MR. ANDERSON: Are you referring to the perch? 9 HS. KOWALSKI: The backward L next to the existing house en the west side. 10 MR. ANDERSON: Can you shew me? MS. KOLOWSKI: West side of the 11 house, backward L? BOARD MEMBER ORLanDO: We're 12 looking at May 15th, the very first. BOARD MEHBER OLIVA: Here's the 13 May 15th, Bruce, here. HR. ANDERSON: We've removed 14 it. The reason why they leek different is because we are taking things away from it. 15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The whole shape has changed. 16 MR. ANDERSON: Shape has not changed. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The 15 foot setback, that exists? 18 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, that exists. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's net 19 shown en the original plan. MR. ANDERSON: That setback exists 20 and always has existed, and I can shew you a previous survey that was dena in '93 that will 21 shew the same 43 feet setback, if that will help you. 22 CHAIRWOM}~ TORTOR~: I'm saying that you say the proposed porch that exists, 23 that is net shown on the original plan? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. 24 Oh, I thought you were referring to what it connects to, which is the perch. Ail they're 25 doing is squaring it off. This is what you're referring to. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 5O 1 2 All they're doing is continuing it. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is the 3 fence, the old one. The new one, they're going te - 4 MR. ANDERSON: That's the new one. I'm looking at the new one now. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: So en that side you've added a proposed porch, correct? 6 MR. ANDERSON: Correct. CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Okay. And is lU 47 feet to the proposed perch in the new setback? 8 MR. AiqDERSON: 47 feet from the exlsuing porch to the front lot line, so that 9 would be 75. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We're just 10 urylng to get our bearing here because it was submitted at such a late date. It's very, 11 very difficult for us to try to review these when you submit something se close to a 12 hearing date. HR. ANDERSON: As I've said, 13 we've scaled it back. We've come before you Eo ~sk for less. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Give us more time to review it in proper time because in 15 all reality, the Board has set this down for a public hearing a month and a half age, and the 16 paperwork really should have been in before that. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The maloriEy of the Board has net seen this. 18 We're looking at it as we see it here with you here. 19 MR. ANDERSON: It's fine. It's lUSE the same plan, all we've done is scale it 20 back. i can walk you through it. If you need time to deliberate on it. We're here. The 21 Kelly's are here. MS. KOWALSKI: Usually what 22 happens when you amend it en the map, submit 1E me the building department in writing and 23 gee a new review for a notice ef disapproval en the new plan and then the hearing would 24 have been adjourned or canceled, just in the future, so you know, Bruce. 25 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: I think some ef the Beard members are a little concerned 20URT REPORTINI AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 51 1 2 because they really have not seen this. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. Let 3 us walk you through it; take your time te review it. That will be perfectly 4 acceptable. I don't think you're going to have a problem with it. It's very simple. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you when I took all the plans, George 6 and I just took both plans and held them right up te each ether, and the only difference is 7 that porch that was in question; and that we're going from a full two story, full-blown 8 out two story construction which was eriginaliy proposed, tea really eno, one and 9 a half story construction. HR. ANDERSON: Right. 10 BOARD HEHBER GOEHRINGER: Se that the foetprlnn zs correct except for that 11 little pornion on the side which has the same setback of 14 feet. 12 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. BOARD HEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you 13 can only de that, Bruce, when you hold up beth plans negether like this and actually leek at 14 them. HR. ANDERSON: Right. 15 MS. KOWALSKI: Would you have any elevatiun maps }r anything that would help you 16 can g~ve us. something for the file? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Extra sets 17 for the file. if you wish and we have them up here. We alsc have photos of the house as 18 they exlsn today. MS. KOWALSKI: Bruce, just for the 19 future so you knew, they can all leek at them while you're ieing your presentation. Thanks. 20 CHAIRWONhXN TORTORA: I'm going to ask you ne be as quick as possible because we 21 are very far behind. MR ANDERSON: Okay. What we have 22 here is a 17 000 square feet property. In the R40 zeno. It's a preexisting nonconforming 23 lot. It has a iwelling en it. The dwelling was built I believe in the '20s; there's 24 ac£ually ~ picture of the dwelling out in the hallway after the '38 hurricane. The existing 25 dwellino would be 47 feet from the front let line. 18 feet from the right ef way, the area 20URT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 52 1 2 ef the dwelling is 18.11 square feet; there is, we would add a porch, there's a perch ef 3 425 square feet; and there is a barn in the rear ef the property that consists of the 515 4 square feet. Existing coverage today is 15.9 percent. 5 The first survey you had featured a larger second story addition that would 6 have -- the area would have been 1,018 square feet, with an easterly portion ef 47 square 7 feet and a westerly portion of 210 square feet. That plan shewed a barn relocation, 8 which is no longer proposed. Under that scenario coverage would have been 17 percent. 9 The plan that we are asking approval for today, dated August 14th prepared 10 by Fox Land Surveying futures a second story addition reduced to 423 square feet, a roof 11 deck that extends ever there approximately 210 square feet, an easterly porch of 154 square 12 feet and a patio in the rear of 96 square feet. As I said, that second story addition 13 has been reduced from 1,018 square feet te 423 square feet, the westerly portion is 14 eliminated. There is ne relocation ef the barn, and these have been driven by budgetary 15 constraints. This dwelling will be raised eight 16 inches te comply with PEMA regulations. The reason six is required and we're going with 17 eight is because that is the height efa block, so there will be an extra course ef 18 block and that brings the house in compliance with PEHA regulations. 19 It is important te note, and your notice of disapproval notes that there is 20 nothing we are doing here that would increase the degree of nonconformity. It will be ne 21 closer tea front let line, ne closer to a side let line, no closer tea rear lot line. 22 We are here because of the building inspector's policy regarding any construction 23 in building restricted areas. We're talking very, very small 24 changes here. We submit there would he ne undesirable change te the character ef the 25 neighborhood. We are effectively, you knew, there is essentially no increase in the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 53 1 2 footprint. There is only a minor increase in the volume. We submit that we can't achieve 3 that benefit without a variance due to the fact that we're dealing with a non-conforming % lot, the setback te the existing dwelling are nonconforming with today's cede, all 5 reflecting a dwelling that was built prier to any of these rules being in effect. The 6 variance does net have a substantial physical or environmental effect. We will be 7 proceeding with a new septic system. We have spoken with the building inspector; we are net 8 required, as a matter of cede, to do so because the number of bedrooms in this house 9 will be reduced from four to three. Nevertheless, we're doing it because it's the 10 right thing to de. These applications are on file with the health department, and with the 11 building inspector, providing we get our variance, will give us a building permit, and 12 will install the septic system, final approval ef that prior te the issuance of the CO. The 13 practical difficulty we have here was certainly net self-created, given the 14 preexisting non conforming lot and lawfully existing dwelling with respect te property 15 lines. What we're left here with is a 16 redevelopment of a house that's in bad need ef a repair. It would be redeveloped in a cedar 17 style, cedar reef, cedar exterior. It will fit and actually mirror the cottage-type 18 housing that you see along Village Lane and will be a substantial improvement over what's 19 there today. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Anderson, 20 I'd like you te do the following for us: I'd like you te submit the dimensions, all the 21 dimensions for the revised plans. I'd like you to show the 17 feet te the right of way 22 for the front yard setback, which is not noted on either one ef the surveys. I personally do 23 net have any objections to this, the way it is, however, paperwork-wise, it's very sloppy 24 at this point. Want 17 feet to the right of way as noted in the notice of disapproval en 25 the survey, want that shown, want all the dimensions ef the new construction shown on COURT REPORTING AND TNANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 54 1 2 our application or -- MR. ANDERSON: They're in the 3 building plan that are submitted; yen want them on the survey as well? 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~A: No, no. All you have te de is in your application, when 5 you apply to the zoning board, we ask you to fill out hew much square footage everything 6 was. You did. MR. ANDERSON: I see what yen're 7 saying. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That was 8 based on the old plans. A week age you submitted new plans~ new we need the 9 dimensions of the new construction to coincide with that. 10 As far as you have indicated on the survey drawn, en the revised plan, you're 11 shewing the 47 feet to the rip wrap, is that also 42 feet to the sea wall, 42 feet to the 12 concrete sea wall? MR. ANDERSON: You are %7 feet to 13 the front lot. There is no dimensions te the sea wall. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The notice of disapproval indicates that the existing 15 dwelling is noted at being 40 feet from the concrete sea wall and the 47 feet from the rip 16 wrap. What is the 47 feet? On the survey it shows te the rip wrap; is that correct? 17 HR. ANDERSON: That is the front line. It shows te rip wrap. The dimension is 18 taken to the lime along high water mark, which defines the front line. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Net in our cede. Yen're incorrect. The building 20 department has noted that yen have a front yard setback ef 17 feet. The building 21 department measures to the edges ef the right of way. 22 HR. ANDERSON: I understand that. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: That's not shown on the survey. 24 MR. ANDERSON: We're happy te shew it. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~A: If we sound a little frustrated, it's because we don't like COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 55 1 2 ~o review plane on mhe dais. MR. ANDERSON: It was a last 3 mlnuEe change CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's very 4 frustratinc for us. We are trying to accommodate you this mzme because we do not 5 wane no mie up your 21lents, but let's get the paperwork ~n order; 17. show it on the survey. 6 Give us all the dimensions ef the proposed new construction, and anything else? 7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is that ~ncluding the height ef the building? ~ CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. You're nee going mc move the barn? ~ MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRWONLA~ TORTORA: The barn is 10 as exlsElng a£ I lot line? HR. ANDERSON: Yes. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Se there's no variance involved with that? 12 HR ANDERSON: That's right. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's see if 13 there's any ques£1ons in the audience. Does anvene in the audience have any questions er 14 commenEs for this application? Do the Board members have any ~uestlons? 15 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I have one quesElon. 16 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Yes. BOARD MEHBER HORNING: Once the 17 building is elevated an additional eight inches, tell us what will be underneath the 18 first floor. MR. ANDERSON: What will be 19 underneath the first floor? 2HAIRWOMAN PORTORA: Correct. 20 MR. ANDERSON: Well, as te cede it has to be filled te grade and it has te be 21 open as to allow erosion te pass and repass. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Ne 22 utilities? MR. ANDERSON: Ne. Ail utilities 23 must be elevated above the baseline elevation. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Te comply 24 to cede or FEMA regulations or beth? MR. ANDERSON: To comply with 25 FEMA. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: That's it. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 56 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The only ocher thing is ~e shew the height of the MR. ANDERSON: Okay. % CHAIRWOHAN TORTO~A: Se what we'll de is. if it's ~11 right with the other Beard 5 members, we're ~oing ~o close the hearing to verbatim EesElmony, and we will close it 6 pending rece~p~ of ~11 ~f these items at our next meeting, which will be on September llth pending recelpE ef all hhe information that we requested. 8 FR. ANDERSON: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Can you have 9 that information by that time; is that sufficient ulms far you2 10 MR. ANDERSON: Easily. 2HAIRWOMA~ ~ORTORA: Okay, we're 11 going ~o ~ake that mo~on. BOARE MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 12 2HAIRWOMAN PORTORA: Ail in favor. Whereupon. all Board Members 13 responded ~n favor. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion 14 carried. The nexu hearing is en behalf ef 15 the Orient Paint Holding Company, Joseph Farrell Orient 16 MR. ANDERSON: This is an ~pplication ue build an approximate 1,196 17 square feeu feetprlnu dwelling ena vacant lot sn Hill Creek Drive Mill Creek Drive is an 18 srea ef ~ewn familiar ue me. I live right in that area. It's comprised of very small lots, 19 third quaruer acre, quarter acre in size, all the way up uc ~ppreximately half acre in size. 20 It was developed many years ago prior to zoning, and the existing development in there 21 is all nonconforming with respect te various area considerations ~nd iimensional 22 considerations. Fhere is e history ef granting ef 23 variances in this ~rea, ~ltheugh net for granE~ng variances relative te front yard 24 setbacks, which ~s what we're here far uoday. 25 Generally, what you have in the area are modest sized, single family dwellings 2OURT RE~0RTING ANE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 S7 1 2 that are set close te the water. The perimeter aleng Arshamenack Pend is nearly 3 2empletely bulkhead©d, and se the types ef variances that have been granted setback variances and in some cases accessory side yard setbacks for sheds and the like. 5 In preparatien fur this hearing, I ©rd©red an aerial survey thet is in frent of 5 yeu. I'd like yeu to take ~ close leek at it. Dn that aerial survey we identify what we sensider the neighborheed which is that area beunded by Grove Drive and Mill Creek Drive, 8 ~ is that peninsula that juts out to Arshamonack Pond. On that I have located the 9 ~ze ef the dwelling feetprint that weuld be feund -- that weuld be built en that. And 10 what you can see frem the aerial, the size of the dwelling that we are prep©sing, its 11 locatien, very much consistent with the ~rea. That particular aerial was taken in 12 April 2000, is the must recent ©ne available in this area. It is done at a scale ef ©ne 13 inch equals fifty feet. New, the interesting survey nete 14 hhat you sheeld pick up en is leek at the survey submitted with the applicatien, yeu will notice that there is a hatched area that ±s seuth ef the property line; that is the 16 road bed itself. What we Nave here is a read right ef way, which is approximately 50 feet 17 in width, and we have paved within that roadway, the read bed there is a paved read surface ef approximately 26 te 28 feet in length -- in width. This read en this particular area was net centered on the lot. Se what happens is the actual distance between the house and the read weuld net be 26, it will actually be 21 cleser te 50 or 52 feet, and that is because the read is not centered within the road bed. 22 Yeu will also note on the survey the adjacent dwelling to the west, and that is 23 similarly situated, although slightly further back frem the front let line. This is at the 24 curve en the road, and that causes a bit of a challenge te the placement of a heuse. 25 This heuse is unique in that because it's ©ne ef the last vacant lets~ we COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631} 818-8047 58 1 2 had to go through an extensive wetland process with the health department en it. What we 3 have received is a permit from the trustees identical to the survey before you, which 4 shows an extensive buffer between the house and the water. It's the only property in that 5 area that I'm aware of that features such a buffer. 6 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: As you can see -- I leaked at the trustee's permit, but I 7 don't recall them requiring a buffer. I think they required a hundred foot setback for the 8 sep£~c. 8ut the urusEees did net require this 50 feet 9 KR_ ANDERSON: It may net be printed on the application itself, but it is 10 required. The survey before the trustees is 21early the identical survey before you. And 11 DN that survey you will show proposed -- 2HAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I was curious 12 because I know they customarily do that. This lusu was nee the case when we looked at the 13 permi£. Bruce Hr. Anderson or Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce is fine. 14 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: I think the ~pplicatien is preuny clear. The question I 1~ had was if we turned the house a little could we gee that 26 feet ce come back a little 16 further and I see that it's not going to make any tifference. 17 MR. ANDERSON: Our biggest hardship here really was a wetland. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. I can see that, and we dc recognize that it is 19 lmperEanu no -- thaE 50 foot buffer is lmporean£ ~o the location ef the house which 20 appears co be 2entered around the limitations ef the environmental constraints. Se I 21 personally don'n have any questions about this application ~ this time. Let's see what the 22 Beard members have. Mrs. Oliva? BOARD HEMBER OLIVA: Hew high is 23 the house going ce be? MR. ANDERSDN: House is going te 24 be approximately 28 feet high. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Orlando? 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have a ques£1en. Am I cerrecn to assume that this is COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 59 2 The curb you were saying on Mill? HR. ANDERSON: Yes. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Se it's 26 feet from the property line, but it's mere 4 like 50 feet from the actual paved road. CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~: Yes, but the 5 Eewn could come along and pave it at any time. KR. ANDERSON: We hope not. We 6 like small roads. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Herning? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No ~uestiens. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And Hr. Geehringer. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much farther forward is this house going te 10 be, based upon the environmental constraints, from the existing houses on either side? 11 MR. ANDERSON: I'll put this in hhe record, but en our thing we have 12 identified, here's hew the house sits, and this is slightly closer 'cause the wetland 13 line is flagged by vegetation. The wetland line along the point, all this is bulkheaded, 14 and we have houses that are going to be, in some cases, 20 feet; we have variances that 1~ were granted close te 18 feet from the bulkhead which would constitute the wetland 16 line. Se we are further back. We do have the advantage ever some ef the lets in that these 17 lots are slightly deeper than, for example, this let (indicating). But I had thought when 18 I filed -- and what I usually do is see all the surrounding areas and see what types ef 19 variances were granted, and what I found was they all had to do with decks that were wide 20 because the houses existed, and when they built these houses, and it shews very clearly 21 here, they preferred te be as far away from the road and as close to the water as 22 possible. Se each and every house at least along the water line, the waterfront, is not 23 born with respective wetland setbacks and bulkhead setbacks. It's going to cause a 24 problem if they cheese te redevelop. CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: This is 25 closer to the read than most of them, perhaps it's a little further away from the bulkheaded COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6O 1 2 or wetland area. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because 3 it's ena turn; it's net going te be as easily recognizable and because of the fact that the 4 read bed is some 25 feet -- %% feet into the property -- 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If you leek at the survey you can see the dwelling next te 6 the house where it's located in comparison to this house, you'll see it leeks like -- 7 FR. ANDERSON: It's probably at 35 feet. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, I would say so. 9 MR. ANDERSON: Take this, I don't knew if you can see it from all the way back 10 here. I think it fits in fairly well. I'll also give you as far as size, I think it's 11 apparent when you leek at the aerial, these are the sizes that we were able to calculate, 12 and we're well within the range and below the ~verage size. But I think it's a fairly 13 well-suited application given the constraints 14 CHAIRWONLa~ TORTORA: I'm net sure you could construct anything that would be 1S snergy efficient less than 26 feet wide. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. 16 The depth the house -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You're at a 17 minimum new. Mr. Orlando. BOARD MEMBER ORhANDO: Am I safe 18 mo say that we probably won't see you here nexm year for a deck? 19 MR. ANDERSON: I don't think you'll see me because I think I will have an 20 extraordinarily difficult time with the DEC and mrusEees. If I'm successful there, you 21 mz~ht see me, but then that will be extraordinarily difficult, but it's going to 22 be very hard to do that because of the wetlands boundary because it would entail 21 violating a buffer and I'm not sure -- I don't understand why the trustees or the DEC would 24 gzve me such as a permit. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Let's 25 see if there's anyone in the audience that has any questions. Yes, please state your name COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 61 1 2 for the record. HS. SCHWIEBERT: Ann Schwiebert. 3 MS. KOWALSKI: Please spell your last name. % MS. SCHWIEBERT: Okay, S-C-H-W-I-E-B-E-R-T. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: Yes. MS. SCHWIEBERT: 1075 Mill Creek 6 Drive. I would like te knew why this 7 variance should be given for an entire dwelling when ether homes in the neighborhood 8 have been unable to get a variance for a small front perch where eno corner ef it was tee 9 close te the read? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: A variance 10 er a building permit? MS. SCHWIEBERT: I'm not sure en 11 that. But just because eno corner was too close to the read they couldn't de it. 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sounds like a building permit. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That would be a building permit. There have been ether 14 variances. MS. SCHWIEBERT: The other thing 15 is the property is a two story house? CHAIRWONLAN TORTORA: Correct. 16 MS. SCHWIEBERT: No ether house contiguous te it in the area is two stories. 17 BOARD MEMEER OLIVA: Everything else within that area is eno story? 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: At the current time there is ne limitation as far as 19 that is concerned. The current cede provides that the applicant can build two and a half 20 stories te an average height ef 35 feet, which in reality could be 45 feet. There is ne 21 variance required, that is the way the town cede currently reads. 22 MS. SCHWIEBERT: Hew far back from the water, what is the setback from the 23 water on this house? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 50 feet. 24 MR. ANDERSON: 50 from the wetland boundaries and the wetland boundary is 15 25 feet. MS. SCHWIEBERT: I thought you COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 62 1 2 had to be further back than that. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The only 3 thing is he is before us en is the front yard. Variance that's all. % MS. SCHWIEBERT: I still don't understand why that variance should be granted 5 when other people have been unable to put on a front porch on. That's all. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank yon very much. 7 HR. ANDERSON: Just a point ef reference, while it's true the house next deer 8 is eno story, this is a mix ef one and two story houses within the neighborhood. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to 10 speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a 11 motion -- yes, sir. MR. HAERR: My name is Karl 12 H-A-E R-R, K-A-R-L. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, 13 Mr. Haerr. MR. HAERR: I'm just a little 14 confused, maybe you can clarify this for me. We're talking about bulkheading and Hr. 15 Andersen, I believe, mentioned that most ef the properties around Arshamenack Pond have 16 bulkheading, and in the area where the proposal is most ef these are bulkheaded; did 17 I understand that correctly? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: He was 18 talking about -- he has a map. He was not talking about right there; he was talking 19 about further around the general perimeter. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: General 20 setbacks. MR. ANDERSON: There's no 21 bulkheading on this property. MR. HAERR: Okay, that was the 22 other question. The next thing, if he receives your approval am I clear then that 23 everything is go for him to proceed with building the proposed dwelling; all other 24 approvals have been received? MR. ANDERSON: No. If I may. If 25 you look at the well and septic system on the survey, we need to go to the health COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 63 1 2 department. That septic system is en the front let line. It's suppesed te be on the 3 frent line. ~e have put it there at the request of the tewn. The sec©nd thing is the % distance between that septic system and the proposed well is 69 feet. That distance is 5 suppesed te be a hundred. We have deep water aquifer, which I don't think we have now or 6 150 feet. What will happen is upon us making this applicatien, we will have to extend an 7 offer te deepen or relocate any©Ne else's well that is within a hundred or 150 feet ef ©ur $ pr©posed septic system, that is required by cedes. New, as it turns out, that will work 9 well for us because -- no pun intended -- because the greundwater flew is geing te be 10 towards the canal. Se we can arrange wells and septic systems so that they den't 11 contaminate ©ne anether. The only other thing envirenmentally that may be ef interest to 12 y©u, we do have a different scenarie than must of the heuses in the neighberheed because must 13 were designed with wells near the street and septic by the water because it's easier to 14 achieve a gravity flew system by putting yeur wells by the water -- the wetland -- it's 15 geared tewards relecating these septic systems as far fr©m the water as pessible. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: To answer your questien, if a neighbor refuses te have 17 their well rel©cated MR. ANDERSON: They can accept ~t 18 er net accept it. If they accept it, we are compelled te de it. If they reject it, it 19 deesn't mean that we still can't get ©ur variance, it's just by cede, sanitary cedE, 20 you must make a benafide effer. So when it cemes up t© beard ©f review I will be 21 sending -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's meve 22 aleng. Hr. Haerr, I did want to know your concerns, that's important. 23 MR. HAERR: It was invelved in the pr©cuss, probably mere than specifics, for 2% example, the points that Hr. Andersen raised ab©ut the well was an issue I wasn't geing to 25 bring that up today. I wanted te know whether the process was to the p©int where if yen COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 1 2 folks grant permission for this to proceed, does that mean he can build, and apparently 3 that's net the case. I've called a million offices trying to find that question out. I 4 was told if that group today gives him permission, that it was a goo Him being here 5 today means he has DEC's permission, building department's permission and he's ready. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You're net in opposition te it? 7 MR. HAERR: I'm net if all the rules like we're talking about 100 feet, 150 8 feet, what's te happen to our wells we're immediately to the east side ef this property, 9 and I want to make sure everything is taken care of. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TONTORA: The wells are important, and I think that's eno ei the 11 reasons that's net in our jurisdiction. MR. HAERR: I understand that. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's a catch-22 situation because if you move it 13 further, the house further back to the wetland, then you're impacting the 14 environment. The house is not certainly -- HR. HAERR: If it's not a 15 buildable property, then I don't want it te be made a buildable proper~y at the expense ef 16 the neighbors and the surrounding hemes. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You can 17 appear au The county when they have a beard ef review. 18 MR. HAERR: The county health tepar~men~, I was told by the health 19 deparemen~ that I 2ould not appear; that they never have the meeelngs open to the public. 20 I'm se cenfu~ed MR. ANDERSON: You will be 21 nctified by the heath iepartment. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You can go 22 because I've gone. CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Okay. 2! BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Are we closing the heerino or keeping it open? 24 CHAIRWOHAN TORTONA: Make a motion ~o 2lose. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in 2OURT REPORTING ANE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 65 1 2 favor. (Whereupon, all Board Members 3 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTOPd%: The last 4 hearing this morning is on behalf ef Alfred Hagill; is someone here? 5 MR. MAGILL: Yes, the applicant is here. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TOR~ORA: Okay. MR. HAGILL: My name is Alfred M. 7 Magill, H-A-G-I-L-L, my address is 700 Glen Court, Cutchegue. I'm here in reference te 8 11%5 Fleetwood Read for a setback rule under the grandfather clause ef waterfront property. 9 The building was probably established in the '30s. It was an addition to the garage in 10 approximately 1880s. The setback rule was net in effect at that time. The garage is 20.5 11 inches en the front by 28 feet long. I was given a building permit at that time in the 12 '80s for an extension on the garage. I don't believe that there was a final CO given. 13 had tried te have the building department come down and check the building out for 14 alterations. They said it needed extensive work and that the side towards the west was 15 bowed and it needed to be fixed en the roof and with the cellar beams and the rafters and 16 roof was sagging dewnl Bob Whalen was contracted by me as a professional engineer in 17 Hattituck te cema and assess the problem. And that's where I proceeded. 18 I have obtained a DEC letter ef nonjurisdictien, a trustee's permit and a 19 Water Authority permit from the Board of Health. Everything has been established where 20 the septic system will be. I have sent a letter te my neighbor to pay for installation 21 of her water, because we have street water, and new I am going te rebuild the garage, in 22 essence, and leave it unfinished upstairs en the second floor and leave it for storage. 23 I have a house at 700 Glen Court which has four bedrooms, two dens and a 24 finished basement, plus an attic full of stuff. I will be moving down to the creek 2S eventually, but I can use the storage for all my house. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 66 1 2 I called Jernick this morning and a girl by the name ef Janet said you'd need 3 about seven containers, which would be about $4,500 a year to put in storage. I have some % photos for the Beard. They contacted me en Monday to get a held ef my architect, Chuck 5 Thomas, who I couldn't get a hold el. He was in Manhattan. ~ut I have some rough pictures 6 and some heights and also preliminary drawings ef the building, which will compliment the 7 garage; it's two gable ends. The pictures I will submit to the Board, if I can approach 8 the bench. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, 9 certainly. MR. HAGILL: They asked for 10 pictures en Monday, and they asked for information on Chuck Thomas. At that time I 11 called the secretary, and he was out of town. Here's the picture of the house in the 12 back, and you notice by the grade ef the property, the height I used two by four by 13 eight. Per the record, I have indicated 14 en the photos to the Beard, several shots where the two by four is referenced and 15 heights illustrating the corners and the peak. Also the setback on the front at 14 16 feet plus and 18.5 en the west side. The setback line en the west side, which was 17 established and probably 1930s plus with my family was about three foot nine inches, give 18 or take. The grade ef the property runs uphill and there's probably a foundation in 19 the back, probably three foot high. Anyway, we're going te rebuild the 20 existing garage. They asked for the location ef the stairs. The stairs would be towards 21 the back of the door coming in, would be inside. And I also applied for a half-bath, 22 as I get te be 60, yen ge te the bathroom more times outside, so going in the house with 23 dirty feet on our new rugs and floor, so it weuid be nice to have a garage with a half 24 bath. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Any 25 pictures of the floor plan? HR. MAGILL: The fleer plan on COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 67 1 2 Item 5 on the application instructions said the permit of sketch of the outside of the 3 building or a floor plan, and I hod complied with that and I had called on Monday. I tried 4 to call Chuck Thomas's office; he was in Hanhattan with clients, and i said I only have 5 the top plan of the building and I submitted the drawings te the Beard in April. 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We have these. 7 MR. MAGILL: Excuse me? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We have 8 the drawings. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have the 9 drawings. We just have first floor plans; we don't have anything for the second floor. 10 HR. MAGILL: Right. Under the application, I was under the impression, when 11 I went down te check several times, that the application was completed. I had a call on 12 Monday from the Board to get a view ef the second floor and where the stairs would go and 13 the height, and I submitted the photos. I was unable te get a held of Chuck Thomas. I 14 called his secretary about ten times. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's stop 15 here. We do have a letter from the neighbor on the file, and the letter's concerned that 16 because the second fleer is 22 feet te the ridge, and we don't have any floor plans, 17 they're very concerned that that could be used as an accessory apartment. 18 MR. MAGILL: At the present time, I have no plans for an accessory apartment. I 19 have roughed-out, I have all the storage when I sell my house~ I'll need te put the stuff in 20 storage, and the fact is, I've get probably $5,000 a year in storage charge from Jernick, 21 plus $140 an hour to move it. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you plan 22 en living in the garage at any time? MR. HAGILL: I plan en living in 23 the house, which I have my plans from Chuck Thomas, which you'll see the front elevations 24 in front of you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. De you 25 plan en living in the garage at any time er having anyone live in the garage at any time? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 68 1 2 HR. HAGILL: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's your 3 house, isn't it? MR. MAGILL: Excuse me? 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It is your house? 5 MR. MAGILL: Yes. It was my house; it was my grandmother's house and 6 they've owned the property since 1938 er 1930, before I was bern. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I guess the Beard wants an answer yes er ne, because if 8 the Board grants a variance en this, will you accept a condition that the garage will net be 9 used for habitation of any kind? MR. MAGILL: That sounds fine. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And the Beard will reserve the right te come and make 11 inspections te make sure that that is not the case. 12 MR. HAGILL: That sounds okay. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that acceptable? 14 HR. HAGILL: Sure, that's fine. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Let's 15 see if there's anyone in the audience who has any questions or comments. Yes, ma'am. 16 MS. CAMPBELL: Name is Annette Campbell and I sent the letter, the fax there, 17 and I spoke te Linda Kewalski, and I sent copies ef the garage, the second level, and I 18 was concerned with the size ef the second level. 19 The house is being built. Our homes are approximately a driveway, a normal 20 driveway apart, and I was concerned the house is, of course, it's a two story house, and I 21 understand that and I'm willing te work with A1 concerning the space between the two and 22 changing the division between our property because it has te be that way for his home te 23 be erected, and I also was concerned that the garage -- you have the two story house then 24 you have a two story garage, and I didn't knew the necessity for it because you have two big 25 dwellings ena certain small piece of property, and I didn't think it looked COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SENVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 appropriate in that space. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The garage 3 according to the plans that Mr. Magill has submitted is 22 feet to the ridge; is that 4 accurate Mr. Magill? HR. MAGILL: 18 feet to the 5 bottom part and 22 feet to the peak, to match the gable end en the front. The 18 feet is on 6 the side which Chuck Thomas put en the side there. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would you accept a condition ne higher than 22 feet to 8 the top of the ridge? MR. MAGILL: Yes. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would that be acceptable te you? 10 MS. C}~PBELL: That still means it's a second story. We're talking about, 11 what, a one feet difference in that second story? 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's net net permitted in the code, though, and he is 13 net here as a result ef that. He's net here -- he has not been cited far that. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: He's here only for the front yard variance. At the 15 present time the cede allows him te build a garage en that site. 16 HS. CAMPBELL: That size property, that close to the neighboring yard? 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes HS. CAMPBELL: Then he s having 18 twa, two story buildings ena small space. It's like a, you knew, a neighborhood 19 in Queens where you're just a row house, and he's got this big 22 feet house right behind 20 it. He has another, you know, higher, which I accept, that's going te be his hame, I assume 21 that. But if it was storage but that furniture in his other house would cema into 22 his new home. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Are you 23 concerned primarily about the height ef the accessory garage? 24 MS. CAMPBELL: Yes, I am. I am very concerned about it. I think it's 25 visually incorrect in such a small spot. And if it's net allowed to be a second dwelling, I COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 ?0 1 2 de net understand the necessity far it. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's 3 definitely net geiNg to be a sec©nd dwelling. Is there a compromise we can reach ~ here, Mr. Magill? Because it is a substantial size garage, and it is a very narrew let. 5 It's in one ©f our elder subdivisiens in the tewn that has been rather heavily impacted by 6 a lot ©f building en small lets. Is there some sert of compremise we can werk ©ut? 7 HR. MAGILL: I would like yeu to look at the reef line that's on the 8 existing garage and try te compliment the structure tNat I'm putting up en the back, 9 which it goes on the gable ends, and I can't say if I can change the whale thing around 10 without talking te an architect. If the present law states tNat you can build your 11 garage applying for the setback rule -- is that cerrect, en the variance? 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yeu are. But the Board can set limitatiens en it, se 13 y©u're not needing the frent yard setback for that, histerically the Board has full 14 autherity te limit the height on the structure because yeu're net meeting the frent yard 15 setback. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Ma'am 16 Chair, perhaps we would censider a t©tal height ef 18 feet, just a suggestien. 17 BOARD MEHBER ORLANDO: Being se close eff the road, it's very intimidating, 22 18 feet. We were all there to see the site. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's small. 19 MR. MAGILL: Right, I understand. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sir, if yeu 20 could see, if yeu ceuld accemplish yeur purpese with a tetal height ©f 18 feet and get 21 back te us en that suggestion, we'd appreciate it. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That would mean we're geing to leave this ©pen. 23 MS. KOWALSKI: They weald like to knew if you are willing to lewer the height to 24 18 feet maximum. MR. MAGILL: Can I get back to 25 my architect and get back to you next meeting? I really den't knew what the drawing weuld COURT REPORTING AND TPIkNSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 71 1 2 look like or how he could do it. We can come back again maybe to the meeting towards 3 September and review; is that possible? MS. KOWALSKI: There's no 4 available meeting until October 23rd. CHAIRWONLa~ TORTORA: You're really S 1% feet off of -- BO~D MEMBER HORNING: Hew about 6 special meetings, are they all beaked? MS. KOWALSKI: They're all 7 beaked. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What if 8 we - just throwing it out there, I'd be accepting te 22 feet te the ridge but removing 9 the reverse gables? MR. MAGILL: Hew about removing 10 the reverse gable on her side and leave the ether gable, er what could we de for a trade 11 off? I mean, perhaps leave that end a flat reef and then put a gable en the ether side; 12 or perhaps change the design, I will talk during the week, er I really don't know how it 13 will conform with the ether house. If I'm spending e lot of money out there, I would 14 like it to leek uniform from the front with the garage also with the house. 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yen're going te keep the existing foundation? 16 MR. MAGILL: Ne - on the garage, yes, the existing foundation has been 17 established there. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You're 18 keeping it; it's net going to be demolished? MR. HAGILL: Yes. And the 19 garage will be rebuilt in kind, and beefed up te pass the CO ef the town because the back 20 wall and the roof are setting down. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 21 question that Madam Chairwoman had was that the garage will be demolished and then 22 rebuilt. MR. MAGILL: Ne. It will be 23 rebuilt from what I believe in kind. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's still 24 being rebuilt? HR. HAGILL: It's being 25 rebuilt. The eno side ef it is being bowed out but it's being rebuilt in kind on the same COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 72 1 2 basic footprint MS. KOWALSKI: Mr. Magill, would 3 you be able te send us an alternative plan, after speaking to your architect, send it by 4 mail? HR. MAGILL: I can bring it down 5 and do something. Give him time, the man is busy. I've been trying te get a held ef him. 6 He was away sailing and he's been in New York; I tried te get a hold ef him this week, but I 7 will try to work with the Board to whatever they require and to keep an alternative plan. 8 MS. KOWALSKI: Then you wouldn't have to come back. You could de it by mail. 9 MR. MAGILL: Fine. CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Would you 10 make sure that Mrs. Campbell receives a copy ef the plans? 11 MR. MAGILL: Sure. What does the plan have te be? I don't follow that. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We're trying te mitigate that you're 14 feet from the 13 road. It's a very heavily developed area. The impact of a two story structure, 14 feet 14 from the read are of concern; that is Mrs. Campbell's concern; am I accurate? 15 MS. CAMPBELL: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That is the 16 Board's concern. Se we are looking for you te reduce the height of that structure and to 17 reduce the overall impact ef it. The setback for that structure is 35 feet. We recognize 18 that there is a structure there that you're going to be replacing, that's 14 feet; 19 however, you are replacing it with a much larger, mere substantial structure that's 20 going te stick out much mere; that's the Beards' concern; that's your neighbor's 21 concern. Modify it, come back with something we'll accept along these lines and te the 22 neighbor. So I strongly would urge you te have geed communications with Mrs. Campbell. 23 Try to be good neighbors and work this out. HS. CAMPBELL: We are. 24 CPAAIRWOHAN TORTORA: I think there is a compromise that you can reach 25 here. Se we're going te close the COURT REPORTING AND TP~INSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 73 1 2 Nearing te verbatim testimony, and we -- hew long would you like -- Hr. Hagill, hew long 3 would you like to submit some new plans? MR. HAGILL: When do they need 4 te be cemm±tted? CHAIRWONLAN TORTORA: We will leave 5 it up to you. Just give us -- do you need a month, do you need six weeks? 6 MR. HAGILL: Knowing the architect's schedule, which is definitely 7 busy, it's very hard te get through, I'd like to leave myself a little bit of an open end on 8 the ether end because they never respond to your calls and things are slow. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would you like te say by October lst? 10 HR. MAGILL: By the end of October I'd definitely have something. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TONTORA: By the end ef October? 12 MR. MAGILL: Or the middle of October, that would be great. Does that sound 13 geed? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Why don't we 14 say by October 15th; hew dues is that sound? MN. MAGILL: That sounds 15 wonderful. It probably will be before but that gives me leeway. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That way the two of you can ge ever them, and we can reach 17 something that I think we'll all be happy with. 18 MR. MAGILL: Amd what is the limit ef parameters we're working with? We're 19 working with the same basic footprint, correct? 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Same basic footprint, we're concerned with the height. I 21 really think there's a consensus on this Board fur an 18 feet height limit. Se I would 22 strongly urge you te submit a couple ef designs along that line. 23 HR. MAGILL: Okay. These can be rough pencil sketches, rough drawings from 24 an architect, and then we'll discuss it. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They don't 25 have to be -- HR. HAGILL: Just pencil sketches? COURT REPORTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's fine, Thank you. 3 MR. MAGILL: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going te 4 offer that motion to close it to verbatim. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And to allow Mr. Magill to October 15th to submit various 6 sketches and revised plans. And, Mrs. Campbell, if you would like to comment on 7 them, you are certainly welcome. Thank you very much. $ That concludes the regularly scheduled hearings for the morning. I make a 9 motion te recess for lunch. Was there a second on that motion? 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. 11 (Whereupon, all Board Hembers responded in favor.} 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'd like to call the afternoon session. 13 WhereupDn, ~ lunch recess was taken from 12:30 p.m. ~e 1:05 p.m 14 CHAIRWOM}~ TORTORA: Motion to reoonvene. 15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Se moved. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in 16 favor. Whereupon. ~11 Beard Members 17 responded in favor. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The first 18 hearing is en behalf ef Benjamin and Patricia Calderene. Is there someone here who would 19 like ee speak en behalf }f the application? MR. MAHLER: My name is John 20 Hahler. HS. KOWALSKI: Spell your last 21 name, please. MN. MAHLEN: M-A-H-L-E-R. I'm 22 the applicant's architect. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What would 23 you like uo tell us? MR. MAHLER: I would like to 24 express Mr. Calderone's need for this addition. Mr. 2alderene has Parkinson's 25 disease, and his dauohter would like te be able Eo move lnuo the home uo better take care COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 631) 878-8047 75 1 2 ef her parents. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just to get a 3 few things clear, you are applying for -- I'm net quite sure, you're applying for a variance 4 or a special exception? HR. MAHLER: It's my 5 understanding it's a special exception for the two family. 6 MS. KOWALSKI: That's not what we advertised 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Whet is what de you want? 8 MR. MAHLER: We would like te de an addition te add a partial second story te 9 the house that would consist ef two bedrooms, a living room, a separate kitchen and a 10 bathroom, have a separate entrance into the second story. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So it would not be for a two-family. It would be for the 12 husband and the wife reside in the house, and it's my understanding from reading the 13 application that the daughter would like te be able to help her parents. 14 HR. MAHLER: Correct. CHAIRWO?%AN TORTORA: So the 15 upstairs apartment, it would simply be for her? 16 HR. HAHLER: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I didn't see 17 any -- let's just go through a couple ef things. I didn't see any plans on the survey 18 for additional parking, er any plans for the parking; is there sufficient area for 19 additional parking? MR. MAHLER: There is definitely 20 sufficient area. I'm just going to leek at the size ef the driveway te see if that's 21 adequate for the size we have. MS. KORHOSKI: There's a two car 22 garage new. Would you like me to speak? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. 23 MS. KORHOSKI: Cathleen with a 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And you are? MS. KORHOSKI: And the last name 25 is K-O-R-M-O-S K-I. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 K-O-R-H-O-S-K-I? MS. KORMOSKI: Yes. Calderene 3 Kermeski. CHAIRWOM}kN TORTORA: And you're 4 the daughter. MS. KORMOSKI: I'm the daughter. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You're the daughter that wants to take care of mom and 6 dad? MS. KORMOSKI: Correct. There's a 7 two car garage and a double wide driveway now and they only have one vehicle; so there's 8 more than enough room for my vehicle. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Se we're not 9 looking at a request for a two family dwelling; we're looking fur a recuest for eno 10 family te all be able te live together. MS. KORMOSKI: Correct. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Looking down the read at some point, would you have any 12 objections to a condition being placed on here that, you knew, if you ge te sell the place or 13 whatever, it would revert, the use ef that; there would be a sunshine clause, that if you 14 left the house, if you sold the house that that would not be a rented space? 15 HS. KORHOSKI: I don't have a problem with that. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Any problem with that, Mr. er Mrs. Calderene? 17 MS. KORHOSKI: Ne. More than likely the house would stay in the family. 18 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: That's what we're interested iN here because the size of 19 the lot, the special exception for a two family, would be a very large variance. So I 20 did read through your file; it's quite complete, and I really don't have any 21 questions. If you're willing te accept the condition that if you decide te sell the 22 property, that you would net rent it out, MS. KORMOSKI: Not a problem. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Mr. Herning. 24 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Am I to believe the fact that we do net have an 25 application fur special exception before us right new? COURT REPORTING ~D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 77 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Not for two family, no. 3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Also on beth the maps, surveys I have, I can't find 4 the driveway nor the garage; is that unierneath the house? 5 MS. KORHOSKI: Ne. You should ~lso have a copy of the original plan. 6 BOARD HEHBER HORNING: Ail set, ~11 set. Thank you. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs. Oliva? BOARD MEHBER OLIVA: Ne. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Hr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. I am looking at the original plans ef your house ~nd I guess you changed the things en this 10 plan shewing what you want te de. MS. KORHOSKI: On the bottom 11 floor, you mean, the original ranch? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. 12 MS. KORHOSKI: Okay, that was ~he original designer's - builder's 13 plan. There are some things that are on my parent's house that are net on that plan, such as the front perch. We didn't change anything en the main fleer, that's as-is. That might 15 be a couple of little sketches or scratches en the original plan. 16 HR. ORLANDO: You have an existing ranch now; you want to put a second story on 17 it. HS. KORHOSRI: Only partial, 18 which basically would be ever the garage and part ef the kitchen and dining room. It's 19 only 964 square feet that we're adding. Two small bedrooms, a small kitchen/living area 20 and two baths. BOARD HEHBER ORLANDO: And who 21 will be living upstairs? HS. KORHOSKI: Me and my sen, 22 who's 19 and hopefully ready to leave home sooN. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Good luck. Let's see if anyone in the audience has any 24 questions. Is there anyone in the audience who would like te speak in favor or against 25 this application? Is there anyone who would like te make any comments about this COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 78 1 2 application? Seeing no hands, I'm going te make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 3 decision until later. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. 5 (Whereupon, all Beard Members responded in favor.) 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much for coming in. 7 The next hearing is in behalf ef Paul Pawlowski and Reflecting Nature 8 Landscaping. Is there anyone here who would like te speak on behalf of that application? 9 Good morning, er afternoon. Please state your name for the record, sir? 10 MR. PAWLOWSKI: My name's Paul Pawlowski, en behalf of Reflecting Nature 11 Landscaping. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What would 12 you like te tell us about your application? MR. PAWLOWSRI: This application 13 is for special use for a contractor's yard and special exception for setbacks from 60 -- from 14 100 te 60 feet from the road. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Tell us a 15 little bit about your business, Mr. Pawlewski. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Basically 16 Reflecting Nature Landscaping is all landscape matters, landscape construction and landscape 17 maintenance. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We do have a 18 note in the file here. Let me just get out the right eno, from the planning beard. The 19 planning board has reviewed this; apparently there has been a public hearing en this and 20 they're kind ef waiting for us te comment en it. 21 HR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm looking 22 for the right -- just give me a moment here. I did have a couple ef questions 23 right off the bat, and that is why you did net, because the property's kind of an 24 irregular shaped -- MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. 25 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: First ef all, why you didn't center the building mere te the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 79 1 2 center ef the property, rather than having it te the north property line, which is a 3 residential property? HR. PAWLOWSKI: It was basically, 4 when it was -- the site plan was made up, I believe it was 'cause ef setbacks and buffers 5 as far as tNe north and south sides, there was no real reason for it, and it also had te de 6 with there's a curb cut in place already, se hew you would enter into the building it's 7 already there. Se we had te like set up far that tee, the south side ef the building is 8 where you would enter into the parking area. Se we were trying te work elf the original 9 curb cut. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That is a 10 developed residential let te the north? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Te the north, 11 yes. That's who I purchased the property off of. 12 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Because the property to the south is already commercially 13 zoned, you knew, that was kind ef the ~uestien, why not closer te the commercial 14 proper~y rather than the residential zoned property. You answered the question, it's 15 because ef the way the curb cut, but I don't think it would be that much more difficult te 16 kind ef redesign it to move it over a little bit. That was the first concern that I had, 17 ~nd the obvious thing I did read through all Df your submittals and the obvious question is 18 why can't you meet the 100 feet setback? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Actually, this 19 has been in the planning board for 15 months, ~nd i wasn't even aware. We had submitted it, 20 ~nd we actually had a few meetings before I submitted the site plan, which went over 21 setbacks and every requirement se we would make our site plan to what the requirements 22 are. Net until the public hearing, the morning ef the public hearing, was I made 23 aware ef the proper setback of 100 feet, which is 1% months later. 2% CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Did you initially have the plans reviewed by the 25 building department? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. Well, I'm COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 8O 1 2 not sure, Victor, or the planning board had them, like I said, for 14 months, almost 15, 3 and they had a few work sessions. We had three to four work sessions on the whole site % plan; everything was fine, and, like I said, I wasn't even aware. I know ignorance is -- 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's unfortunate. Probably it occurred because the 6 plans were probably net reviewed by the building department. 7 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Probably. CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Because the 8 planning beard does not generally review setbacks and so en and se forth. Se the 9 answer is? HR. PAWLOWSKI: Well, the answer 10 is since I've been waiting this long and the house is next te the residential lot, and the 11 building, they're very close to 60 feet from the read and also the whole purpose is te have 12 things parked, my trucks parked behind the building. It's net going te be for retail, i 13 don't need the space up front. I'd rather have Ehe space in the back. 1% CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You have quite a geed area in the back. 15 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What are you 16 doing? HR. PAWLOWSKI: It's all parking 17 and then a few ~uffer zones ef lawn, you knew, corrugated stone. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The corner up there, that triangular piece that abuts the 19 deli property; what are you putting up there? HR. PAWLOWSKI: Nothing, 20 really. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So, really 21 you could move it back 100 feet, if you wanted to? 22 MR. PAWLOWSKI: I could, but it's also how the property is, 40 feet is quite a 23 bi~ of land. So that's why I'm putting in for the variance and the site plan's already set 2% up for the original -- what we expected to be to code, so to have to go back and change the 25 site plan, the cost of the variance is a lot cheaper than doing the entire site plan and COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 81 1 2 the 1% months. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Probably 3 going £o have £o be modified anyway. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Eithe~ modified 4 Dr completely 2han~ed from health department, you know, the rzpple effect ~s a let ~ different. 2Hi%IRWDHAN TORTORA: Unfortunately 6 hhe unwieldy process ef permznning ends up in many, many changes_ 7 MR. PAWLOWSKI: We've done probably about 2{ 2hanges Ee that site plan te 8 ge£ pre~Ey much ~p~reval ~c the planning beard; everybody was in shDck when the setback 9 wasn'E cerrecE. As far as going from 60 to 100 feet. with my business it's better te be 10 able Eo eurn around in the back parking area, that would leave me more room in the back part 11 ef the building. The front pare is just for landscaping, it's completely screened. 12 BOARD HEMBEN ORLANDO: You already have an existing wall up there? 1i MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this lot 14 completely ~leared? When I was there there was 8 hedge row in the back. Is that your 15 proper~y line? HR. PAWLOWSKI: Yeah, the 16 residential side. there's existing cedars, that s mine. The 30 foot. that's screening 17 residential side. In the back, most east side ef the ~reperEy, that's ~ hedge row, that's 18 mine and north side. which covers Wendy's deli -- 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's your boundaries then? 20 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOM}~ TORTORA: Take some 21 questions from the ~oard members first. Hr. Horning? 22 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Again, your stated intention is te run a landscaping 23 business from this premises, correct? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. Just 2% basically stere my equipment and trucks. BOARD HEMBER HORNING: What's the 25 purpose ef your office then? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Office work. COURT REPORTING AND TNANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 82 I 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Are you having clients come and look at landscape 3 designs, et cetera? MR. PAWLOWSKI: No. 4 BOARD MEMBER MORNING: Ail of this parking is for who? 5 MR. PAWLOWSKI: My company. That's what's required as far as ef£ice space; 6 that's basically straight from the cede beak what we needed to have for requirement. 7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Because under that code, I believe the expectation is 8 customers and clients would be on premises to look at things er purchase things or whatever. 9 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yeah. There's nothing to be purchased there. I guess if 10 it's office space in it, and it's considered a landscape warehouse, then that's what it's 11 for. From day eno the wording was always en the site plan se 14 months later it's because 12 ef - BOARD MEMBER MORNING: Well, 13 because if a dentist has an office, his cusmomers come there. 14 HR. PAW~OWSKI: Yes, exactly. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Now many 15 employees are in your company? HR. PAWLOWSKI: Five. 16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Where will they park? 17 MR PAWLOWSKI: In the back. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Hr. 18 Geehrinoer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 19 Pawlewski, you seem to be a very nice gentleman. What i have te say te you is 20 something that concerns me greatly, and that ms I ge by this property at least four times a 21 day. The place is being used like a transfer smatien. I can see why you want te have as 22 much ream mn the back because when you bring the tuk grinder in te grind all the stumps you 23 have back ehere. You're using this property as an industrial use ena limited business 24 ~reperuy. It's very difficult for me te understand this; de y©u want te explain it? 25 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Sure. Right now, basically the property it's eno acre, just COURT REPORTING AND FRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 83 1 2 cleared, and I'm using it until the building's up te recycle the stumps from my 3 business. That won't be the issue once the building's up because it won't be able -- the 4 space won't be suitable for what I'm doing. So that's basically it. Ail the 5 stumps and brush there's nothing else besides organic material there. It's just being 6 recycled back into mulch. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGE~: Where 7 are all the stumps going te go if this is granted? 8 MR. PAWLOWSKI: They'll go to the dumps, where they've been going for the last 9 seven years. This is only the first year because I just purchased the property and 10 it's -- one, you can't just dump on the parking -- the landscaping that I'm going to 11 have and the building, and, you knew, there's nothing there, se I was using the land for 12 something until the building's built. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you 13 going to put existing proposed nursery stock in there? 14 MR. PAWLOWSKI: No. It's not large enough. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what is the back going to be used for? 16 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Parking. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Parking 17 and storage? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Not storage. We 18 have five large trucks and trailers, se that's what will be back there. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you won't be able to see this from the read? 20 MR. PAWhOWSKI: Net at all. There's a compuEer image. You barely even see 21 the roof of the building. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we 22 have that computer image? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ne. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need that. 24 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Sure. But, thanks for saying I'm a nice guy, but it's net 25 going to be an industrial use let once the building's up. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 84 1 2 BOAR~ MEMBER GOEHRINGER~ Se then all we're going ce see, based upen what we are 3 ~olng ~o gran~, is a building with parking for yeur help, with a smee plan that will place 4 all sf your trucks mn back ef that? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Absolutely. ~ BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And no more transfer s£stlon? 6 MR. NAWLOWSKI: No, sir. Not at all. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No tub grinder~ ne asphalt grinders, ne prep ~ grinders, nc cemen~ bleck? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Ne. The tub ~ grinder itself takes up more reem than the building would. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I knew, I've seen lU ons~me. Thank you. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Orlando. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No 12 quesulens. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs. Oliva. 13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: My question again ms. what are yeu going te de with that 1% land in the back? HR PAWLOWSKI: I know it's a 15 nice size preperty, but by the time that yeu move in and circle areund with the trucks that 16 we have, it's really not that much, to be honest. 17 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Ne tub grinders, no shredders. 18 HR. PAWLOWSKI: They weuldn't even be able te fit threugh the driveway, the 18 gate that's going te be en the site plan, en the premises. 20 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Ail right. I have ene other questien. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So yeu're aware we're net geing te grant this 22 until we see this cemputer imaging? MR. PAWLOWSKI: The cemputer 23 image is somewhere in this building. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We ceme 24 here to grant minimum relief necessary. We're looking at a ratNer large parcel that could 25 easily accommodate a conforming sited building; tell us again why yeu cannot meet COURT REPORTING i~ND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 85 1 2 the town cede and site the building according te conforming setbacks? 3 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Of course, if I have to meet the town cedes I will, not a ~ question, not a problem. With the neighboring properties, where they sit, where Wendy's 5 sits, it's only 60 feet off the road, that's why, so I wouldn't think bringing that 6 property that 40 feet closer te the read would create an eye sore whatsoever. I BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is she in the same type ef zeno even; is it zoned the 8 same? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Ne. Wendy's ~ deli, it came off the same subdivision, LB, the residential isn't. But, again, 10 understand it's nice te keep a line all the way dawn the street ef correct distances. I 11 was even working within that in the original idea. 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It depends if they are preexisting or not. 13 HR. PAWLOWSKI: I'm sure it is. As far as, I'm working to get this variance, 1% which I don't think -- BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It doesn't 15 seem like you have a very good rational reason as you cema before us for the variance, te 16 tell you the truth. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Again, I'm sure 17 I'll be able te work with it. I just was made aware of this a few months age, after 14 18 months, after the site plan has been reviewed numerous times. Se I~m trying to stick with 19 my eriginai site plan and work with it before I have to spend another $6,000 far another 20 site plan. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Mistakes 21 can be costly. MR. PAWLOWSKI: It wasn't my 22 mistake. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank 23 you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: Any more 24 questions? Let's see if there's any questions fram the audience. Is there anyone in the 25 audience who would like te speak in favor or against this application? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 86 2 Mr. Pawlowski, if you could get that computer imaging for us, that would be 3 good. Essentially we have a couple options here. We're asking for a special exception, 4 ~e requires a special exception as well, as well as the setback variance. So, eno ef the 5 things that is very key to the special exception is the use going te be in harmony 6 witN the neighborhood, and because this is an LB zoned property that abuts a residential district, we de have to take extra precauti©ns. That's one ef the things we really have to lo©k at, and that's why we're quizzing you very carefully about the tub grinder, about why can't you move it a little bit and so en and so forth. So what we will 10 t© is I think we're going te close the hearing ~nd reserve decision, and if you would get 11 that rendering for us, that would be very ~eed. 12 MR. PAW~OWSKI: No problem. CHAIRWOHAN TORTOP~: Is there 13 anything else you would like te add? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Before I purchased the property from the neighbor -- CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: The fellow 15 that has the house? HR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. I told them 16 my intentions. They're fully aware and okay with everything. Wendy's deli is completely 17 okay with it. Lieb Farms is okay with it, and hhe auto mechanic behind me is CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The property that abuts you, the Adam's property, I guess, 19 that would be te the east? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. 26 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's also residential? 21 MR. PAWLOWSKI: No, LB. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Se the LB 22 exeends Wendy's deli, your property and the property behind that in a kind of L shape 23 there? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. Ail three 24 sides except for the n©rth residential side is an LB, I think ~ieb might be, I'm not sure. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Lieb is residential toe. COURT REPORTING AND TPd~NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 $0%7 81 1 2 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Ail is LB except for the residential, who I bought it off of, 3 and they knew what's going on. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 4 very much. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Thanks for your 5 ~ line. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'll make a 6 motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision until later. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOHAN TORTOP~A: Ail in favor. 8 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion narried. 10 The next hearing is en behalf ef Michael and Cathy Lehrhoff. Is there somebody 11 here who would like to speak on behalf ef the application? 12 MR. LEHRHOFF: I'm Michael Lehrheff. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: What can you hell us, or what would you like te tell us? 14 MR. LEHRHOFP: We were put in a difficult situation with this deck. We had a 15 fire a year age February, and there had been some damage to the deck. The deck is original 16 Eo the house. It's 28 years age. It's a redwood deck, er it was a redwood deck, and it 17 had started te decay. When we had the fire there was some remediatien work done te it. l~ You folks were kind enough to grant me a variance for my home; we decided to move 19 forward with that and start part of that renovation in November of this past year. 26 When the contractor came to the house, we were surveying the area ef what we 21 were going te be doing, and he looked at the deck, and, you know, he said -- 22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Which deck? MR. L~HRHOFP: The original deck 23 Ec the house. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: On the 24 south side? MR. LEHRHOFF: Yes. 25 C~AIRWOMAN TORTORA: On the west side? COURT REPORTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 88 1 2 MR. LEHRHOFF: West side, yes. He looked at it, we looked at it 3 together, and he felt that, and at the time it was sort of apropos, he felt if we had a very 4 bad winter with freezes and rain and snow, et cetera, that's how bad it was. That I could 5 have a situation where that deck would possibly collapse, that's hew bad that deck 6 was. It was a redwood dec~ where - and it was literally, structurally, it was gone. 7 CWAIRWOHAN TORTORA: This is the eno the Board had approved you to replace? 8 HR. LEHRHOFF: No. This gets back to a little situation with me and my 9 architect. I had thought originally it was included, but it wasn't. Be it as it may, it 10 wasn't. Because if you leek at what we've done what you had granted us, basically the 11 deck ~s ~u existed now, sort ef flows out of the work that if you've been out at the 12 house, I ion't know if anyone's been out to look ~u it, but it fits in with what we 13 h~ve. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It is rather 14 confusing because what we had previously approved, there was guing to be an additiom on 15 the north side. MR. LEHRHOPP: Which we did -- 16 I'm sorry. On hhe ~arage side of it, we haven'£ done you. We did the bump out to the 17 dining area, which is new complete, the house has a new roof. some sf the sidieg's been 18 lone. which was all approved° CPLA_IRWOHAN TORTOHA: If you look 19 a£ what the Beard approved, and what's there now, it's substantially different, and I guess 20 ~u's a little lisceuraging for us because ~ recall we were very sympathetic to you, and we 21 were -- we looked au the project and we said ~t really is a hardship, 22 HR. LEHRHOFF: Again -- CHAIRWOM}~ TORTORA: And. we made 23 ~very effort ee accommodate you, and then here. e year later, we come back and what we 24 approved was nee built, and there are exuenslons, tuck exuensions that were not 25 ~pproved that ars built, and here you are back again with this stuff that was never approved. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 89 1 2 So if there's an explanation, I think as a courtesy, the Board would like to here it. 3 HR. LEHRHOFF: That's a main entrance into my house. Se I had ne choice. 4 That deck had to come back down or someone potentially could have been injured. So the 5 deck had te come down. Ail the work that you approved that we've done has been 6 approved. It's only the deck that has been built that was net approved. Again, at the 7 time when I originally - when we made this application, the architect, I thought the 8 architect had included this; it wasn't. It's my problem, but that was the case. 9 When we went to rebuild this deck -- and again, I will apologize -- I 10 didn't think that the extension, the small extension te the -- and forgive me, but te the 11 outside ef the house, the little piece that we added on was going te he a problem. I didn't 12 realize that it was basically so close again te the property line. 13 Let me give you this as well. This is a letter that was sent to me that my 14 neighbor had asked me te deliver. Hy neighbor asked me te deliver this; this is the only 15 neighbor that can see the deck at all. I've also enclosed a copy ef the letter when I sent 16 out the notice to the people that were involved. 17 You're one hundred percent right that we did do changes te this area that were 18 not approved, but they weren't asked te be approved, which is something I thought had 19 been done but had not been done. CHAIRWOMAN TORTONA: On the new 20 plan -- because we're either going to totally rescind the prior approval en this and start 21 from scratch en what is, until we get te where you're at. This proposed extension where you 22 had the garage under the north -- MR. LEHRHOPP: Right. That work 23 has net been done yet. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is it going 24 to be done? MR. LBHRHOFF: It may be done; 25 it's actually become a financial situation right now. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 9O 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What we're looking at the as-built, does not really 3 reflect the total scope ef the project because under the prior appeal, you had been given 4 permission for that proposed extension; is that correct? 5 MR. LEHRHOFF: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So the house 6 would be a lot larger than it is now? MR. LEHRHOFF: I don't think the 7 issue with this particular property is the size. There's plenty ef room going east and 8 west of the house. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's an 9 impact to the variance that's what it is. MR. LEHRHOFF: I'm sorry? 10 CHAIRWOR~N TORTORA: Mere building, the greater the impact of the 11 variance; that's why we would like te knew what the whole picture is. 12 MR. LEHRHOFF: I can't tell you today that I'm going to build the addition to 13 the living side of the house. I'm working on the financial side ef that. It's about 14 $200,000 worth ef work. CHAIRWOM}~ TORTORA: Mrs. Oliva. 15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'm a little speechless. You're telling me that back deck 16 that yen have en your side previously approved and permitted is the eno where you had the 17 fire? MR. LEHRHOFF: I'm sorry, the 18 deck, the side ef the house where the deck is there was a fire there. 19 It was e~ the outside; it was an electrical fire; it was in the wall and it 20 i affected part of the deck. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Would you 21 come up and just show me where? MR. LEHRHOFP: Sure. 22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'm confused. 23 MR. LEHRHOFF: The fire was here (indicating). 24 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Oh, it was here. 25 MR. LEHRHOFP: Actually it was here (indicating). COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 91 1 2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The way you explain it, I somewhat thought the fire was 3 here (indicating). HR. LEHRHOFF: No. TNe fire was when he came in te leek to de the footings. Te de this, he went under and teak a leek at 5 the existing deck. If we have a bad winter this deck could collapse. We enter the house 6 this way. This has been approved in the original variance ce dc this. New my s~upidity, I den'~ tNink CHAIRWDMAN TORTORA: We're net 8 picking this u~ }n the record. Please step down. 9 BOAR~ MEMBER ORLANDO: Was the fire prior ce ~ast time's variance? 10 MR. LEHRHOFF: The fire was in February ef 20D1. 11 BOARE MEMBER ORLANDO: Okay, se last time you were here was June 2002. 12 HR. LEHRHOPF: Right, se the fire was prior. And we had done some remedial work 13 co fix the area Df the deck. BOARE MEMBER ORLANDO: You can rebuild the existing deck HR. LEHRHOFF: What basically happened, could E rm~ the existing deck dawn and rebuild lc as lc was? Yeah, I could have 16 dane that. But we have on the corner, if you look ac the plan. the extension came out not 17 the full-len~th Df the house; there's a small piece; there's a shower in there which is en the original plan that the architect did. And actually, ce ge~ mncc that shower the way he 19 drew it was co s£e~ up from the ground. When we did, when we puc the deck together, we felt 20 mc would make sense co just close that up and that's whac we did. If you were there you saw 21 it. BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: It's there. 22 MR. LEHRHOFF: That's the bottom piece exactly. Bu~ the tap piece we extended 23 lus~ that one little piece out se you could walk into the shower and we extended the deck, 24 and I think his dimensions are wrong, I think we extended the deck ~we feet. 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The front stairs? COURT REPORTING A2~D TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 92 1 2 HR. LEHRHOFF: Again, what had happened to part ef that was the elevation ef 3 the original deck was incorrect to the house. When we rebuilt it, put the elevation of the 4 deck to the right level, which extended the deck, the front stairway came a foot down, but 5 that stair was an existing stair; that's how you got up te the original deck. 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Correct. HR. LEHRHOFF: Just te tell you, 7 that deck has been built like a fort. It will never come down, in the sense it was built 8 right. The deck that I had was net built properly and it was a danger. And to protect 9 my family, I wasn't going to have a situation where I was going te have someone get hurt at 10 my home. Se I did something that maybe I shouldn't have done, but I had to get that 11 deck down. I had no choice. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. I 12 think -- MR. LEHRHOFF: Like I said, if 13 you read the letter from my neighbors, they're the only people that this at all impacts in 1% terms of visually. Ne one else can see that deck. 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We're also looking at the length ef the dwelling now from 16 the front yard. MR. LEHRHOFF: Again, the deck 17 is, you know, it's a use of outdoor space. It's not really our living space in 18 terms ef the internal part of the house where we live; the house is very small. 19 CHAIRWONEa~ TORTORA: You don't know at this point whether you're going to ge 20 ahead with the addition? MR. LEHRHOFP: As I mentioned te 21 you, I'm working en the financial side ef it. To do that addition the way it should be done 22 is probably going to be close te $200,000. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What we're 23 going to de in lieu ef the fact that you've expanded the house in violation of the 24 variance to the south, I think what we will de is in considering this, we'll repeal our 25 t approval of the addition te the north te give t you the additional space you've already gene COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 93 1 2 into en the south. MR. LEHRHOFF: Se if I decide to 3 build that, I have to cema and get another variance? 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, yon would. When we granted this, we teak a geed 5 leek at it. We took a good leek at the size of the lot, and we granted it in terms of what 6 you were proposing, the size of what you were proposing MN.. LEHRHOFF: I'm going to tell you this in all honesty, less than a quarter 8 of a mile of my house, a new house has just gene up en Broad Weeds. You've passed it to 9 cema te my home. You passed it. It's a monstrosity. 10 They're building this enormous house that's no mere than 30 or 40 feet from 11 its neighbor, and it affects everybody that gees by it. Ail the people that live there 12 and everyone's going by it and looking at this. 13 I'm doing something te my home that's for me. I have one neighbor that sees 14 a piece ef it, and that's maybe two months out ef the year. This is not something that's 15 infringing upon anybody else at all. My house is tiny. I was situated ena lot because of 16 what originally was laid out in the township that's net even a flag lot and you couldn't 17 build a three feet house on that let today if it was available. 18 So I'm being penalized. I don't have any neighbors that I'm infringing upon. 19 I don't have anybody that this is going to cause a problem to, and you're penalizing me. 20 It's going to cost me another $3,000, $4,000 er $5,000 to de something that is not 21 basically infringing upon anybody at all, at all. And honestly, it's net fair. You're 22 allowing something te occur - CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Excuse me. 23 We have a lot ef correspondence from Hr. ~rewn, who is the architect, in fact, the 24 appeal says -- HR. LEHRHOFP: Fairweather Brown 25 was the architect for the project. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You said COURT REPORTING ~kND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 94 i 2 before something happened with the architect? MR. L~HRHOFF: I thought that the 3 deck was originally going to be included in the original variance. That had been my % understanding. It wasn't. It was toe late when we got here. When we were here, it was 5 tee late fur me te de anything about that. The application had already been made. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. We'll take everything into consideration. We were 7 very sympathetic te you before. It's extremely discouraging te have someone come 8 back a year later and say I need mere variances because we built it without 9 variances. hR. LEHRHOFF: Again, I 10 apologize, I really de. But understand the situation I was in. I had a dangerous 11 situation. I had ne choice but te pull that deck down. There was nothing else I could do. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TOR~ORA: But the Board granted you permission te rebuild the deck 13 with the fire. MR. LEHRHOFP: The only situation 14 I had with the fire permit was to repair the issue where the damage was. You knew who did 15 the damage, honestly, te the deck was the fire department because there was 60 firemen 16 standing on that deck, and stress en that deck probably did the major damage. It was an 17 unsafe situation. Again, I apologize. I'm sorry, what happened, but I just didn't have 18 the time. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We'll take it 19 into consideration. MR. LEHRHOFF: I really wish you 20 would. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We really 21 don't want to see you back here again. ~R. LEHRHOFF: I don't want te be 22 back here again. As a final, I don't think it's fair te me te have me have louse ends, 23 pay another $4,000 or $5,000 te come back te you with the same plan, I really don't. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The same plan? 25 MR. LEHRHOPF: Basically, if I de the addition -- COURT REPORTING AND TP~kNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 95 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The plan that we have deesn'h shew that addition. 3 MR. LEHRHOFF: You have that situation -- 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let's get this very clear. The Hay 27, 2003 site plan 5 that you submitted does net -- HR. LEHRHOFF: Shews the house 6 as it is today. CHAIRWONRN TORTORA: Correct. But 7 it does net shew the proposed addition. HR. LEHRHOFF: Because it's not 8 in place. We haven't filed for it yet. it's going to be separately filed and it will be 9 approved once the variance had been approved. CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Se what we're 10 looking at here -- HR. LEHRHOFF: Is the existing 11 house. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: But it was 12 not the total plan of what was approved before. We de not have that. We de not have 13 one sketch in the file that shows what was approved before and what was then built. Se, 1% when we ge te file this decision, what are we going to do, pull out a map from three years 15 ago and say this portion of it was approved. Put yourself in our position. The 16 map that we have does not show what is as built and what is proposed. 17 HR. LEHRHOFF: Maybe I misunderstood. Is the variance for the 18 addition in perpetuity? CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Pardon me? 19 MR. LEHRHOFF: Is the variance for the addition in perpetuity? 20 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Subject to. MR. LEHRHOFF: Te what? 21 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Compliance with what was there. 22 MR. LEHRHOFF: I'm saying, if the deck had net been built, would the variance 23 have been in perpetuity. MS. KOWALSKI: I think what the 2% Beard's saying is there are two er three different diagrams; one diagram shows one 25 thing, another shews another. It's easier if the Beard has everything shewing on one plan. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 1 2 HR. LEHRHOFF: I have a plan iR my car~ I can bring ~e in, you can leek at 3 in. It shows the plan ef potential addition. % BOARD MEMBER HORNING: That would be very helpful. 5 MR. LEHRHOFF: I would be more than happy ee brin~ in in; you can look at it. 6 MS. KOWALSKI: Are you talking about a sine plan ar building plan? HR. LEHRHOEP: There's a separate sen of drawings. It shows the addition. 8 HS~ KOWALSKI: You're talking about a s~ne plan. 9 CHAIRWOMAN T{RTORA: We do not have ~ plan shewing this proposed extension, 10 which was approved before_ We have ne plan shewing all of this negenher. 11 MS. KOWALSKI: It was left off the map that he was submitted eo our department. 12 CHAIRWOM}~ TORTORA: That's what we need. We warm nc see everything. 13 MR LEHRHOFF: Just se I understand you wane Ee see the addition, the 1% proposed exnenslon CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The garage 15 that was approved under the prier ZBA. Combine that with the as-built new. 16 MR. LEHR~OFF: Basically -- 2HAIRWOMAN TORTO~A: You see what 17 I'~ doing, I'm ~rylng Eeen put two maps nogether nc see ne ~eE ~ p~c£ure ef what's 18 going on. HR. LEHRHOFF: I can have that 19 done and gen that Ee you. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 20 delineate with either lines or colors before and after. 21 HR. LEHRHOPP: We can have that marked. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TCRTOP~A: It's tough. We all spend a let of time nrying to figure 23 DUE whan happened. Are there any more questions? 24 BOAR£ MEMBER GOEHRINGBR: No. Please close the hearing. 2~ CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going te make a motzon £o close the hearing and reserve COURT REPORTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 97 1 2 decision until later. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. (Whereupon, all Board Members 4 responded in favor.) MS. KOWALSKI: We need separate 5 prints ef that. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 6 hearing is en behalf ef Omnipeint Communications, LLC, George L. Penny, Owner. 7 Is there someone here who would like to speak en behalf ef the application? 8 MS. KOWALSKI: Before you start, we just had a letter it was added te the file 9 this morning. I apologize. MS. FLEMING: Good 10 afternoon. Jacqueline Fleming from Nielsen and Ray. My address is 36 North New York 11 Avenue, Huntington, New York, 11743. In this applicat{on Omnipeint 12 Communications, Inc. is seeking an interpretation ef Article 16, Section 13 100-162C3 ef the Seuthold Town Cede pursuant te the powers granted to the Board pursuant te 14 Section 100-271D of the Town Cede and Section 267 84 ef New York State Town Cede. 15 Article 16 Section 100-162C3 states in part that industrial -- in 16 industrial districts telecommunications towers are permitted use provided that the base ef 17 the tower is located at least 300 feet listed by federal, state or town agencies. 18 The building permit application notice of disapproval states that the proposed 19 tower is not permitted because it lies within 300 feet of two lets, both of which are 20 historical properties listed en the Society ef Preservation ef Long Island Antiquities 21 inventory ef Seutheld historic properties. The only issue for interpretation is whether 22 the list ef landmark properties er districts to which reference is made in the code may be 23 interpreted to include properties on the society's inventory. 24 In the alternative we are seeking a setback variance to enable construction of 25 100 feet menopele and the installation of equipment cabinets at the concrete pad at the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 98 1 2 base of the menepele. Unless the Board has any 3 preliminary questions, I would like to first address the application for the % interpretation. Seeing ne questions, by 5 introduction, Omnipoint is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission te 6 construct, maintain and operate a personal communications system in New York, in the New ? York metropolitan area, including Nassau and Suffolk counties. The service provided by 8 Omnipoint benefits the community particularly in times of emergency for placing telephone 9 calls to police, ambulance, fire, road service, at times and places where 10 conventional telephone systems are net available or operating. 11 Moreover, Omnipeint has been authorized by the federal government to deploy 12 a wireless priority service. On October 11, 2001, the Office of the Manager National 13 Communications System announced that the United States government would he deploying 1% wireless priority service across the United States to allow national security emergency 15 response personnel te gain access te the next available channel in emergency situations. 16 On April 17, 2002, the National Communication System announced that the 17 applicant Omnipoint had been awarded the contract te provide this emergency service in 18 the area Omnipeint strived to provide reliable service to its licensers. At present there is 19 a significant gap in the Hattituck area. The service gap will be eliminated by the proposed 20 antenna facility at the Penny Lumber site in Hattituck. 21 I have prepared just some copies of relevant code sections that I'll be 22 referring to, and I would like te submit one for the record, but I'd also like to provide 23 one te the Beard Members. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yen have seven 24 copies? MS. FLEMING: I have six 25 copies. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's fine. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 MS. FLEHING: The Penny Lumber property is located between County Read 48 and 3 Sound Avenue in Mattituck. The property in the surrounding area is zoned light % industrial. The light industrial zoning district extends between Route %8 and Long 5 Island Railroad tracks for quite a distance in that area. The nearest residential district 6 are basically across Route 48 to the north and beyond the business district te the south. 7 The town's regulation ef wireless communication facilities is set forth in the 8 zoning cede provides that the town prefers the facilities to be located in industrial areas. 9 So we were very cognizant of that when we were planning our site. 10 In addition, the specific code in question, 100-162-C3, states that the wireless 11 communications facilities on telecommunications towers are permitted, 12 provided that the height of the tower above ground does not exceed 100 feet, and the base 13 of the newer is located at least 100 feet from the nearest dwelling unit, and then the issue 14 in question, 300 feet from any landmark property er district as listed by any federal, 15 state er town agencies. Se, with this in mind, with these 16 previsions that we reed in your code, Omnipoint chose the subject property and 17 designed the menepole te be 100 feet te meet the height requirement and situated on this 18 large parcel se that it would be 100 feet from any dwelling unit. And else in performing our 19 due diligence, in November 2001, our office obEained from the town clerk's office a 20 document entitled "Seuthold Town Register ef Landmark Structures," which were advised ell 21 landmark properties designed by the town. A similar list is currently provided on the 22 town's web site and e building permit application was filed based en this 23 information. And, just for the record, I only 24 have one copy of this. I'd like to submit the Southold Town Register ef Landmark Structures 25 that is we received from the town clerk when we asked which properties were on this list, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 100 2 and I'm also going to hand in a copy of the Society for the Preservation of Long Island 3 Antiquities, a printout of all the properties en their inventory, and I have a copy efa % document from the Town's web site, it's actually the historic resources section ef the 5 new waterfront revitalization program en the website that talks about the different listed 6 properties listed on the state, town and federal. I'd like to submit those for the 7 record, please. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We'll need 8 another set of copies. MS. FLEMING: This is just 9 submitted for the record. I mean, this is just town information. I just wanted to show 10 you what we received when we inquired. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I understand. 11 MS. FLEMING: After we submitted our building department application en January 12 21, 2003, we received a telephone call from the building department advising that the 13 proposed pole in question lies within 300 feet ef two landmark properties. During several 1% conversations conducted that day regarding this issue, we received conflicting 15 information from the building department. Per example, we were advised that the town does 16 not have a list of landmarked properties and that the building department referred tea 17 list compiled by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities, even 18 though the list was net officially designated by the Town. 19 Since the Town clerk's office provided us with the list that I handed in, we 20 were obviously receiving conflicting information from the building department, and 21 se we inquired a little further. We telephoned the society and spoke with a 22 Charla Bolten, who advised that the society's list was compiled mere than 25 years ago, and 23 was made up of properties that it felt might warrant attention te be considered for 2% landmark property in the future. She further advised us that the society ne longer 25 maintains a copy ef the list. We then reviewed your landmark law COURT REPORTING AND TRY~SCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 101 1 2 and the Town's procedure, and basically what I'm going te talk about for our legal 3 interpretation of that. The two properties that are in ~ question are lot 35 and 39; one is to the east and one is to the west ef the Penny Lumber 5 Company and are not listed by federal, state or town agencies. The society for the 6 Preservation of Long Island Antiquities is net a federal, state er town entity, and the town 7 has net officially designated the town properties as town landmarks. 8 In the handout I gave to each ef you, I included, I guess it's the last page of 9 the handout, the definition from the zoning cede ef what a landmark designation entails. 10 It's kind of a short version of the Landmark Law, and it states that the designation efa 11 building er structure of architectural or historic significance to the town through 12 listing the property in a town register of designated landmarks, following a copy filing 13 of the entity in the town clerk's office. The landmark designation process was 14 recently completed for a property in the Hamlet of Southeld and that zone by the Town 15 Beard resolution is also included in your packet. And June 3, 2003 it shews a Town 16 Beard adopted a resolution designating a house on Main Read in Southeld as a Seutheld Town 17 landmark. So it's an active process this 18 landmark designation process, te get listed as a town landmark, and that process was net 19 followed in the cases for lot 38 -- 35 and 39. The Town has recognized that the 20 society's inventory is actually separate from listing as a landmark and an example of this 21 is in 8action 56 7A and that section is put in the handout. This section applies te 22 applications for activities that occur en the landmarked property itself, instead of, like 23 us, where we're just near it. This section expressly references 24 the inventory prepared by the society of the Preservation ef Long Island Landmark 25 Antiquities, and, in addition to listing as a state, federal er town landmark, se that COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 102 1 2 section of the code recegnizes that there's this listing ef properties, and then there's 3 alse this inventery, and that they're separate things, Alse 56-7A ef the Landmark Law % states -- well, that's what it states. It states ether categories besides these two, but 5 I think that's the most important paint, is that when the town wanted to include the 6 society's inventory, it did that in additien te stating it was addressing listed 7 properties. Se in summary, it is respectfully 8 submitted that the building department misapplied the Landmark Law to this situatien. 9 We are net a landmark preperty se the Landmark Law doesn't apply te this applicatien, and it 10 misinterpreted Section 100-162, and the grounds for disapproval is therefere 11 inapplicable. Altheagh we do not find the sectien to be ambigueus as the New Yerk State 12 Ceurt of Appeals has repeatedly held zening restrictiens being a deregatieN ef cemmen law 13 preperty law rights, must be strictly censtrued and any ambiguity result in faver ef 1% the preperty ewner. We ask the Beard te find that the 15 building department incorrectly interpreted the previsien in Sectien 100-162C3, and that 16 Omnipeint be allowed to centinue with its building permit applicati©n including site 17 review, that we will be starting soen. At this time, if you have any 18 questiens, I would like te answer these. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yeu're asking 19 previsien for an interpretatien of 162-3 and a reversal ef the building department; in the 20 alternative yeu're asking far an area variance; is that accurate? 21 MS. FLEMING: R±ght. At this paint I'm just trying te keep these two 22 separate. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Because iN 23 yeur decumentatien you refer tea use variance and I was very cenfused by that. 24 NS. FLEMING: Well, yeah, I think that was sort efa typo en eur part. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It discusses hardship and economic hardship, and it COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 103 1 2 discusses the need for variances and the special rights of public utilities, which 3 we're all well aware of but are not relevant here. 4 MS. FLEMING: No, I agree. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So should we S just disregard that part of your evidence that you submitted? Or would you like -- 6 MS. FLEMING: I agree with you that in the alternative we will be asking for 7 a setback variance. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You're not 8 asking for a use variance as indicated in the papers here? 9 MS. FLEMING: In the papers submitted with this application there was 10 reference made to a use variance as opposed to an area variance, which deals with dimensional 11 requirements as opposed to the use of the land. The attorney has just stated that was 12 in error, and that the request is far a dimensional er area variance and will send a 13 letter ef correction te be placed into our files, so that it is corrected and in that 14 file. Let me see if the other Board 15 Members have ether questions. Mr. Horning? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sure. For 16 the sake efa little clarification far myself and perhaps ethers in the notice of 17 disapproval, they're citing a maximum tower height ef 100 feet as meeting acceptable cede 18 permitted. The towers maximum height is approximately or exactly 100 feet; is that 19 correct? MS. FLEMING: Right. 20 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So they did not deny this because of a height? 21 MS. FLEMING: No. We have met a 100 foot height and 100 foot setback 22 provision. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: On the site 23 plans there is an existing two story frame building, which is a note that says it's an 24 existing residential dwelling, which will remain. 25 MS. FLEMING: On the Penny Lumber property you're saying. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 104 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You're familiar with tNat? 3 MS. FLEMING: Right. It's next te the Let 35. It's west of that -- er east 4 Of that, I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And the 5 distance, the closest distance is 107 feet thereabouts; is that correct? 6 MS. FLEMING: Right. That's very specifically we set out those setback 7 dimensions very carefully on the site plan. Yeah, that's exactly right. 8 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Se therefore, the requirements that the tower 9 would be permitted te be located, if it was at least 100 feet away from the nearest dwelling, 10 and you say it will be 107 feet you are then again not be being cited far the distance te 11 the nearest dwelling, correct? MS. FLEMING: No. That is 12 correct. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So really 13 the only issue here then would be the fact that this proposed tower is not 300 feet away 14 fram historic property line; is that the issue? 15 MS. FLEMING: The issue is that the building department disapproved it en the 16 basis ef we are net within 300 feet ef properties that are on the society's list, 17 yes. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And you, in 18 fact, are claiming here and new, are claiming they misinterpreted the Landmark Law, if I 19 heard your remarks earlier? MS. FLEMING: The Landmark Law, 20 which applies to properties that -- property that is part ef the application itself, that 21 property itself is en the Landmark List or en the society's inventory list. The Landmark 22 Law is for these properties. It doesn't apply te our situation. The Penny Lumber Company is 23 not one ef those properties, but the building department says that we are within 300 feet ef 24 the society's list. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So again, 25 te clarify the notice ef disapproval, what is the issue, as you see it, far the reason of COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 105 I 2 your denial? MS. FLEMING: We submit that the 3 building department incorrectly disapproved the application because we violated the 300 4 foot setback from a listed town, state or federal landmark property. And our conclusion 5 is that we did not violate that setback. We tried very hard te make sure we did net 6 violate that setback before we made the application. And that the society's 7 inventory, while it does apply specifically and expressly te the Landmark Law situation, 8 it doesn't apply in this situation. BOARD HEHBER HORNING: That is the 9 only reason then that you were given a notice of disapproval? 10 MS. FLEMING: That's the only reason. 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 12 Geehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRiNGER: I see 13 you came with a whole bunch ef people, Hiss Fleming, ere they here te assist you in some 14 way in reference structural aspects of this? MS. FLEMING: They are here for 15 the second part if needed. BOARD MBMBER ORLANDO: The big 16 presentation. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What is the 17 second part? MS. FLEMING: The first part is 18 just for the interpretation. We have interpretation as eno application to the 19 Board. Our second application te the Board is for a variance. 20 I would specifically like te separate those two at this time and ask you te 21 render a decision for the interpretation only. Because if you render your interpretation that 22 the building department was incorrect, we do not need the second part because we don't have 23 anything te vary. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I would have 2% te agree that the interpretation would come first. So, if you would, in that case held an 25 in abeyance your presentation for area variances until the Board has rendered a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 106 1 2 decision en interpretation that's quite fine; is that agreeable te the Beard? 3 HS. FLEMING: Just te interrupt if I could. We were aware ef that possibility, 4 but we did, in the alternative application, and we are willing on te go forward with that 5 today. If you are not able to render a decision now. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We will net render a decision new, if that's what you're 7 asking, is the Board going te make a decision new? No, we're net. 8 In the instance ef expediency, it would probably be wise te address the 267B. 9 MS. FLEMING: Yes. We are certainly prepared to do that at your 10 convenience. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just se, if 11 people from the audience have comments, we don't have te separate the comments and then 12 you will say that you have net had the opportunity to address these. 13 HS. EL~MING: Sure. If you are unable to render a decision then we will move 14 forward. CHAIRWONt~N TORTORA: You've given 15 us about 30, 40 pages ef documentation. I think the Beard would like to review it before 16 we make a decision. MS. FLEMING: Te clarify, I only 17 provided you copies ef tNe codes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That is also. 18 We did net have copies of what previsions you were specifically going te cite. You've cited 19 them, we would like to review them. We would like te review, we have ether hearings, se if 20 you have other people that y©u would you're g©ing to call, you could de that. 21 BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: I would like to give her a quick question. 22 In the past Omnipoint has utilized church towers instead ef constructing towers. 23 ~ave you leaked into this because there's several churches in that area? 24 MS. FLEMING: We will address the issue. We have our RF engineer, our Radio 25 Frequency engineer, who helped design the site based en the needs for this specific area. A COURT REPORTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 107 1 2 lot of times Omnipeint may need different heights in the community. Sometimes they need 3 a high site sometimes they need a lot lower site, depending on their Leeds. Mere they 4 needed a Nigh site, and there was no ether alternative high enough in this area in 5 existing structures. You're right, we often try te find an existing structure if at all 6 possible; it makes everything a lot easier for every©ne. And this is just net possible in 7 this situation; that will bec©me mere clear as we talk about our search area and the size of 8 our gap and the kinds of antennas and facilities we need te fill that gap. It needs 9 to be a higher site, in a fairly small search area. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: De you have any questions, Ruth? 11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Net right now. 12 MS. FLEMING: I'm sure you'll have some questions after we bring en the 13 experts. Today I have five experts who will 1% briefly talk about the need for the site, as we discussed. The emissions for the site are 15 very low and well within the federal standards for radio frequency emissions, and site will 16 net have a significant impact en the ~ environment; it won't cause interference; it 17 won't Nave significant impact on property values and if you like, I can get right to 18 that testimony. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Please. 19 MS. FLEMING: First I would like te call Tom Turkel. His firm prepared the 20 site plan drawings that you saw en the application. 21 HR. TURKEL: Geed afternoon, my name is Thomas R. Turkel. I'm a registered 22 architect with the firm of William F. Collins, Architects. My address is 10 1 Technology 23 Drive, in Setauket, New York, 11733. MS. FLEMING: At Omnipoint's 24 request you prepared the drawings? MR. TURKEL: Yes, I did. 25 MS. FLEMING: Could you ge ever the plans briefly and describe the site for COURT REPORTING AND TP~kNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 108 1 2 the Board. MR. TURKEL: Yes. I would be 3 glad to. Would the Board like the display 4 to face them. You have drawings - BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: If we could bring the microphone over because the 6 stenographer is going to have a very difficult time. 7 MR. TURKEL: Okay. Better? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We would 8 appreciate it if you could move along. MR. TURKEL: Okay. What's being 9 proposed is a fenced in compound for our equipment and in the center a sea of asphalt 10 on an industrial lot. At one corner of that compound we propose to put a 100 foot tall 11 steel one monopole, which we plan to affix antennas at the very top. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Hew high off the ground is the concrete pad? 13 MR. TURKEL: It's not really a pad, it's a concrete cylinder which is a 14 foundation base that would stick up out ef the ground about eight er ten inches. 15 CHAIRWON~kN TORTORA: Net including the concrete pad it's going te be 100 feet? 16 MR. TURKEL: Yes, ma'am. And the antennas we're proposing would be four 17 antennas per sector, with three sectors, for a total ef 12 antennas. Those antennas will be 18 arrayed around the top ef the pole. At the te of the antennas being at 100 feet above the 19 ground. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: These are 20 standard antennas? MR. TURKEL: No. These are what 21 is known as flat panel antennas. Six foot tall, eight inches wide, three inches deep. 22 The antenna cables, the back of these antennas into the top of a metal pole, run down inside 23 the metal pole and go back to our equipment cabinets, of which there are three located on a small concrete pad. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you have 25 other companies that are going te be leasing this use en this pole? COURT REPORTING AND TNP~NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 109 1 2 HR. TURKEL: The compound is set up £e ~ake at least two ether carriers should 3 they sc desire. I am net aware that anybody's come forward yet te look at that. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You're balking ~bout room for two ether carriers below the other hundred foot I assume? HR. TURKEL: Yes, ma'am. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: At what heights? HR. TURKEL: Normally they like Ec have a separation and the RP engineer 8 can speak to this better -- of ten feet between anEennas. 9 CHAIRWOHAN TORTOP~I: Right now there's potential for three sets ei antennas 10 at approximately 100 feet, 90 feet and 80 feet; is that correct? 11 MR. TURKEL: Yes, ma'am. And some carriers may deem that they can go lower, 12 it depends en their system and hew they operate. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, continue. 14 MR. TURKEL: I'm prepared to go on, if you want me to, but you said to keep it 15 short. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I don't know 16 what else -- any questions o~ this? BOARD HEHBER HORNING: No. I 17 clearly understand it. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, we 18 understand it. BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: Except 19 we want to talk about wind velocity on the menepele. Who wants te speak about that? 20 HR. TURKEL: I will speak about that. 21 BOARD MEHBER HORNING: Quickly. HR. TURKEL: We will submit to 22 the Beard a design manufacturer signed and sealed by an engineer currently licensed in 23 uhe State of New York, which will address all ef the structural loading en the me~opele 24 additionally, and all of the entennas that are designed for the future if ether carriers 25 should want te come along, and it will be designed for the new New York State building COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 80%7 110 i 2 code. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: which is 3 what wind velocity? MR. TURKEL: I believe it's 120 4 within a mile of the water. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank 5 you. CHAIRWOM~ TORTORA: Okay, next 6 witness? MS. FLEMING: Yes, next, Ron 7 Petersen. He is going te talk about the emissions from the site, and I'd like to 8 submit for the record his curriculum vitae and copy ef his report which will be a summary ef 9 his testimony. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let me just 10 ask you something. The emissions you have to comply by law, correct? 11 MR. PETERSEN: Yes. CPL~IRWOMAN TORTOP~: Does this 12 state that you comply by law? MR. PETERSEN: Yes. This states 13 that we de comply with the FCC guidelines. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. There's 14 no way you could even comply if you don't, correct? 15 MR. PETERSEN: Yes, that's right. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. 16 MS. FLEMING: I'm gathering that you would like to take his testimony for the 17 report. CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~A: It's - yes, 18 it's very nice to say, yes, I'm an engineer and we comply, but you couldn't be here if you 19 didn't comply, se it's really not necessary. Next witness. 20 MS. FLEMING: Mr. Petersen will be available for any questions that the audience 21 might have. MS. FLEMING: Is the radio 22 frequency engineer who will talk about the need for the site. I have a copy ef his 23 resume and affidavit summarizing the need for the site and attached are some propagation 2% maps that he will be explaining. MS. FLEMING: State your name for 25 the record. MR. JEAN: Stephan Jean from COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 111 1 2 T-Mobile. MS. FLEMING: And your 3 professional and educational experience, please? 4 HR. JEAN: Bachelor ef Science in engineering from Pelytech University ef New 5 ~ York. MS. FLEMING: Have you previously 6 testified before a municipal Beard? MR. JBAN: Yes, I have. 7 MS. FLEMING: And you're fully familiar with Omnipoint? 8 MR. JEAN: Yes, I am. MS. FLEMING: Can you describe 9 the system and how it works from an engineering standpoint? 10 MR. JEAN: Essentially both the mobile phone and cell site base station are 11 two-way transceivers, otherwise when a phone call transmits from that mobile phone -- 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We're having a lot ef trouble picking yen up. Speak 13 louder. HR. JEAN: I'm sorry. I said 14 that both the mobile phone and the base station, which is the cell site, are two-way 15 transceivers. One's the -- if a call originates from a mobile phone, the signal 16 travels via radio waves to the nearest cell site serving that mobile phone. Then the 17 signal is routed te the cell phone carrier's switching office then to the public telephone 18 system network and then tea land line. If the call originates from the land line, the 19 call is essentially reversed. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sir, is the 20 purpose of the proposed cell site to fill in a gap so that people making cell phone calls 21 will net experience a disruption of service? MR. JEAN: That's correct. This 22 map depicts Omnipeint's existing network throughout Seutheld er in the Mattituck and in 23 the Laurel area. As you can see the green color shews the service er the areas being 24 serviced by Omnipoint. As I lower this sheet, the purple sheet will show the additional 25 coverage that will be offered by -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Can you turn COURT REPORTING AND TP~INSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 112 1 2 that around for the audience? MR. JEAN: Sure. 3 MS. FLEMING: Can you explain the need for the 100 foot height at this site? ~ MR. JEAN: Well, once the need is identified - 5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: We can't hear him. 6 MR. JEAN: Once the need for the site is identified, we use a reel in house to 7 predict the height of the site that will be needed and from that we choose the lowest 8 height that will satisfy the need. HS. FLEMING: What would happen 9 if we put the antennas lower en the pole? MR. JEAN: If we decide te ge 10 lower on the menepole, the area shaded in purple will be smaller and the gap will still 11 remain. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How low are 12 the church steeples in the town? MR. JEAN: It would depend en the 13 structure, they would vary from 30 feet. It would depend. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So if you're speculating, did you really research 15 it? HR. JEAN: No, ne. You asked me 16 how low are the church steeples. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right. In 17 this town. MR. JEAN: Church steeple, I 18 mean, a church can vary in height. BOARD MEHBER ORLANDO: If you did 19 the research, you'd knew hew high they are in this area, right? 20 MR. JEAN: Oh, in this area. BOARD MEHBER ORLANDO: Instead of 21 utilizing the tower utilize the church steeple. 22 MR. JEAN: Well, really what we de is prioritize the existing structures 23 first. Based en the gap in coverage, the , lowest structure there will be needed to 24 satisfy the need will be 100 feet. Anything lower will not satisfy the need. As I say we 25 predict different heights and we choose lowest one available. COURT REPORTING AND TNtkNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 113 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So there's no steeple in that area 100 feet tall? 3 MR. JEAN: No. That I knew of, 4 MS. FLEMING: Well, in researching this site we also looked at your codes because 5 the middle ef our search area did include an industrial area, your cede specifically 6 prefers us te locate in industrial areas, we also leaked there as trying te meet your cede. 7 Se that was also in the criteria that we had te try te meet. 8 Are there any ether questions fur Mr. Jean? 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, not at this time. 10 Your next witness, we do have te move this along, please. 11 MS. FLEHING: I'm Marie Stipe is a planner who will talk about the possible 12 effects environmentally. MS. KOWALSKI: Miss Fleming, we 13 always need te ask on all submissions that you have 14 CHAIRWOM~kN TORTORA: It's very difficult for all of us. 15 MS. STIPO: I de have copies for you. They have similar photos. I guess that 16 you'll be seeing en the Board. I'll keep this brief for you. 17 That report will outline everything that I'm speaking to today in a little more detail; as 18 well as it includes the photographs and the maps that are en this beard fur presentation. 19 A crane test was employed with respect to the visual resource analysis that 20 was done and we took a look at approximately a half mile radius, slightly outside that 21 barrier with respect to the subject property. You have a zone of visibility that 22 would exist approximately from the intersection of County Road 48 where it 23 intersects with Sound Avenue, and you would travel east along County Read 48 ending at 24 Hary's Lane. That would be the breadth ef the zoning visibly. Essentially at the tip ef 25 either you would see the cap of the tower, essentially the top ef the antennas. We COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 11% i 2 therefere weuld include that simply because that would be a change in the horizen even 3 theugh it's nominal as your zone visibility. Yeur predeminant visible impact er 4 changes weuld be directly at the subject property where the installatien weuld be 5 installed and the immediate surrounding area that has epen space er visibility. 6 The mixed use in the area, beth residential, industrial and commercial, abuts 7 ene another and therefore residential uses that are abutting, industrial use, a $ commercial use er a thoroughfare have existing envirenmental concerns already. These that 9 have visibility te the subject property seek the existing lumberyard, the activity and 10 weuld have a view ef the t©wer. Yeur residential properties that 11 are located te the nerth, yeu have a marina, you weuld have predominantly no visibility te 12 them. The marina weuld have seasenal with eff leave time frame. 13 The installatien weuld net incur any nun visual impact. It deesn't require 1% infrastructure, or any municipal service. There weuld be ne nun-visual impacts and yew 15 weuld have limited visibility with a nominal change to the horizon. 16 C~AIRWOMAN TORTOR~: Let me ask yeu a questien: Yeu superimposed these inte 17 these shuts? MS. STIPO: Yes. The precess is 18 described in the back. The gentleman in my office held a master's in graphic animatien 19 and design. Therefere, what we weuld de is the crane that went up was 100 feet, and I 20 have phetegraphs shewing yeu exactly that if yeu wanted te see. At the 100 feot mark, we 21 then knew exactly the tep ef the tower. The preperty as scaled in the photograph on the 22 cemputer, we used beth MIA and 3-D Vis impert into a Dobie Phete Shut, which is yeur 23 printing; so they weuld be te scale with that phetegraph. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No~ I just am amazed at seme ef the views that, yeu know, I 25 live in Mattituck and know the area quite well, knew the site quite well, Pacific COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 80%7 115 1 2 Street. MS. STIP0: Love Lane. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And I would be a~azed if on view number one that the 4 impact is what is presented here 100 foot menepeles, three flat panels. 5 MS. STIPO: It would be set up in the triangular as you're seeing that. You 6 have four panel per sector like a triangle has. 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is the tower supposed te be the structure en top ef 8 the barn? MS. STIPO: I'm sorry? 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is the tower supposed te be the structure above the 10 barn, leeks like an antenna en top of the barn? 11 HS. STIPO: Ne. That's an existing. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So where is the tower in that picture? 13 MS. STIPO: The tower would be in the center. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: New you know why I'm crazy. 15 MS. STIPO: You have to turn the page. It's called existing and then proposed, 16 so you actually see the conditions as they exist today when the photograph was taken. 17 And if the Board wants, we can produce for them physical photographs 35 millimeter was 18 taken at 50 millimeter lens, which would give you the scope of the human eye. And you'll 19 see en View 3, she caps just slightly above the tree line; that would be worst case 20 scenario. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is from 21 Portebelle? MS. STIPO: Yeah. The restaurant 22 that's there on the corner, they have a parking facility access, you can see the enter 23 on beth Sound Avenue as well as County Road 48. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's about a mile down the read ef the proposed site. 25 MS. STIPO: We did ge outside the scope te see that. We did half a mile if COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 116 1 2 you'll see that, then we did outside the scope. 3 CHAIRWOMAN ~ORTOP~%: I do. I just don't see, you have nothing fr©m when you're % coming east, from east to the west on Sound Avenue the view that you have from Westphalia, 5 is taken from about 200 down Westphalia Road and, as I say, I do know the area quite 6 well. MS. STIPO: We gave you View 6, 7 which is that would be looking west, approximately 600 feet from Love Lane, that 8 would show you the visibility the towers capped there. In off season your visibility 9 would extend te Mary's Lane. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Nothing from 10 Love Lane. MS. STIPO: Ne, but that's 600 11 feet from Love Lane on County Read %8. There was no visibility from the residential 12 properties te the north of County Read %8. We drove all these minor roadways. You Nave a 13 very heavy, thick weeded umbrella. Actually it's difficult to see the Main Read from the 1% hemes that are nestled back there. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. 15 AnythiEg else? If you could leave that up se people in the audience can look at that later 16 on. MS. STIPO: Absolutely. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~: Your next witness. We're really going to have to move 18 this on or adjourn it eno or the other. MS. FLEMING: Ne. The next 19 witness I will hand in his testimony by report. I don't have enough copies at this 20 point te meet the requirements. I'll get these additional copies te you later. The 21 report describes the results ef the potential impact en property values from similar towers 22 like this in the area and concludes that ne such impact would occur, and that's in the 23 report. This is a report by Michael Lynch. 24 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: To the best ef your knowledge has your company after it 25 noticed neighbors, et cetera, received any response from neighbors in favor or opposed? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 117 1 2 MS. FLEMING: No. We did not receive any response from this one, often we 3 do, in calls, and we didn't receive any calls from this application. 4 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. MS. FLEMING: Just to kind of 5 address Mr. Orlando's concern about the church steeples again, please keep in mind we came 6 forward with a proposal and variance that we understood met your cede completely. Again, 7 we're here for on the second part of the application; we went te an industrial area; 8 there's very few lets large enough te meet the setback. We thought we did all ef that. So 9 we did everything we should have done under your cede. And, you know, that's kind ef the 10 main point of this whole presentation before this. This was, you knew, this should net 11 have been a necessary; we don't believe it's necessary, but if you believe it's necessary, 12 you knew, we de ask for the variance from the 300 feet. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Who else have you approached te lease space en this 14 monopele? MS. FLEMING: To my knowledge, 15 none at this time. But it would be able to collocate, we understand your code does 16 promote collocation and that would be a possibility. 17 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: Let's see if the audience has any questions, and we will 18 give people in the audience. We have to take a five minute break to give people in the 19 audience a chance te look at all the exhibits. Does if anybody in the audience would like to 20 speak in favor er against the application, sir? 21 HR. BUCHARD: Against. My name is Fred Buchard. I'm an owner of two properties 22 adjoining the Penny company. I don't know where te start after I've heard all of this. 23 It's amazing they get all these lawyers here. They say we didn't dot an "i'~ 24 First thing I would like te de is show the Beard some pictures that I took. 25 These are actual pictures of a monotower, one mile from this site, and if I have your COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 118 1 2 permission I'd like to bring them up and show them to you. Also another tower that's two 3 blocks from this site. ~efere we ge any further and these are actual photographs net ~ computer generated. BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: Where is 5 this eno located (indicating)? HR. BUCHARD: Right by Lindsey's 6 Auto Parts in Hattituck. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's en 7 Elijah's Lane. The photos are from Elijah's Lane. The ether photo -- 8 HR. BUCHARD: The ether ph©te's with nothing in it. If you pictured a tower 9 in the center ef the photograph, that's what you would see. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is the former remains ef the Rosen Tower? 11 MR. BUCHARD: That's correct. Pretty ugly, isn't it? 12 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: There's also a photo from Penny Lumber. 13 HR. BUCHARD: That's correct right in the center ef that photograph. 1% BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me see these when you're done. 15 MR. BUCHARD: Now, just before I came here, I stopped in Connie's Bake Shop and 16 there was a petition there that disapproved this, and I volunteered te bring this in. I 17 had nothing te de with it, I'm just bringing it in here, and it's a petition against this 18 handing). New they also mentioned that this 19 is fur an emergency. I don't knew hew we got along se far without this tower. I mean, all 20 the emergencies in my shop, we have a cell phone, we can use it in the shop wi~h the 21 machinery, which is within 100 feet of where this tower is, se I don't knew see this is a 22 need. If it were a necessary evil, which I doubt very much, I mean, why doesn't these 23 towers approach the Town ef Southeld, if it's supposed to be for the good ef all the people, 24 approach the Town ef Southold, fur Southeld Town land and let the people vote on it. If 25 they think it's really what they want te have here; and if they did get it, they would be COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 8?8-80%7 119 1 2 the benefactor of the rental and benefit from the tower, they benefit from the phone, and 3 they benefit from revenue, if that were the case. And I think that's all I have te say 4 for this moment. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 5 very much. Anybody else? Yes, sir. HR. BUCHARD: Oh, there was 6 another paper, I believe you people have it, from the Seuthold Town Landmark Preservation 7 Commission, you people have this, I assume so. I don't have te read it to you, right 8 {handing)? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, we de 9 have it. MR. BUCHARD: They stand by the 10 argument that the building department was correct in denying this permit. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have that in the record. Thank you very much. 12 HR. MCLOUGHLIN: My name's Ed McLoughlin. I live en Haple Lane in Hattituck 13 and this tower I believe would be visible from my backyard because I'm 60 feet above sea 14 level and I'd be able to see something 100 feet above sea level, and I see I would see 15 this from Maple Lane, which is mere than - I would say mere than a mile from it. And also, 16 it would be visible from James Creek and Mattituck Inlet; also it's close te the town 17 ramp, Southold Town ramp and Mattituck Town ramp. it would be visible to these two parks. 18 It's very close te the Presbyterian church, and Episcopal church and will exceed the 19 height of the steeple on both churches. It also will become the Eiffel Tower of 20 Mattituck. Se if it's going to be the Eiffle 21 Tower, it should be beautiful. I don't think it's going to be beautiful the way they just 22 described it; and third ef all, I don't see whet the need is because I have a cell phone. 23 My cell phone works. I also have Onstar on my car, and I that works. So I don't see these 24 towers. BOARD MEHBER HORNING: Quick 25 question. These ether towers that already exist, person submitted photos ef church COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 120 1 2 steeples that you refer to, are any of those things visible from these areas that you 3 mention, the town beat ramp and what net? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Some are, some 4 aren't. In the winter definitely; in the summer I caN't say, but definitely in the S winter when there's no foliage on the tree. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So in 6 addition to this one proposed tower that you explained to us will be visible from all of 7 these areas -- MR. MCLOUGHLIN: The whole town of Mattituck will be able te see it. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: -- in 9 addition te that one proposed tower, there are possible towers and steeples that are visible 10 from those places as well; is that correct? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Possibly the 11 steeples, yeah. Another thing I'd like te point 12 out is, this is the third tower that's been proposed for cell phones within this area in 13 the last two er three years, and the ether two, as far as I know, were turned down. So 14 apparently the people don't want it. Se are we going te have te come te town hall every 15 ether year te sign petitions and speak against something that the people don't want or is 16 this going to be finalized and say, look, ne cell towers in the Hamlet of Mattituck period. 17 Every time somebody wants te put up a tower, are we going te have one tower for each cell 18 phone company? They have what they call cohabitation in central offices with 19 telephone; whereas, if it's a private telephone company they have the right te rent 20 space and put their switch in a telephone facility. So you don't have to have nine 21 different telephone offices serving one area. In the same breath, you wouldn't have five 22 sets ef telephone poles for cable, for telephone, for electric, you don't want eye 23 pollution. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I think the 24 only way you're really going te see successful collocation is if you have the towers en 25 municipal sites, personal opinion. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Yeah. But there COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 121 2 has to be other towers in the area. If my cell phone is working on Verizen ether people 3 have AT & T, their phones -- Omnipeint, don't know how many customers Omnipeint has, I 4 have ne idea. But if the ether cell phones are working, why can't they cohabit with ether 5 towers? Why build this monstrosity? t That's the only thing I have te 6 say. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 7 very much, next. MR. GAETON: My name is Bill 8 Gaeton in Mattituck, also on Westphalia Road, eXCUSe me. 9 AS far as I can see the building that they proposed here that's en the Penny 10 property is also in division for historical preservation in New York State Parks and 11 Recreation in Albany, New York. It's marked HK-12, that sounds like it's right next deer 12 te this thing. If this preservation society is 13 also a State Law, then why should we even bother with these guys again, as he said? 14 The other thing is -- I get a senior moment. That's all I have to say. 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. 16 HS. CIAMARICONE: My name is Janet Ciamaricone. I live on Pacific Street. The 17 last petition is actually what I wrote. I went through the neighborhood, 18 when I got a letter from I think the lawyers stating this was coming up, and I wrote asking 19 the neighborhood down Pacific Street and Legion if they -- do they mind, will this 20 affect their property; do they want te see this. And there was a tower already started 21 that was stepped by the Town Beard and that yen can see visibly down Pacific, down Legion, 22 and actually if yen're driving into Mattituck at Citce, looking towards it it's above the 23 trees. I don't know exactly hew high that went already, but that's visible -- for us, I 24 look out my back doer, it's there whether there's trees or not trees, leaves on the 25 trees er net. I didn't make copies. This is the people around the area. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 122 1 2 MS. KOWALSKI: Spell your last name, please. 3 MS. CIAMARICONE: C-I-A-M-A-R- I-C-O-N-E. Also, as a homeowner who uses a cell phone also for my work and around, I have never had a problem from my home, which is 5 only about two doors away from Penny Lumber. Again, we just talked it. I didn't 6 talk much about cancer, er anything else like that, I hear beth, yes and no on that on 7 research done, but I do know that the property owners south of that are not very happy with 8 this going up again. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there someone else in the audience? MS. PUNN: Helle, my name is Alice 10 Funn and I live en Sound Avenue right by Penny Lumber Company. 11 I leek east er west new if Penny puts up this tower en the west and on the east 12 is that tower that's been there for three years this week, I think, and it's still in 13 court standing, I haven't heard anything. Se de I need another tower te leek around it's 14 towers, towers in Mattituck. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 15 very much, Mrs. Funn. Someone else in the audience who would like te speak? I think 16 what we're going te de, I'm going te ask yom te give us imposition en this because the 17 photos that you gave and the shots, the locations that you gave, I don't really feel 18 accurately reflect the visual impacts of this? MS. FLEMING: Are there specific views that you would like? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, I can 20 take the trouble to take the photos myself, however, it definitely isn't my job. I'd like 21 te knew what it's going te leek like from the North Read from this angle right here 22 (indicating) from the carpet place. I'd like to knew what the significance ef the tower is 23 going to be in relation to the North Read as a designated listed New York State Scenic 24 Byway. We're going te adjourn the hearing 25 until October -- what is the date we have? MS. KOWALSKI: 23rd. COURT REPORTING AND TPd~NSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 123 1 2 CHAIRWOM}~ TORTORA: October 23rd. We will go ever the legal information which 3 you presented with respect te the interpretation; at wNich time I hope you will ~ be able to answer that question so that we can go forward. E MS. FLEMING: What's the timing on your decision en the interpretation with 6 regard te the -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We're hoping that we will be able te have something on the 23rd with respect to the interpretation. 8 HS. FLEMING: Then the adjourned hearing for Part 2 will be October 30th? 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Se it will be open se that if the neighbors have further 1{ questions, so you can get us that information as seen as possible before then. It would be 11 adjourned to 1:00 p.m. MR. BUCHARD: Is there anything 12 you would require for us tham are opposed; is there anything that you would like us to bring ~3 or give te you beforehand? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The burden of 14 proof rests with the applicant. MR. BUCHARD: If you send me a 15 letter or something, I'd be happy to do whatever you ask. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOHA: Mr. Buchard, if you call the office I'm sure that the 17 office staff will be more than happy te assist you in any manner. Counsel is going te 18 provide six copies of all the exhibits that were presented today. We are going to request 19 that photos be taken that more accurately reflect the impact ef this tower. 20 As i say, this is the view is that 350 some-odd thousand passengers pass every 21 year. I want to know what that is going to look like from the North Read facing the 22 carpet place, net from a mile down the read from Portebelles; I want te know what it's 23 going to look like coming east at the corner of Westphalia and the North Road. I think the 24 public deserves a fair representation of what's before us, and that's what I'm asking 25 you, and I'm sure you'll de that for us. MS. FLEHING: Just so you know, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 12% 1 2 it was net brought te our attention that Route 48 was a Town listed byway. We didn't find it 3 en the state database. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's a New 4 York State designated -- it's a state designated, New York State designated scenic 5 byway. MS. FLEHING: We understand that 6 the Town has gone threugN the process to list i it as a byway. We were just informed that 7 this was an occurrence yesterday, just that tNe planning department gave us the 8 information, se we looked into it. CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: The ether ~ thing before we go any further, the planning beard has sent us a letter requesting that 10 they have an opportunity, that this hearing be open because they would like an opportunity te 11 review the plans, site plans, which you're going to need, you're going to need planning 12 board approval for this regardless ef however it shakes out on our Beard. 13 MS. FLEMING: I understand that. 1% CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: They're going te be obviously very concerned about screening 15 issues. If it gees tea variance, the degree ef the visibility is going te bear very 16 heavily on whether you would be granted a variance or net. 17 I would appreciate it if you would ge ahead, make an application te the planning 18 board se that we can get their feedback, and as they requested, generally bef©re we even 19 have an hearing we were under the assumption that you had made an application. 20 MS. FLEMING: We have started the application. We will be completing that 21 next week. They were provided with our site plan but apparently that wasn't enough 22 information for them. CHAIRWOMAN TONTORA: I can't speak 23 for their procedures, so I don't know. Ail I knew is that the information on the file is 2% that they have no plans and that they would like an opportunity te review plans and like 25 us te leave the hearing open until they have reviewed these plans. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 125 1 2 MS. FLEMING: The public hearing, the people are going to have a chance to 3 speak, is there any way te close the public hearing and keep the record open for 4 additional submissions? CHAIRWOMAN TORTOPJ~: The public is 5 entitled te comment on all. Counselor, you certainly know that. No. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's a question in the back. 7 CHAIRWOHAN TORTOPO%: Yes, ma'am. MS. KONTOVER: Hi, my name is 8 Kentever. MS. KOWALSKI: You need te spell 9 your last name. MS. KONTOVER: K-O-N-T O-V-E-R, I 10 live in exactly across from the Penny Lumber center on the Westphalia Read and corner Route 11 I 48, and I'd like to see a picture that hew it's going te look from my house. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think I asked her that. 13 MS. KONTOVER: There's a space there. I would like te see a picture how it's 14 going to look from my house across. HS. FLEMING: Across from Penny 15 Fleering. MS. KONTOVER: Prom exactly the 16 corner Westphalia and 48. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I believe 17 that's what I asked for. MS. KONTOVER: 'Cause I see se 18 many pictures, but I don't see a picture from my house exactly what it look like. I have a 19 family. I have three kids. We all have cell phones. We fever have problem, and I don't 20 like to see that every day because the cress house means you can see that every day. 21 CHAIRWOHAN TORTONA: Certainly. MS. KONTOVER: Thank you very 22 much. MS. FLEMING: If I could briefly 23 respond te the public comments while they're se fresh. If you wouldn't mind, because we 24 did have some very serious allegations. There are collocations en most 25 towers that ge up, whether they're en municipal land or not. As you look around COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 126 1 2 most ef the towers do have collocations, so please keep that in mind. 3 Omnipeint is a public utility for New York zoning purposes and according te beth 4 state and federal law, Omnipoint's facilities should be approved whenever they can 5 demonstrate that the site is needed to fill any gap in the service area. And I think 6 we've demonstrated that today. The propagation maps that were submitted do shew 7 that there's a gap in this very area, and we were explaining why the specific height was 8 needed, and we tried te de everything that the cede asked us to do te locate it in a 9 permitted area, and we thought we did that. I guess that would be it for new. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We will adjourn this te the 23rd a.t 1:00, and at that 11 time we will have that information and any ether information that we feel it relevant at 12 that time. And you will meet with the planning board se that we can get their 13 comments and their review. BOARD MEHEER GOEHRINGER: Gentleman 14 in the back, you have a question? MR. BLACKHAN: As far as the gap 15 is concerned with the cell phones, I mean, it's very easy te solve the problem. Go there 16 with the cell phone and see if it works. If it works, there's ne gap. My phone works, his 17 phone works, her phone don't work, maybe she's get trouble with her phone, I don't knew. The 18 map is net going te show you whether the phone works er doesn't work. 19 KS. KOWALSKI: Could I have your name again? 20 HR. BLACKHAN: Edward Blackman, Maple Lane, Mattituck. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Close the hearing now, er we're going to adjourn the 22 hearing. Going to make a motion te adjourn the hearing until 1:00 p.m. on October 23rd. 23 BOARD HEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CN~IR?6~N TORTORA: Ail in favor. 24 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor.) 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: Take a five minute break and let anyone in the audience COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 127 1 2 look at the exhibit, then we'll get back. CHAIRWONLAN TORTORA: I'd like to 3 make a motion te recenvene; all in favor? (Whereupon, all Beard Hembers 4 responded in favor.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next hearing is on behalf of Mary Zupa; is there someone here who would like te speak on behalf 6 ef the applicant? Mr. Eressler. HR. BRESSLER: Yes, please, Madam 7 Chairwoman, I would like te be brief today. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just 8 today? HR. BRESSLER: I would like to be 9 brief today in light of all that has transpired. As noted in the published notice, 10 the submissions were made; therefore, I would like to accomplish only two or three things in 11 addition, of course, to persuading you to grant the application, but I'd like to 12 accomplish two er three things today, and that is, Number 1, we've net really had an 13 opportunity te hear from the applicant herself, and I think that given the nature ef 14 the application, we'd like te save that until the end ef the proceeding. I understand that 15 it's the Board's usual procedure that the applicant gets the last bite, and I think I'd 16 like to ask that Mary Zupa be given that opportunity. 17 Before that time I have a few remarks which I'd like to hold in abeyance and 18 I'd like te ask Vic Zupa to address just one er two matters that came up in the 19 submissions, i note that there were simultaneous submissions of the papers and 20 there was net really an opportunity te respond te the matters that were contained therein. 21 Te the extent that any ef these issues were raised before you before, we're net going te 22 go into that; te the extent that there were new issues raised that needed te be addressed, 23 and there are only one or two minor points, I would ask Mr. Zupa te de that for the sake of 24 completing the record. When he's finished I have a few 25 remarks, and that's basically what we hope te accomplish here today, and then te ask you te COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 128 1 2 close the hearing. CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~I: We'd like to 3 close the hearing today, we'd like, since there has been a tremendous amount of 4 testimony entered into the record. I appreciate that you would like to be able te 5 respond te any issues that have not been raised prior, I would like te say that both 6 attorneys involved in this, we're net going to ge into a skunk fight ever the next two months 7 ef you submitting papers and Mr. Angel submitting papers and likewise responding te 8 Mr. Angel's papers and back and forth. End it today. 9 MR. BRESSLER: We don't intend te de that, and we intend to limit our remarks 10 strictly te the one er two items that we felt ran to issues efa factual nature. We're net 11 going te rehash the legal arguments for you, you've got them. They're there and we're net 12 going te burden your record, and also, ask that the Beard entertain an application, that 13 that apply -- I knew you've asked that it apply to the lawyers, I ask that it apply 14 since beth sides have a lot of people here, te the extent that people have said things, 15 they've been said, they're in the record. If there's something new er different, I guess -- 16 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: If it's germane to the issue, if it's not, no. 17 HR. BRESSLER: Absolutely germane to the issue. Se with that being said I'd 18 like Hr. Zupa to briefly address the one er two items that are efa factual nature that 19 needed some sort ef response and move forward from there. 20 HR. ZUPA: Madam Chairlady, this is Victor Zupa. 21 The first item that I think we need te address is in the memorandums made by 22 the association. They raise the argument with respect te the 1958 code, which states that a 23 marina cannot be a permitted use in a residential district. But it really wasn't a 24 marina they had, that it was done en the basis efa not for-profit corporation and without 25 compensation. That is absolutely not true. We have the association minutes dating from COURT REPORTING AND TPJtNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 129 1 2 1961 up to present; I didn't include all ef them, but I did include the first eno, 1961, 3 going through te 1978. According te Mr. Angel's memo the cut off point was the 4 1972 amendment showing that fees were, in fect, paid, compensation was, in fact, paid by 5 people who rented docks in the basin. Se, if I may, I have six copies, one for Hr. Angel as 6 well, see that that's put en the record. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: To the fees 7 for association, membership fees er -- HR. ZUPA: The fees I'm talking 8 about were not for association membership. They were solely for people renting the decks. 9 Separately there was a dues that was paid and that is the same today. They charge dues and 10 then if you want deck space, you pay a separate fee for that too. 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Members only deck space? 12 MR. ZUPA: That's quite an interesting question, there are quite a few 13 people who are net members who use the decks, but the people who regularly stay there and 14 rent space are, in fact, members. So, if I may approach and submit 15 this and put this into the record. As you can see from the start, you can quickly look 16 through these papers and see that they are, in fact, association minutes that were maintained 17 by the association, and the first eno starts in 1961, and it shows beat dockage rentals as 18 rendered and it has amount there. The second issue, I'd like te 19 address, is something that I think it's important for the Beard te know, the Members 20 ef the Board to knew, and I think this really gives an indication by a third party outsider 21 ef what is really going on in this hearing and the opposition by members in the Paradise 22 Point Association. It's a -- I have a memo, a 1996 memo written te Chancy Curry, who is the 23 wife of one ef the original developers, Lane Curry. Chancy Curry is recently deceased. 24 It's a memo written to her by her attorney, Mr. John Fergusen, who is a partner in a 25 British law firm, Blakely, Platt and Schlip, and I have his curriculum vitae. After the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 130 1 2 failed Miller application, Mr. Ferguson was called upon to make some kind of analysis as 3 te what they could do with respect te the three remaining lots that the group ef four so called -- still held on Paradise Point and that was set off by the 1981 resolution, which 5 I've already -- which we have indicated in the papers we already submitted. Hr. Fergusen 6 went to Paradise Point and interviewed Mr. Scalia, Robert Scalia. He interviewed Mr. Beyd and he interviewed Mr. Sonic, and he reports on the contents ef these statements 8 with them and makes, at the end makes a recommendation to Chancy Curry, and by the 9 way, I have only within the last two weeks received permission from beth Mr~ Ferguson and 10 his client te disclose the contents of this memo. I did call him. I spoke to him on 11 several occasions in the past two weeks and confirmed that he wrote this memo and that he 12 gave it te Chancy Curry. So, if I may just briefly quote 13 from this memo with respect te Mr. Pergusen's trip te Seutheld to Paradise Point he states: 14 ~'In Southold I met for two hours with Bob Scalia, a local realtor and son of 15 John Scalia, an original developer ef the property. In two further hours with Messers 16 Beyd and John Senic," he continues, "according te Ed Beyd, Esq., all lets are legal building 17 lets. At the time of Miller's application, Beyd had secured the verbal support ef the 18 association beard only te be torpedoed at the board meeting by attacks of independent 19 property owners who succeeded in defeating the application.'' 20 Hr. Pergusen further reports en what has been told by Mr. Scalia. He states, 21 "Scalia believes that if a package deal were proposed, te the Paradise Point Association, 22 that the association would approve and support the project and result in eliminating the need 23 for any future applications." He gees on, "Mr. Boyd observed that if Scalia had the 24 listings on these properties, they would probably sell. As you may recall, I went te 25 grammar school with Bob Scalia; as kids we were neighbors and friends. However, until COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 131 1 2 last Friday, I haven't seen him in %3 years. As an outsider, I don't carry the baggage and 3 animosity of the current protagonists of either side.~ Then he concludes, ~The wild 4 card to the sale and development of lot 16.7~' -- that's the lot which is subject to 5 this hearing -- "is the next door neighbor, who obviously likes the status quo and Helen 6 Albieri, another property owner, who thinks she has rights which she clearly does not. 7 Scalia is also reported to be the power behind the thrown, a la a local Hachiavelli.~' 8 CHAIRWOMA~ TORTORA: I find a lot ef this is very personal. I find it has 9 really nothing te do with the variance request at hand. If you would like te submit it for 10 the record, fine. There's ne shewing ef relevance. I made it very clear te 11 Hr. Bressler, I've made it very clear te the attorney for the opposition, we're net going 12 to carry ena neighborhood dispute of personalities, who said what, who didn't say 13 what, letters from ten years ago. I said he would do this. This is nonsense. This is a 14 quasi-judicial board. We're trying to have hearings we're not trying te have a cat fight 15 among neighbors. Let's cut it right here and new act like adults and run this court as a 16 court. Period. MR. ZUPA: You're preaching to 17 the choir. I agree with it one hundred percent. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I asked at the beginning, I will say it again, next time 19 it will be out ef order. HR. ZUPA: Okay. If I may. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Conclude, quickly. 21 HR. ZUPA: If I can -- he did give advice. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you want te submit it into the record, we will consider 23 it? MR. ZUPA: Okay. Also attached 24 is the curriculum vitae ef Mr. Pergusen. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. 25 Do you have a copy, Mr. Angel? MR. ANGEL: Thank you. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 132 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would anybody else like te speak in favor or against this 3 application? CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP, A: Mr. Bressler. 4 MR. BRESSLER: Thank you. Reserving for the end the applicant. I 5 couldn't agree with you more, Madam Chairwoman. This is on its face a relatively 6 simple application. Mary Zupa wants te build a house on a let; that's what this is all about. There's almost 80,000 square feet there. She has a trustee's permit, health 8 deparemene approval, it's in a residential neighborhood. If you've been down there, you 9 knew it's a real nice place for a house. These are the issues before the Beard. 10 Is it appropriate for a house te be down there? The legal issues are: Is it a 11 building let. I think the evidence before y©u plainly shews that it's a building lot. Let 12 17 across the way has a house going up created at the same time. 13 Does the fact that the group ef four who owned it, out ef consideration for 14 the neighbors, gave them an easement to put a deck there, destroy their ability te build a 15 house? I don't think se. He's here before you, he doesn't want -- she does not want a 16 variance from any of the area requirements in the code. She doesn't want anything. It's 17 set back far enough. It meets all the requirements. This place is suitable for a 18 house. Whatever other disputes the 19 parties may have, prescriptive easements er anything either properly er improperly remains 20 te be seen before the courts. What's before you are these narrow issues. That's all I've 21 got te say today. I hope you close the hearing today after hearing from Mary Zupa and 22 render a decision. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 23 anyone who would like to speak against this application? 24 MR. ANGEL: Briefly. Stephen Angel, Esseks, Hefter and Angel for Paradise 25 Point Association. There was one little aspect that I COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 133 1 2 didn't prepare for, and I'd like to have Mr Scalia just step up and talk a little bit 3 about the nature of the way the beat basin was operated since that issue has new 4 materialized. It will only take a minute. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that the 5 ~ssue of the fees? MR. ANGEL: Fees, right. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And solely the issues ef the fees? MR. A2~GEL: Right. Effectively I mhink he's going to -- I mean I haven't 8 prepared him, I was just hoping, I talked to him for a second -- but I believe he'll say 9 that it wasn't a profit-making enterprise, that the fees were established fur purposes ef 10 defraying costs. Mr. Scalia, then I'll be a minune or two. 11 HR. SCALIA: Robert Scalia, 4550 Paradise Point Read, Southeld. 12 Hr. Angel has essentially said it. Over the years we have only charged dues 13 for membership and charged beat fees te offset the cost of dredging, maintaining the docks~ 14 maintaining the bulkheads; it's never been a profit-making basis and that's all it's been 15 fur. Per a period of time we 16 accumulated enough money, we charged ourselves extra se we'd be able te repair the box jetty, 17 which we did about a year ago. But otherwise, the fees are only collected to -- I have no 18 idea what Mr. Zupa's referring to about outsiders having beats at the dock. We don't 19 have outsiders, in fact, he did last year. He had the prior owners' boat at this deck for a 20 year. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Net relevant. 21 HR. SCALIA: That was essentially it. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Hr. Angel? MR. ANGEL: I'll start out with 23 just a minor correction, and in the large submission that was prepared by Mr. Bressler's 2~ office, the one with the cover, on Page 8, Part 3, it refers te erroneous statements made 25 by me in an October 29, 2002 memo. I didn't generate an October 29, 2002 memo; that's a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 134 1 2 clear mistake. The memo was generated by Mr. Verity, and that's what was quoted. I was 3 thinking, and leaking at it, and I think it refers to Mr. Verity's memo, copies ef which 4 are all ever the record. Secondly, I think I just want te 5 summarize quickly, and I think basically our argument is set forth in detail in the ~6 memorandum that I submitted, and what we have before you is that an application's being made 7 that conflicts with a whale bunch ef amenities that have been enjoyed by this community over 8 the years. There is either, however you describe it, whether it's a marina er private 9 marina or beat basin, people have parked their boats in that lagoon next to the property. 10 People fram all different lets in Paradise Point. People have parked near to that 11 ~ marina. If you look at aerial photographs, and look at some ef the discussion en the 12 planning beard file, people have turned around en this let in same fashion. Se they're net 13 stuck in the middle of the subdivision. What we have here is an 14 application that is diametrically opposed to these amenities and it wants te terminate 15 these amenities without consideration, and I think it's inappropriate. I think the current 16 application as it stands doesn't consider these important factors that are well 17 established by the documentation. I want te paint out same of the 18 circular - we get te the ether, the legal issues. The issue ef the community amenities, 19 does rise tea legal issue in many circumstances, but we get back to that 20 fundamental legal issue that I discussed when I first came here -- the eno that, as I said 21 in the minutes, you're probably tired ef hearing me say -- the collateral estoppel 22 erasnre preclusion issue. There is also a memorandum by 23 Mr. Bressler on that issue, and Mr. Bressler attempts to get around the erasure preclusion 24 question at least in se far as the prier findings of this Board is concerned, 25 concerning the private marina, by saying, well, you know, we don't have a problem with COURT REPORTING AND TNANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 135 1 2 that because we're disregarding the marina. What I wanted te point out te you is 3 the circularity ef that argument. What he's saying to you is that we 4 can get around your prier determination regarding the marina in the 1995 determination S by saying the marina shouldn't exist; therefore there's no collateral estoppel 6 erasure preclusion, but it requires you to alter that 1995 determination which says the 7 marina does exist. So the argument saying that you should disregard it, ellectively asks 8 you to terminate it. It effects you to rewrite the decision that was made in 1995; 9 which I've said from day one, I don't think you have the authority, I don't think it's 10 appropriate for you te de it. I'd be pleased to answer any 11 questions. I don't want to belabor the record as you have said you have a ten ef stuff to 12 look at. If you have any questions, ask me. Thank you. 13 CHAIRWONL~N TORTORA: Anyone else who would like to speak in favor or against 14 the application? Hr. Miller? MR. HILLER: Hy name's James 15 Hiller. I live on Paradise Point Read in Southold, and certainly much of the 16 conversation that's gone on here is about a prier decision that was rendered by this Board 17 earlier on when I filed an application as a contract vendee to purchase and build a home 18 en this site. I was certainly confused as we 19 proceeded through the negotiations we met with members of the Paradise Point Association. We 20 conceded all kinds of arrangements te make parking, te make decking, to acknowledge the 21 fact that the marina use existed, and at the last minute when we came before the Board, we 22 were sandbagged; we were sucker-punched, and a whole bunch of ether things took place. And a 23 decision came from this Beard that was inconceivable: An adjoining neighbor to 24 Paradise Point Association, who owned nothing, but only had a right ef way across the 25 property, would rule an unpermitted existence, they've never gotten permits from the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 136 2 ~rus~ees, from DEC from any regulatory agency. Their existence was there just ! because they were members of the community and a wink and a blink allowed it. But for them ~ ~c ge en now and steal a piece ef real estate that they never paid for, they never had a 5 right for, it's really bad government. It really hurts this Board to ge forward. The 6 Zupas are a nice family, they deserve a building permit. I urge you please, vote in their favor and give them a right to build a beautiful home. 8 CHAIRWOHAN TORTONA: Anyone else who would like te speak in favor er against? 9 MS. KOLZER: Andrea Kolzer. Pat Curcuru, she doesn't like te speak in public, 10 but she wanted to say that she lives in the dead end right where the fence is. She has a ~1 circular driveway and all the traffic new has Ee back up into her driveway. It's very 12 disruptive, unsafe; her and her husband feel like, you knew, walking in the driveway can 13 sometimes get chaotic, and the Fed Ex and the recyclable person, and some ethers now are 14 backing down the road. This is a very, very, quiet and 15 peaceful neighborhood, believe it or net. You can hear a pin drop at any given time, and to 16 have to be worried about letting your kids net walk that read because people are backing down 17 big trucks that could possibly have major blind spots. It's terrible. It's a complete 18 loss ef freedom, and we need safety down at the end ef that road, and they're very 19 disturbed. I rent subcompact cars, and I can barely turn around. I have to ge into her 20 driveway, I'm sorry te say. It's a real problem. The dead end issue, please consider 21 that and deny the application. Thank you. HS. KOWALSKI: Any speakers jet 22 your name. HS. CURCURU: I do have one 23 concern. Excavation needed for the swimming pool and the home, I'm concerned because ef 24 the fragile nature ef the territory that it might have an effect en the water table and 25 permit incursion ef saltwater into the water table and have an adverse effect on my well. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 137 1 2 I'm submitting it as a cencern. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank yeu 3 very much. Is there anybedy else whe weuld like to speak in favor or against the applicatien? Yes, ma'am. 5 HS. ALBERI PINKER: My name's Mary Alberi Pinker, %345 Paradise Point Road. 6 And as to my rights, our house has cevenants and restrictions attached te the 7 deed, and those covenants and restrictions attached te our deed, which I have always 8 understeed to be a legally binding decument, give us access te the marina, they give us 9 access te Paradise Peint, they give us access te the yacht club, altheugh the gang of four 10 has persistently harassed us every time we have tried to use our rights dewn on the beach 11 at Paradise Peint, and I den't understand this. 12 Quite frankly, I think the scam is if they take this turnaround away, there's 13 ~ another turn areund right up on Paradise P©int, they Pave pested signs up there saying 14 no trespassing. Hy brother was down there just the ether night, Jehn Senic's wife came 15 down with his degs, twe big french p©edles. We have the right to walk there. I'm sorry if 16 I'm sert ef ceflecting things here. But these are not imaginary rights. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, those rights are preperly befere the Supreme Ceurt, 18 they are net befere this Beard, and unfortunately, er fertunately, this Beard 19 cannot at this time entertain those. MS. ALBERI PINKER: I just wanted 20 yeu te knew that we're not trying te pull ene ever on you. 21 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: I understand, but I cut Mr. Zupa elf and 22 HS. ALBERI PINKER: That's ekay. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORO: Is there 23 anybody else whe weuld like to speak in faver er against the applicatien? HR. KLEIN: Mark Klein from 3595 Paradise Peint Road. 25 Just want te address ene thing that Hr. Bressler said, which was that beth COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 138 1 2 sides have a lot of people here. Clarify the number ef people here en beth sides, we 3 actually have people from the Paradise Point Associatlon, and as far as I can tell, there 4 might be ~ couple of families there. Families and numbers aren't necessarily equal. 5 And I just wanted to say one thing, which is in terms ef the turnaround, 6 which ~s a fairly big deal, when we first bought our property three years age, we basically bought it with the understanding that we could use the marina and we have two 8 kids. The idea was we could actually go there. Once they actually put in the mail box ~ stands and the fence, I don't feel like it's safe for my kids te go there anymore and it's 10 a real loss. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. 11 Anyone else like to speak in favor er against the application? Yes, ma'am. 12 MS. BARR: I live at 200 Basin Read. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Your name, please? 14 MS. BARR: Doreen Barr. MS. KOWALSKI: I didn't get your 15 name. Please jet down your name. HS. BARR: Doreen Barr. Anyway, I 16 just want te support the fact that Basin Read has become a little bit mere dangerous new 17 since the turnaround is gene at the end of the t read for the kids. And I have, you know, a 18 ten year old, because of the trucks that have te back down the length of the read and that 19 has become a real issue this summer. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Someone else, 20 anyone else who would like to speak in favor er against this application? 21 MS. ALBERI: I'm Helen Alberi. 4345 Paradise Point Road. 22 CHAIRWOH~ TORTORA: Alveri? MS. ALBERI: A-L-B-E-R-I. 23 CHAIRWONL~N TORTORA: Thank you. HS. ALBERI: I find as I go 24 through Southold, no matter where you go, if there is a dead end, that regardless of 25 whether it's the dead end of a farm or a meadow or anything like that, you have te have COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 139 1 2 a turnaround, and I just don't understand why this is not a fact to all these people in this 3 room; that you cannot close off a turnaround. Is that logical? 4 CHAIRWONDIN TORTORA: As I said before, I believe the issue ef the turnaround S and the prescriptive easement is before Judge Catterson at this time. That's all I can say 6 at this time. HS. ALBERI: Se as a result if you 7 had it all ever Southold er where ever else in this world and you have a dead end, you have 8 te have a turn around. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~: Thank you 9 very much, ma'am. Is there anyone else? MR. COLLIER: Hy name is Steve 10 Collier, and I reside also at 4380 Paradise Point Read. I just want te comment again with 11 a reminder, that the posture and position of the members ef the association throughout this 12 process has been, we believe, a defensive posture; that this entire set of controversy 13 is not anything that anyone in the association was looking to be involved with, but rather, 14 we have felt throughout the process, and I think I speak fur everyone, that we continue 15 feel that we strictly are in a mode ef attempting to conserve and preserve rights 16 that have been enjoyed for many decades. And I won't ge into anything, I think the record 17 will reflect, it dues reflect through the submissions the strength ef what we believe to 18 be the legal arguments, in support ef these prepositions, that we have these rights. 19 As I mentioned in one ef the past hearings, we think the courts did the proper 20 juridical bodies to decide ultimately who has the legal rights that we're asserting we have. 21 We think they will come out in our favor. But again, procedurally I just want te remind the 22 members that from the standpoint ef the association, apart from emotions that have 23 sometimes developed in expressions of positions, that we believe is that we have 24 been strictly in a position of defensiveness here, that we're not looking for any ef these 25 controversies; and that, in fact, we do profoundly believe that there are fundamental COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1%0 I 2 and long term rights that have been threatened here. And I guess I would only cite one of 3 the latest submissions from the applicant, which states I believe quite clearly that the 4 changed circumstances that is pointing to as existing between now, looking back te the '95 5 proceeding~ is the fact that the basin usage for boats -- whether I'm using the terminology 6 ef basin use er boat use or what have you -- is fundamentally being proposed te be 7 eliminated. And that that elimination entirely based en usage appears to be an 8 expressed cornerstone of what is cited as a new application; and that seems in our mind te 9 very much underscore the position we find ourselves in, which is clearly that we have ne 10 choice te preserve these rights than to speak out. Thank you very much. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there anyone else, Mrs. Zupa? 12 MRS. ZUPA: Members ef the ZBA, I am Mary Zupa, and I am the applicant. I live 13 at 365 Basin Read, Southeld. Almost all ef the comments that 14 have been made here by members of Paradise Point Association, such as Mr. Scalia, Mrs. 15 Alberi and her daughter, Miss Pinker, are not related to zoning issues. They are personal. 16 They are personal and they're based on fabrication. While comments such as these are 17 not proper before this Board, they have been placed on the record. Therefore, I must 18 respond to them. I have been coming te Seutheld 19 since 19%7. That's 56 years. My parents and ether relatives are buried in St. Patrick's 20 Cemetery. When we purchased our home en Basin Road in 1998, we moved from Washington, D.C., 21 net from New York City as Mr. Scalia has stated. We have a home still in New Canaan, 22 Connecticut. In January 2001, we decided to 23 purchase land te build a year round home. It was neither a long range nor sinister plan as 24 Mr. Scalia has stated. The let we purchased adjacent te our present home was offered to us 25 for sale by the owners since they knew we were actively looking for a home site. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 1%1 1 2 Hr. Scalia told you we never paid eur dues. That is net true. Up to 2001, we 3 were members of the Paradise Paint Asseciatien. We paid both a deck fee far eur 4 own deck and dues. Hy husband was a member ef the 5 board of directers. Indeed, he was head ef the basin and en three ether committees. He's 6 had several respensibilities including that ef dredging the basin. Re was cemmended several 7 times for the work he had dane. While it did net make sense, we paid a dock fee even though 8 we had just paid te build our awn deck and a new bulkhead. We alse paid far our awn water 9 and eur own electricity. The then president, Hr. Curcuru, stated that the asseciatien had 10 always cellected fees for its docks since 1962. When we discevered eur dues and deck 11 fees were being used far legal fees against us, we dropped eur membership. 12 Mr. Alberi stated that we have attempted to have Hrs. Alberi, an 80 year eld 13 woman arrested. That is not true, when she and her daughter, Hiss Pinker tore dawn 14 signs - CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This hearing 15 is Cencluded. Mr. Bressler, I warned you. I 16 teld yeu I weuid allew Mrs. Zupa te give closing arguments because she's the applicant, 17 but to respond to the personal innuendos that have gene on this hearing, this is a disgrace. 18 MRS. ZUPA: May I? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And it is a 19 disgrace all the way acress, and it steps here and new. I teld yeu befere. The hearing is 20 ever. HR. ERESSLER: I think that the 21 applicant, who has not been heard fram during any of these preceedings -- 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The applicant has and we are simply carrying en 23 name calling. MR. BRESSLER: There was an 24 allegation made, and there is nothing in the recerd te address these allegatiens. She has 25 remained silent for months, and are you going to deny her the oppertunity te say, no, it COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 142 1 2 didn't happen? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Accept it 3 ~n writzn~. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We will 4 accepE it in writing. Mr. Bressler, but we have ~one on and Dh. I have never witnessed 5 such nonsense. MRS_ ZUPA: May I make a comment? 6 MR. BRESSLER: This zs the applicant. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORO: This is the applicant and then Hr. So and So is going te 8 say I would like me respond em this. HR. BRESSLER: No. 9 MRS. ZUPA: Hay I make a comment? 2HAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This has 10 nothing Eo do with hhe varm~nce. MRS. ZUPA: Ail rzght. New I will 11 make a comment, please. I've been coming here a long time. 12 I grew up here with a very large family. We have many, many people in the community that 13 are -- that stayed out here, married out here. I don't want, 50 years from new, my 14 grandchildren looking through these files, seeing what these people have said about 15 myself and my husband that are not true. I don't want that to be a historical fact, net 16 placed en the record. What they have said, Hrs. Tertera, 17 has gone te the core of my family, which is why I requested that my three sisters and 18 brothers-in law be with me today. It is se painful and se untrue. If I don't put it on 19 the record, if I am net able te state -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTO~A: Can you 20 submit it te us in writing? We will be mere than happy te take it in the record. 21 MRS. ZUPA: You will put it exactly in this hearing as I would have stated 22 it? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yes. 23 MRS. ZUPA: The way everything Bob Scalia said about me, everything Kevin Barr 24 said about me, even the Colliers? Everything these people have said about me will be 25 printed in the record as my response? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Things have COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 143 1 2 been said about these people as well. HRS. ZUPA: However, they have 3 had the opportunity and they have answered. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Off the 4 record. (Whereupon, there was an 5 off-the-record discussion.) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The Board 6 would like to accept it in writing, and it will be read into the transcript; is that 7 sufficient? MRS. ZUPA: Thank you, Madam 8 Chair. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORO: You have a 9 prepared statement there. Would you like te turn that in now? 10 HRS. ZUPA: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, I am 11 going to make a motion te close this hearing and reserve decision. 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. 13 (Whereupon, all Members ef the Board responded in favor.) 14 CHAIRWOHAN TORTORA: This hearing is closed. 15 The next hearing is en behalf ef Caroline and Nicele DiBartele. Is someone 16 here who would like te speak en behalf ef that application? 17 MR. DIBARTOLO: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just a moment. 18 MS. KOWALSKI: Just like to ask that everybody who speaks, please write your 19 name and residence address en the pad. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. DiBartolo, 20 I would like te make a couple ef comments. The Beard had requested that we reopen this 21 hearing te be able to clarify the issues that were raised at the public hearing concerning 22 the safety and adequacy ef the bridge, and to insure that it was constructed in a manner 23 that would safely accommodate fire trucks. I see that you did provide us with 24 an engineer's report. We should get a copy ef the engineer's report certifying that the 25 bridge would carry -- and before I read it, I'm going to, I was just looking for the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 144 1 2 engineer's report -- ten tens, that it will support an axle lead of ten tons, and we also 3 received from you a traffic report, an engineer's traffic report, which, if anyone in 4 the audience would like er has not reviewed it it is, ef course, available in the files. 5 I just said that we have received an engineer's report, certified engineer's 6 report stating that the bridge was capable ef holding ten tens, five ten per axle; and we 7 also received a certified engineer's traffic study, and that if any ef the information that 8 we had, you have net had an opportunity te review in the file, you're welcome to review 9 it or look at it or anything else. We have not received a letter from 10 the fire department at this point. The DiBartolos -- I'm telling you, according to 11 the submissions that we have received since then, have done, met with the fire department 12 and done substantial clearing at the fire department's request to meet their 13 specifications for the trucks. Would you like to bring us up to 14 date as far as where you are with the fire department, Mr. DiBartolo? 15 MR. DIBARTOLO: You're absolutely right in terms ef the two issues that brings 16 us te this date and the meeting. The merging of the lots was eno of them, and the adequacy 17 ef the fire department in terms ef what the bridge and the driveway will hold. 18 I would like to make a general comment referring to the merging of the lets. 19 Apparently the conclusion had been reached that the lets are merged. As such, we're 20 talking about as a single lot ef 18 acres that borders on one public street, Condor Court. 21 As such, we believe that the fire department has a ceruain amount of responsibility to 22 address any protection that is required once that lot is reached, which, ef course, is 2! reachable through Condor Court, a public street. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Who determined the lots were merged? 25 MR. DIBARTOLO: I'm sorry? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Who 2OURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 145 1 2 determined the lets were merged? MR. DIBARTOLO: Based en what I 3 had read on the file that had been sent te this Beard and the letter te the assessors' % office indicating that it is the intention ef hhis Town te merge those lots, and that letter 5 I believe is en record. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Your attorney 6 had sent us a letter painting out that your let, your house let is 40,000 square feet? 7 MR. DIBARTOLO: I'm sorry? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have a 8 letter in your file fram your attorney stating that your house lot is %0,000 square feet and 9 the cedes said all lots are merged except a lot which is 40,000 square feet, and in which 10 case it would not be. I believe that letter is in the file. 11 HR. DI~ARTOLO: That is in the file and the assessor's letter is in the file. 12 So I'm net clear which really rules at this paint, but the bottom line is it is an 18 acre 13 that I'm dealing with, and it does border en the public street. To that extent, I believe 14 the fire department has a certain amount of responsibility to meet the conditions of 15 protecting what is on that particular lot. However, I may go on to address 16 the other question relative to the safety of the driveway. We had been in contact with the 17 fire department, the fire chiefs and the fire commissioners, and se has our attorney - and 18 by the way, I do apologize, the attorney had precommitments for this week and he couldn't 19 make it -- and we have not received the final response from the commissioners from the fire 20 district. We did have the fire chief and the assistant fire chief come to the property; 21 they walked the driveway with us and indicated what needed to be done to widen it, and we did 22 that and we sent you documentation to that effect. 23 Basically, what we did is we removed some trees, widened the driveway tea 24 15 by 15 regular requirement, and I understand this is the Town's requirement for any access 25 roadway, se we made our driveway similar tea roadway access in terms of width and COURT REPORTING AND TP~ANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 1%6 1 2 requ,remen~. Sc the driveway itself is adequate. 3 As far as the bridge is concerned, we have an enoineer's certificate which I have 4 lush indicated it has a capacity of ten tons per axle. We have net received any 5 2enclusatery remarks from the fire district, which apparently appears to have a 6 difference -- there's a difference of opinion between the fire commissioners and the fire 2hief as cc what is adequate in terms ef the bridge, but the certified engineer's report 8 does s£aEe that it can held essentially ten eons per axle. Essentially this will carry 9 jus~ about any fire department vehicle it has; perhaps not the biggest ones, but, after all, 10 we're not proEecElng the high school; we're promecmlng a home, a single home, a single 11 use But we have done everything in our 12 power ~o be able te get some additional infermaElen from the fire department and the 13 fire district mo say, yes, this is adequate. Our ~EEerney has been in contact with them. 14 We have gone Ec a public hearing the fire district had, and the commissioner has 1S indicated that we would hear from the attorneys for the fire district, which 16 apparently is a Hr. Glass in Pert Jefferson. Our attorney has been in contact, the attorney 17 has indicated, the attorney for the fire district has indicated that we'll be in touch 18 with the commissioner and make some recommendation hew to respond. We have net 19 received that response. New no summarize this, without 20 taking too much ef your time, essentially I think we've complied, Number eno, with the 21 fire chief's description ef what was needed for the driveway. We have an adequate weight 22 limitation on the bridge, and we have provided everything necessary beyond that, including 23 the traffic study. We feel that you have sufficient 24 information based on everything provided, that you can make a determination that you have 25 dena a public review adequate to be protect the public here. Call it a due diligence COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 80%7 147 1 2 review, I understand that this is basically pre~ec~ng the public, that is fine. We 3 believe up 'til new we submitted sufficient information te come to that conclusion. We 4 Ehink that you can make a decision to approve hhe application. ~ If, however, we have to leave this open. we have been trying te get detailed 6 information from the fire district; if your information is insufficient for your purposes, then we do need mere time te appropriately answer any further detailed representations in ~ uerms of the safety of the bridge or the safety of Ehe driveway. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTONi: Just a 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. DiBartolo, I honestly have no objection to 11 your application in any way. I just happen to have been a Mattituck fireman for 30 years, 12 okay? MR. DIBARTOLO: Yes. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had a discussion with one of my commissioners, and 14 it's my understanding that they are going to submit a letter. I don't knew exactly when 15 they're going te de this. This discussion was approximately a week er se age. I have te 16 tell you that I have been charged, and I have been charged with the writing of this 17 decision, and with the right of way qualifications, minimum qualifications that 18 this Board has dealt with since the passing of a beard member from Orient who has passed that 19 along to me, and his name is Bob Douglas, and he's been dead in excess of ten years or 20 thereabouts. So I have been writing all of these specifications. I am not, I have to be 21 honest with you, I am not an engineer. It concerns me immensely because 22 of the 110 members that we have in this organization and the ability to get those 23 people to your house, 24/7, 12 months of the year, okay, and that is the reason why I have 24 taken an active interest in this. I want you to be aware of one 25 thing. I have a great rapport with all three chiefs, but the district owns the equipment. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1~8 1 2 All right. The district buys the equipment. The district supplies the equipment, and the 3 district owns the equipment, and they are elected officials. Se, I am still waiting for 4 a letter from the district and that's where we are, I think, at this juncture, and that's my 5 discussion, very short discussion with the chairperson couple days age, and that's where 6 we are. Se, whatever your attorney can de Eo get the letter from the district, from Mr. Glass, we would appreciate it, okay? 8 MR. DIBARTOLO: Of course. We have been very supportive from your comments 9 from the very beginning. We had absolutely ne objections te making it as safe as we possibly 10 can. We have done everything possible but realistically it's been months, and back and 11 forth and back and forth, and we get ne response. It's net normal for a public agency 12 mo respond in that fashion, especially since we did attend the public hearing, and we were 13 told the information had previously been sent Eo the attorney for the district. 14 CHAIRWOMAN- TORTORA: Let me inEerrupt you for a moment. Hr. DiBartelo, I 15 think the Board should send the fire district commissioners a letter. 16 MR. DIBARTOLO: Would you? I think that only would help because I think 17 everything else we have complied with and let us know we will de whatever is necessary te 18 get this done properly. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The Board 19 will, we will send a letter. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me 20 just reflect en eno thing, when the engineer says that the bridge is certified for ten tens 21 per axle, he is saying that dr -- it is a he because it's Mr. Tully, right? 22 MR. DIBARTOLO: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: - he is 23 saying that if a truck has two axles, it's then certified for 20 tens? 24 HR. DIBARTOLO: Exactly. Bet there is another point to that, which, of 25 course, the fire district commissioner needs to review. If it's a bigger truck and you COURT REPORTING AND TPtkNSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878-8047 149 1 2 have three axles, you can't get three axles en a 2% span. You can only get two axles ena 24 3 span. It's a small bridge. It has 12 piers underneath it. So what he's saying is for 4 each axel that's on there will hold ten tons, bet the maximum you can get is two axles, 5 let's face it, and the truck is longer than 20 feet. 6 BOARD MEHBER GOEHRINGER: Most of the trucks are 35 te 7 HR. DIBARTOLO: Of course. But the rest of the truck is going te be en land 8 not on bridge, se the weight is distributed. I'm not an engineer either. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How long is the bridge? 10 MR. DIBARTO~O: 20 feet exactly. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Se what 11 he's saying is by the time the second axel comes over the bridge, the nose of the truck 12 will already be elf the bridge. MR. DIBARTOLO: Exactly. So 13 you're dealing with ten tons. The way that bridge is built, I can tell you this new, I 14 haven't leaked into the possibility ef getting another engineer and someone who actually is 15 involved in the actual configuration of the weight te get certified, and can certify what 16 the actual weight is that is that bridge can hold. The ten ten is a minimum, ten ton per 17 axle is the minimum, if anything it would be more. Se if you're going to wait for the fire 18 department letter anyway. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We really 19 have to. That is part of the thing that we discussed before and we wanted te agree to. I 20 de apologize for the late hour. I recognize that you people have waited through several 21 hearings te be here and I apologize. Mr. DiBartele, why don't we let 22 some of the neighbors speak, and then we will get back and try to conclude this with the 23 letter from the fire department? MR. DIBARTOLO: That's fine. And 24 please let me knew if I can do anything else. Thank you. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOPA: Someone like te speak in opposition? Yes, sir. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8042 150 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Madam Chair~ I have te leave. 3 {Whereupon, Board Member Horning left the hearing ream.) 4 MR. DIACHUM: My name is Ron Diachum. I lived on that property fur many 5 years. Actually, when we sold it there was an agreemenu, repair the barns, repair the house 6 windows, whatever, and never build the house u~. And all efa sudden eno of my neighbors gDes. how dc you like the motel. I was like what? I wane and took a look at it. It 8 actually leeks like a metal. I mean, if they can get away with 9 their properEy doing this zone business, I'd like ce make mine, I got 17 acres, mine and my 10 mom's. ~nd I'd like te build my business too. You knew, make a trailer park, summer cottages i1 something like that, cause I don't -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Bed and 12 breakfasts are permitted use in residential district. It's net a business district. It's 13 nou a business use. MR. DIACHUM: It's making money. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: As we discussed at the last hearing, your objection 15 te the use of it as a bed and breakfast in residential districts, the Town Board, enacted 16 that law many, many years ago and already made a legislative finding that it's allowable, 17 which is allowable by some permit. That's why they're here. We have a number of bed and 18 breakfasts throughout this community, but it is not a commercial use in our codes. 19 MR. DIACHUM: It's not making money then? 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I didn't create the law. I didn't write it. 21 MR. DIACHUM: Se I can make money en my property tee. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORO: If you would like to have a bed and breakfast, apply te the 23 Beard, get a special permit, yes, you are allowed to. 24 MR. DIACHUM: Right away, that property doesn't ge through Laurel Weed. It 25 gees to my property down North Oakwood Drive. It doesn't go to Laurel COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 151 1 2 Wood at all 'cause we tried it eno Emma, my father tried it, and it iidn't work. Now ~11 3 of a sudden it works. It goes threuch North Oakweod Drive and ~lse the Hain Road. There's 4 nc Laurel Wood access ~o that proper~y, legally. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORO: Mr. Goehrincer. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Regarding that? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I mhink 8 the issue here is is Laurel Wood. is the second phase ms that a public read? 9 MR. DIACHUM: Now lu is. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think 10 that's one Df the mssues here. that's still an zssue that's still unresolved. 11 MR. DIACHUM: Gc through North Oakwood Drive and gD uo the Main Read. 12 BOARD MEMBER ~OEHRINGER: I'm just saying that that's one Df the zssues that's 13 unresolved_ HR. DIACHUM: I requese, if 14 there's a bed and breakfast there. I requesE a slx feet fence all around my properEy that I 15 don't gee no nemghbors reamznc ~round my land. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Thank you. 17 MR. DIACHUM: My property and my mom's property. Thank you. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against 19 the application? HR. TAOiMINA: How do you de, 20 folks, my name's Matthew Taoimina. I live at 1100 White Eagle Drive. With the 10,000 -- 21 what is it ten ton? Ten ten thing en the axles, when a vehicle of that size is moving, 22 that's going te create force. I mean, if you're just driving slowly across the bridge 23 with ten ton axle, I can see that, if you're moving with a fire truck with water that 24 sloshes around and creates force of its own, I don't knew if that ten ten is going to be 25 applicable in that use. Se it is a danger and him saying COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 152 1 2 ~hat well, you knew, only the biggest trucks can ge down, well, listen it's going to be a 3 dan~er for a fireman. If they need that big truck ~c perform a rescue or something of 4 that naEure then that bridge should support the biggesE truck. 5 Other things that, if that's all that this Board is addressing at this time, 6 there are ether neighborhood concerns that we have referenced, the bed and breakfasts, that there are two ether accesses te the bed and breakfast, I don't know why this gentleman 8 insists en using our access. My biggest concern is you have people coming through our 9 neichborheeds, they're net buying into that neichberhood in any way. They have ne stake 10 ~n i~. and let's face it, people who are 2emlnc eu£ here to vacation, te visit the 11 wineries things like that, we don't need people that don't have a stake in our 12 neighborhood, driving through our neighborhood after they haye been to a winery, maybe had a 13 few Eoo many, and don't mind driving through zur nemghborhood at fast speeds 'cause what 14 the heck. they're only here for a weekend or whatever. That's a big concern of most of the 15 neighbors, if net all of the neighbors. Other than that, if they want the 16 bed and breakfast where they are, Ged bless them. as long as they have safe access and 17 preferably net through our neighborhood. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you 18 knew if the roads through Section 2 were iedicated yet; does the Town own them? 19 MR. TAOIMINA: I'm net sure wheEher 1E was or -- 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does the Town maintain them now? 21 MR. TAOIMINA: They plow them, that would be true. If they do plow them, I 22 would assume they have been dedicated. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 23 very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak against this application? 24 MR. ERICKSON: I'll speak. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, sir. 25 MR. ERICKSON: My name is Christopher Erickson. I have a parcel of land COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 153 1 2 ~E 1250 White Eagle Drive. My concern is similar to Mr. 3 Taelmina, it comes back to good neighbors. If you have an access, if there's an access to % North Oakwood Drive, why not go up that way and avoid the whole neighborhood altogether, 5 instead of having people that have no vested inEeresm in the neighborhood coming through. 6 I don't know hew large this is my first meeting I don't knew hew large the proposed 7 bed and breakfast is. Hew many rooms he's leaking for; de you have that available? 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It's a three bedroom bed and breakfast. Three 9 bedrooms. MR. ERICKSON: Hew big a 10 dwelling are we looking at here? CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: It's in the 11 existing house. The cede allows up to five I bed and breakfasts, so they're net proposing 12 the maximum by any means. They're proposing a smaller bed and breakfast. 13 MR. ERICKSON: Thank you. Has that been brought up about a North Oakweed 14 access; can you avoid the whole Laurel Wood and White Eagle Drive, I mean this way it's a 15 one way in and one way out? CHAIRWOMAN TORTOP~A: We have. 16 That was discussed at the first hearing, I believe, and there was a number of problems 17 with that because of the distance, the read; there were a let, that was considered te be a 18 lot longer. I guess the real issue is that the access that they're proposing, they're 19 public roads, and as much as you may not feel comfortable having that traffic for the three 20 bed and breakfasts going through your road, they're permitted te do so because it is a 21 public road and -- MR. ERICKSON: Okay. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTOPJt: You really can't say, okay, we're going to discriminate 23 against these people and net allow them te have access to the same road that you have. 24 They're public roads they're net private roads. 25 MR. ERiCKSON: Okay. And the main concern obviously is the fire. Anyone COURT REPORTING AND TRanSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-80%7 154 1 2 that's been te any kind ef fire scene knows that if they roll equipment, and if they need. 3 equipment you can't get it in there, limited space. They might Nave that fire vehicle park % some axles on that bridge. I've been to scenes where you park, you have limited space, 5 small area, and if the ladder vehicle has te get in there, it could be from Southeld Town, 6 mutual aid come from somewhere else, and if you need that equipment that can't get in 7 there, CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We're going 8 te wait and hear from the fire department. This access was chosen because it is the most 9 direct access. If there is any problems whatsoever about inaccess, the Board will leek 10 at ether alternatives because our charge in this instance is to insure that the public 11 health, safety and welfare ef the community, we will de that. 12 MR. ERICKSON: Thank you for your time. ~3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. Hr. DiBartelo, I have a suggestion. We're 14 going to write the letter te the Board, te the fire district te get their input. In fairness 15 ~o you, you will want some type ef opportunity Ee respond; de you want to leave this open te 16 wrlEEen comments for another 30 days; is that a fair thing for everyone in the audience? 17 And. ef course, you're all welcome te come review the file and to ge through any new 18 submissions; is that fair? MR. DIBARTOLO: What we would like 19 because the fire department has net responded, your own volition, simply extend the time te 20 send the information. CHAINWOMAN TORTORA: We are. We're 21 ~eing to send the letter. We're allowing you another 30 days, however, te comment en 22 whatever they say, and as is customary te allow anyone in the audience to submit any 23 written comments if they would like to do se; ms that fair? 24 MR. DIBARTOL0: That's fine. MS. KOWALSKI: Can we de 30 days? 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We can't do 30 days because we land on a weekend. 20URT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE {631) 878 8047 155 1 2 MR. DIBARTO~O: There is a another comment I would like te add if I may. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm sorry? MR. DIBARTOLO: There is another 4 comment I would like te add, if I may, in response to other comments that were recently 5 made. The question about the Laurel Weed access has been said; we went through the permit application process when the bridge was built. There is ne question about access, 7 that is, in fact, a public read, dedicated read. It borders right on the property and it 8 is the only full-size read available. The discussion related te the 9 North Oakwood, that the Board members are net familiar with. It's a eno lane read. It's a 10 private street basically, private street that belongs te the members. It's a one lane road 11 that gees all the way down to Laurel Weed, and if the fire trucks can't get in through the 12 driveway that exists new, believe me, they will never be able te get in from the ether 13 end. Because at the other end it borders right along the wetlands and there just 14 wouldn't be sufficient room. Besides it was mentioned at the 15 last meeting, I think we had eno ef the witnesses from the area, Mrs. Nevak, which is 16 right on my corner that probably had cempiained vehemently about the trucks or cars 17 passing by. In this particular situation any vehicle will pass right behind her property to 18 get into North Oakwoed, even though we believe we do have access going back with an old map 19 that existed in the Town of Southeld. I have nothing further. Thank you 20 very much. CHAIRWOMAN- TORTORA: Thank you. 21 I'm going te make a motion I'm sorry. MS. SCHANTZ: My name is Jane 22 Schantz. I live en Condor Court. I don't understand er maybe I'm just ignorant of the 23 fact whether or net if this is a special permit, is there discretionary by the Beard to approve er disapprove this because ef the feelings in the neighborhood, er is it 25 automatically approved as long as they meet all the requirements? COURT REPORTING AND TP~tNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 156 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Special Exception is a use which is permitted by law 3 providing the applicant meets all the conditions in the cede; that's what a special 4 permit is. So te answer your question, if he mee~s all the conditions in the cede, he gets a permit. I don't have a copy ef the code 6 here, but there are a number of conditions we are concerned with, and one ef the main concerns that we have specified in the code is fire access. That's one of the reasons 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Fire and emergency. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Fire and emergency vehicles that's one ef the reasons 10 why we are looking at that very carefully. MS. SCHANTZ: So basically the 50 11 er 70 families that are going to be part ef their access, don't get a voice in whether 12 they approve this or not? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No. We have 13 listened very carefully te all of your concerns. This is a statement we don't ever 14 wane a bed and breakfast in our neighborhood, is that justification enough for us to turn it 15 down? Ne, it isn't. MS. SCHANTZ: My understanding in 16 speaking te someone with legal knowledge was that a B and B, the intent ef the code and the 17 law was net te put it in a private residential area. It was more ef the intent te put it in 18 ehe main street in a big old home to revitalize the area, bring people in that will 19 walk to the sEores and the restaurants. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's not 20 what our town cede says. I don't knew who you spoke to, but believe me when I say that the 21 town cedes, bed and breakfasts are permitted in R%0, RS0, R200, they're permitted in 22 virtually I'm trying te think of any districts they're net permitted in, which 23 might be a marine district, but there's nothing in the town cede which says they 24 should only be in hamlet areas er shore front areas. Maybe if there is something that you 25 feel that the town code should be changed, but I think you've been given misinformation. 20URT REPORTING AND TNiLNSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 157 1 2 I'm trying te be as straight as I can with you so you're net under any -- 3 MS. SCHANTZ: This is why I'm asking. I'm quite actually ignorant. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Most of us were. Don't feel bad. 5 HS. SCHANTZ: I've never been a part ef this before. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's okay, you're net expected to. 7 HS. SCHANTZ: And I certainly don't, Hrs. DiBartele said to me one time it's 8 been her long held dream te have a B and B, and I certainly wouldn't want te get in the 9 way ef Ehat. My long held dream was to move uo ~ dead end where there's only four houses 10 on the road. ~nd I don't have to worry about £raffic for my children, and that's why we 11 picked that let. And they feel that it's only going Eo be Ehree cars a day, but they only 12 serve kreakfast, so they will be going in and ouu. for the beach or wineries or whatever, 13 and that ~s a concern to a neighborhood, which zs filled with children. 14 But I also don't want to beat my head agalnsu a brick wall. If voicing my 15 opinions. ~nd the opinions -- unfortunately a let sf our neighbors could not even come 16 because Df the work. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The Beard has 17 taken all of your concerns into consideration, please don't think otherwise. 18 MS. SCHANTZ: Okay. One more thing. I knew a B and B is not considered a 19 business use. but with this property will there be able te ever have another country inn 20 built there? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There are no 21 counury ~nn permits in our cede. It's not a permitted use in our code. So the answer te 22 that ~uestlon is ne, not at this time. MS. SCHANTZ: Thank you. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. 24 I'm going te make a motion te 2lose the hearing reserving a decision and te 25 leave -- er rather to close the hearing te verbatim zeseimeny, and te leave it open for COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878 8047 158 1 2 writte~ comments until September 18th, at which time we will clese the hearing. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Secend. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Ail in favor. (Whereupen, all Board Members respended in favor.) 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank yeu very m~ch. 6 (Time ended: 4:30 p.m.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 i5 17 18 2O 21 22 23 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 631 878-804 159 1 2 3 CERTIPICATiON 5 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for 6 the State ef New York, do hereby certify: 7 THAT the within transcript is a true 8 record of the testimony given. 9 I further certify that I am net related by 10 blood er marriage, to any ef the parties te 11 this action; and 12 THAT I am in ne way interested in the 13 outcome ef this matter. 14 IN WITNESS W~EREOF, I have hereunto set my 15 hand this 21st day ef August, 2003. 16 Florence V. Wiles 2{ 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TPda~NSCRIPTION SERVICE 631 878 8047