HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/18/2004 Hearing
e
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e 25
{/elt--; ,¡(i L
'-", ../.
.-)(/ _. "1"/
~ ~.
, ,.
"
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STATE OF NEW YORY
--------------------------------------------x
TOW N
SOU THO L D
o F
Z 0 N I N G
BOA R D
o F
A P PEA L S
--------------------------------------------x
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
November 18, 2004
9:30 a.m.
Board Members Present :
RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
"'/'I-{.Té:::' (LL'/\~'I¡
~((!1}/1/,lJ )
fl.
I/IU'¡jC
KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
I' î
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 1631) 878-8047
{ r'¡1
j ,
II {I/t' ~
e
e
.
2
1
2
3
4
5
I'd like to call our
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
November 18th meeting to order.
I need a
resolution declaring the following have a negative
6
for SEQRA.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So moved.
7
8
(See minutes for resolution.)
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing for
10
11
12
the day, Mr. Drumm has an as-built pool that is in
the front and side yards but not in the rear yard
but it's been there since the '60s.
13
MR. ARNOFF: Good morning, Harvey Arnoff,
206 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York, on behalf
of the applicant.
By way of history in 1967 I graduated from
14
15
16
17
18
law school.
In the fall of 1967 I was in the
United States Army and served in Korea from 1968
to 1969. During that period of time, this pool
19
20
21
went in the ground.
I don't pretend to know what
the law was then, but, of course, Mr. Goehringer
22
was probably still in the Zoning Board back then.
23
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
I was in basic
24
25
training.
MR. ARNOFF: That's right, similar time.
November 18, 2004
e
.
.
3
1
2
3
4
In any event, it's kind of interesting but
considering the fact that there's a road that
doesn't exist alongside this property and if we
chose this is a perfect opportunity for an
5
6
abandonment.
I just mentioned to my client that
7
8
9
10
11
12
this pool is the only pool I have ever seen that
is really in three places -- and I disagree with
you, Mrs. Oliva, I think it's in the rear yard,
side yard and front yard.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
If you count that
paper road, yes.
13
MR. ARNOFF:
I'm not entirely sure and
14
15
16
I've been unable to get the records from the town
clerk as to whether there were any setback
requirements for pools at that time.
I don't
17
18
19
20
21
think there were, I also don't think there were
any permits issued for pools at that time, and I'm
somewhat surprised that the Building Department
didn't just give a preexisting nonconforming use
to this particular accessory use and be done with
it, but we're here, not by any way of complaint
because I always like to come before this board.
There is an entry in a property record
22
23
24
25
card which I think you should know about if you do
November 18, 2004
4
·
1
2
3
4
5
not already and I'd like to put on the record
which shows swimming pool check 1972, that's the
entry.
I asked my client about that entry and
quite peculiarly exactly what happened, and he
I)
said there were no hydrants in the area back then,
7
S
the building inspector came down and looked at it
and checked it. He didn't write a check.
I
9
thought it meant a check.
I spoke to one of the
10
11
12
13
· 14
Members and we both thought it meant that he paid
something, but he didn't pay anything.
It meant
15
16
17
IS
that he checked it. They knew the pool was there
and it's been there since that time, and I'm just
asking for approval from the Board so we can get
our COs and these people can get on with their
lives.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
I met with Mr
19
and Mrs. Drumm, and if anything cries for a yes,
this one does.
20
21
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I was at the pool too,
22
it looked like a very nice pool and whole set up
23
there. vincent?
24
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No question, just a
·
25
comment, the dirt road, paper road, I didn't see
November IS, 2004
e
.
.
5
1
2
3
4
e'.'en any inclination of it being open or even a
deer path.
I don't think that road will ever be
5
committed, dedicated.
MR. ARNOFF: At the side and rear of our
(;
property, there's someone else's property, so it
couldn't go through in any event, so in reality
there could be an abandonment proceeding,
something I'll discuss with my client, I don't
know if they'll want to do that anyway.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where is the dirt
7
S
9
10
11
12
road?
13
MR. ARNOFF: There is none.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Theoretically where
14
15
is it?
16
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That was my only
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
comment.
MR. ARNOFF: Sound Drive is the paper
street.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
If there was
nothing in the code in 1969 and the pool was built
regarding this then isn't it preexisting
nonconforming?
~1R. ARNOFF: One would think so, however,
the Building Department did not, and I don't feel
25
November IS, 2004
·
·
·
6
1
2
3
4
5
(;
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
like being in a tug of war with them.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
I don't have any
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I don't have
anything.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Is there anybody in
the audience that would like to speak? If not,
I'll make a motion closing the hearing and
reserving decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I would like to
'.'ote on this today, would that be a problem?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
I have no
problem with it.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I will make a
19
motion granted as applied.
(See minutes for resolution.)
20
-----------------------------------~--------------
21
22
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Our next hearing is
for Kostas Zachariadis for a high fence around a
tennis court on Little Neck Road in Cutchogue.
23
24
Yes.
25
MR. ZACHARIADIS: Good morning. We have
November IS, 2004
·
·
·
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
tennis court we just built, we have a permit for
it. Michael Dracko suggests instead of five foot
fence to put 10 foot. The reason is for
protecting any balls ending up in somebody else's
pr·operty.
I went to the Building Department to
find out if it was fine, they told me I need a
variance and here I am.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
You're going to have a
nice piece of land down there and beautiful tennis
court.
Jerry?
12
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No comment.
13
14
15
Vincent?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
I want to verify
16
for the record that you're merging these two lots,
creating one lot.
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ZACHARIADIS: Yes, creating one lot,
yes.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't have
any comment.
In fact, more than a year ago we
suggested changing the code for tennis courts.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
For a tennis court
it's really more advisable to have a 10 foot fence
rather than a six foot.
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
8
1
2
3
4
5
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Unless you're good.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Or if you suddenly
get neighbors and you don't have any neighbors
right now. Jim?
6
It does say here
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
in the legal notice that you're going to merge
them, have you merged them yet?
MR. ZACHARIADIS: Yes. Actually the
original, the seller did it before we did the
closing.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
That was back in
¡'1ay?
MR. ZACHARIADIS: Yes.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Lot 2.5 is the
16
combined lot.
17
18
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
But it says In one
of notices --
19
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
I have it in front
20
21
of me.
It was formerly 2.2 and 2.3 and now it's
22
2.5, but the county tax map wasn't showing the new
lot number so that's why we advertised it that
23
24
25
way.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
That's fine.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You could throw
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
9
1
2
that in there.
3
I just wanted
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
No.
4
5
to make sure they were merged.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Is there anybody else
6
in the audience that would like to speak on this
application? If not, I'll close the hearing and
7
S
reserve decision until later.
9
(See minutes for resolution.)
10
11
12
-------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Next hearing is for
Gary Rose for a setback less than 40 feet from the
front yard line and less than 15 feet on the
single side yard less than 35 feet on both sides.
New Suffolk Avenue in Mattituck. Yes, sir, you
13
14
15
16
are?
17
IS
MR. ROSE:
I'm Gary Rose and my nephew
David Sherwood, who is my architect, in case
there's any questions.
19
20
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I believe you're going
21
22
to connect the house and the garage?
MR. SHERWOOD:
It's not going to be
23
connected.
It's going to fall short by about 15
24
25
feet. There will be a deck and breezeway that
runs behind the garage.
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Because you have quite
a drop off right behind the house.
MR. SHERWOOD: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth and Members
·=·f the Board, I've known Gary and I've known this
house for 45, almost 50 years I think. And I
remember the old couple that lived in it.
MR. ROSE: The Knolls.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right.
I have
absolutely no objection to this application.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
No questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia?
16
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
I just want to make
17
18
one thing clear, we have two drawings from you, if
you could for my verification let me know which is
which.
19
20
21
22
MR. SHERWOOD: This is the original.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
No questions.
23
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Vincent?
24
25
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions, I
just wanced co verify that too, I saw that
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
11
1
2
drawing, it was connected by the roof, just
3
open.
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
MR. ROSE: That's correct.
It will be a
covered breezeway but not connecced.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They're not
increasing any setback?
MR. ROSE: No.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
I have no
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Anybody else in che
audience that would like co speak on this
application? If not, I'll make a mocion closing
the hearing and reserving decision until lacer.
(See minuces for resolution.)
16
-------------------------------------------------
17
IS
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Next hearing is
Matthew and Alexandra Ninfo, who would like an
accessory apartment on pequash Avenue in
20
Cutchogue.
this?
Is there someone here to speak to
21
22
23
24
25
MR. NINFO: Hi, I'm Matthew Ninfo and chis
is my wife Alexandra.
I just note chat we did
send a letter notifying our connected neighbors.
We have not received a return receipt from one
November IS, 2004
.
e
.
12
1
2
family, that would be the Lefereides, chat's Lot
3
137 220, on the top of the list.
I haven't gotten
4
any response as far as it not being
deliverable. We just haven'c received a recurn
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
receipt on chat yet.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
We did have one leccer
stating if you could move the driveway co the side
for che parking instead of in front of che house.
Do you have any comments on that?
MR. NINFO:
I think the diagram I sent out
with the cover letter is probably misleading. The
driveway is already on the side of the house. We
were just trying to illustrate that there was
enough space there to park an additional car and
also provide space to turn around so thac people
would not have to turn out onto the road
backwards.
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I think she wanted it
20
21
22
more to the rear. Come here, I'll show you.
I did receive that letter.
MR. NINFO:
I
did see her suggestions. Actually, I think that
would probably because of the grade of che land
there that probably wouldn't be practical; also,
it wouldn't really facilitate the ability to turn
23
24
25
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
around.
It would end up capitalizing a lot more
of the space in the driveway to just move the cars
behind the house.
So I don't really think that's
going to accomplish what we're after.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
You feel just with the
driveway that you have now will it be sufficienc
for people to turn around and go out?
9
Using the front lawn.
MR. NINFO:
I think
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
she thought we were proposing chat we were going
co put a parking lot in front of the house, that's
noc my suggescion.
My suggescion was to just use
that part of the lawn to turn around.
As it is,
there's only two people in the house that drive
cars.
There's never more than three cars in che
driveway.
It's never really been a problem.
As far as the appearance of the oucside of
the house to other houses in the area, it really
19
doesn't look any different.
since the house was built.
Ie's been that way
20
21
22
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
You're really
proposing more of a studio apartment with a big
room and a kitchen and a bachroom?
23
24
25
MR. NINFO:
Exactly, that's exaccly what
it is.
November IS, 2004
.
e
.
14
1
2
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jerry, do you have any
3
questions?
4
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
I have to tell
c
~
you, we usually don't see applications like chis.
6
Usually they're two story houses or people are
7
putting additions on to accommodate the apartment
S
situation.
I chink it's
I think it's unique.
9
workable. There's no question about it.
10
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
11
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
No questions.
12
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Vincent?
13
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just one curiosity
14
question, how did you come before us today? Did
15
you file for a Building Department permic?
16
MR. NINFO: That's sort of how ic
17
happened.
It kind of happened backwards. Because
18
we were doing some other things in the house, we
were alerted by the Building Department, I'm not
sure exactly how we became aware of it. But what
19
20
21
happened was when we became aware that the
22
conversion to living space had never been
23
permitted, even though other pares of that
24
apartmenc had been. So we went and got an as
25
built building permit to get a proper CO for thac
November IS, 2004
e
.
.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
living space. During the course of that, we
discovered thac that area of che house did
constitute an accessory apartment. So rather than
inspect the building before we had a proper
accessory apartment we decided co go ahead and do
the permic first and then have the building
deparcment inspect the work.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the majority of
chis was preexisting when you purchased the house?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
MR. NINFO: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just your lawyer
didn't pick it up somehow?
MR. NINFO: Yes, I don't chink that we
knew that consticuted an accessory apartment
having never owned a building like that before.
It was our understanding that everything there was
legal and acceptable. So you can imagine our
surprise when we found out that it wasn't.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, no other
20
21
questions.
22
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia?
23
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is che cotal
24
square footage of the house without the accessory
apartment?
25
November IS, 2004
e
e
.
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
2,019, the house
is a 1,288, accessory apartmenc's at 731; is thac
correct?
MR. NINFO: Yes, that sounds righc.
I
think it works out to exactly 40 percenc of the
square footage.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
I don't have any
9
questions.
10
11
12
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Anybody else in the
13
audience would like to speak co this application?
MR. REDA: Hello, my name is Kerri Reda.
14
15
16
17
18
19
I am the Ninfos' neighbor to the south.
In
speaking with them, chey had said that making this
apartment legalized was not something that would
be transferable to new owners, and I was checking
to see is that accurate or once it's a legal
apartment, new owners have a legal aparCmenc?
20
21
22
23
24
25
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I would think so.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Actually under the
code, the new owner must apply for a new CO co
insure they're a resident. One of the
requirements is they must be an owner and a
November 18, 2004
.
e
.
17
1
2
3
4
resident of the building. So if the new owner
does not reside chere, they wouldn't be eligible
for approval.
MS. REDA: Would the new owner be able co
5
6
use ic in any way they needed to? I ha'-,e no
objection to how it's being used right now, I'm
concerned if their situation should change or if
7
S
9
they are to move and sell the home to someone
10
else, then what might the apartment be used for?
will we have ten people in and out of the house
and many cars because cheir driveway is right up
11
12
13
against two of the bedrooms In our home.
I'm
14
wondering about future use and hopefully the
Ninfos will stay my neighbors for the long term.
I just wasn't sure if this was something
transferable and what happens down the road if the
use of the apartment should change.
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
It depends on how
it's being used and how it's being owned and
resided In.
MS. REDA: That's something to deal with
23
down the road?
24
25
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Thank you. Would
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
IS
1
2
3
4
5
someone else like to speak on chis?
If not, I'll
make a motion to close the hea~ing and reserve
decision until later.
,See minutes for resolution.)
6
---------------------------------------------
7
8
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Next hearing is
Andrew and Ann Monaco.
Would you like to explain
to us why you need that fence?
10
11
12
13
14
MR. MONACO:
Yes.
My name is Andrew
I<lJonaco.
My wife apologizes for not being here,
she's taking care of my son, he had a minor
operation, so being the good mother thac she is,
she's home.
15
It's been a long process.
I'm 12 years
16
17
IS
older since we bought the property and although
we're in the middle of building it right now.
They call me the "dead end keeper" because for 12
'¡ears I've been picking up the garbage and the
rubble and painting the guardrails down there, and
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
taking pride in the area.
What I've nociced since
we started building the house about four months
ago and there's always been for ten, 12 years, a
lot of beach traffic, and fishermen I've gotcen to
know a lot of them, they're not che problem.
The
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
19
1
2
3
4
5
problem is at night. There's been a vagranc
thac's been sleeping in a van at the end of Rocky
Point Road, there's also a woman chat's been
sleeping down at the beach. During my clean-ups
normally on Monday morning after a weekend, I was
noticing these little plastic bags and had no idea
whac they were until about two weeks ago, my son's
school had a drug awareness program through
Suffolk County, and evidently these little bags
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
are used to hold cocaine. So between the
vagrancs, between the kids parking there at night
and drinking beer, and that's kind of come under
control because I've approached them down at the
beach at night when chey're parked down there and
they're buildings fires down at the beach, and I
don't have a problem as long as chey clean up, so
we've kind of gained a respect between the high
school children that go down there and park and
20
all.
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
That's nice of you to
do that.
MR. MONACO: I don't mind as long as
people keep it clean. And che dumping has stopped
since I've started picking, and especially since
November IS, 2004
.
e
.
20
1
2
the house is going up, but the six foot fence
and ie's not an incersection type road where you
have cars comlng in both directions ac 30, 40, 50
3
4
5
miles per hour.
It does dead end about
6
7
three-quarcers of the way down my property and
there actually was, about ten years ago when I
S
first purchased it, a chain link fence that the
superintendenc of highways took out when he put ln
che drain and moved the guardrail back, and there
was an actual six foot chain link fence that came
across Rocky Point Road and behind the 3uardrail
then came down about halfway behind my property,
9
10
11
12
13
14
ic was a six foot chain link.
It was ugly and
15
they had co take it down so I'm glad they
16
17
IS
19
20
did.
The point I'm getting at was there was a
fence chere at one time that was owned by the
town.
But to keep it simple, I would like co
have the six foot fence and conform to che 25 or
21
30 foot line of vision that the town calls for.
I
22
think I put 25 in the application, but I think
23
it's 30.
Buc co go from che
I thought it was 25.
24
four foot that I'm allowed because it's a corner
25
lot to the six foot back to the bluff, that would
November IS, 2004
.
e
.
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
prevent anybody from walking around and at least
chey have to come to the front of the house.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I saw your problem.
I'm familiar wich that area, I live in Orient, and
we have had a lot of trouble where the road ends.
I'm glad you say it's cleaned up a little bit.
MR. MONACO:
I have for cen years that's
why no one's here objecting to it.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
As long as you keep
chat corner open.
I see 25 foot is go~ng to be
12
open wich no fencing; is that correct?
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. MONACO:
That's correct.
Then scart
with two, three feet to six foot chen ac the end
go down again to six to the three to g~ve
uniformity to che fence line.
Four foot fence,
I've got a four foot fence up chere now, and it's
okay, we have a lavatory that we keep on site for
the men that are working, and they just hop over
the fence and use it, which is fine, but six foot
I don't think they would be able to do chat and
give us some security.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim, do you have any
questions?
25
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
No.
November IS, 2004
.
e
.
22
1
2
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia?
3
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The stretch is
going co be 75 feet?
4
5
6
7
It's approximate.
MR. MONACO:
I scaled
it off the survey. But again, what I'm proposing
is from the actual bluff line, which is about 46
foot mark, if you have the survey In front of ,'ou,
which to the cop step you got the landing, then
the top step down to about the 25 foot mark. But
if you notice, the 25 feet mark from where I
ended, that's from the property line then there's
another 12, 13 feet to the edge of the pavement,
so if you give me the 25, we're only talking 36,
37 feet of open visibility.
S
9
1û
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
I have absolutely
no problem.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Likewise I can
respect your privacy. Just a question on the
duration of che three feet. You have 25 feet of
open, how many feet of three feet?
MR. MONACO: The cransition is three co
22
23
24
six on eight.
25
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One section from
November IS, 2004
.
e
.
23
1
~
L
chree to six then the rest will be six feet?
3
MR. MONACO: Then the rest will be six,
4
then the last section going north will be six to
5
chree, so it doesn't just end abruptly.
6
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jerry?
7
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Based upon your
S
samples that you have given us, this is a wood
9
fence?
10
MR. MONACO: Yes, I will put up anything
11
that the Board wishes for me.
I would like to puc
12
up something nicer than a stockade fence.
I was
13
looking ac the PVC type fences which are very
14
pretty, white, they offer the security and they
15
offer the safety I'm looking for, but the problem
16
is that especially I'm constancly cleaning rocks
17
en the beach and graffiti, if they decide to write
IS
on the fence, which they did across the street,
19
the six foot fence right on the ocher side of che
20
street, it has a bark on it so when they wrice on
21
it's very easy to peel it off or power wash it
22
off.
If I could get chat type of stockade fence
23
that if you hit with a power washer or scrape
24
takes some of the bark off you can get rid of the
25
graffiti.
November IS, 2004
·
·
·
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Putting this
fencing right on the line it looks like?
MR. MONACO: Right.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Whatever you put
there it just has to be continuously maintained,
certainly if you put it on the property line,
people may back into it. So there are issues here
it really should be offset just a little bic.
7
8
9
10
11
There should be obstructions in front of it.
I'm
12
not mandating it, I'm instructing this to you, if
you offset it IS inches on your property and put
some bushes or scrub or rosa rugosa in front of
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
ie, you're going to be able to keep the life of
chis fence much more than pucting it right on the
line.
MR. MONACO:
I am having a discussion with
the highway department on that point. There's
like five to five and a half feet between the
fence and edge of pavement, and what I've asked
them to do and I haven't gotten an answer from
them, basically we're talking back and forth is to
put small stones and in between ic put bushes and
22
23
~4
probably the beach gravel that's down there with a
type of layment that you put down there so the
25
November IS, 2004
.
e
.
25
1
2
weeds don't come up.
I've been maintaining that
3
4
5
for years, I have no problem.
No matter how far I
puc ic in, chey're going to bash it in.
If I put
small rocks every six or seven feet, they're not
6
going co be able to jump over it and hit che fence
7
and wich the planting and all,
but I do plan on
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
making that pretty with planting.
And that was
the highway's, who is going to take care of it. I
said I will take care of it jusc like I will take
care of the eight feet chat the town owns on
Aquaview Road also.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
I just think you
15
have to understand that not only are we giving you
a variance for you, but we're giving for any
subsequent owners if you were to sell che
16
17
IS
property.
So I'm suggesting to the Board, and
it's only my suggestion, chat whatever fence you
put up, that it be continuously maintained, and
I'm sure you don't have an objection to that.
19
20
21
22
23
MR. MONACO:
Not at all.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Thank you.
Is there
anybody else that would like to speak on this
24
application?
If not I'll make a motion closing
25
the hearing and reserving decision until later.
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
26
1
2
(See minutes for resolution.)
3
-------------------------------------------------
4
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Next application is
"
~
for Olsen and Villanti on the North Road In
Greenport for a proposed dwelling less than 75
feec from che bulkhead.
6
7
s
MR. VILLANTI: Good morning, Board, my
9
name is Bryan Villanti.
10
I believe you have the revised survey I
11
had submitted probably a month or two ago.
12
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Yes, we have it.
13
r~R. VILLANTI:
I'm looking to construct a
14
one-family home within this footprint that's
15
illustrated on this survey, inclusive of thac
16
footprint would be decks, garages not to exceed
17
chat footprint.
I tried to sicuate this house at
18
some point where there would be the greatest
19
setback from the water, and it meets che three
20
other setbacks, the front and the two side yards
21
and the backyard, but I show 50 feet from the
22
bulkhead.
23
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
You're the one that
24
put all chose nice plantings along the road there?
25
MR. VILLANTI:
I wasn't the actual one.
November IS, 2004
·
·
·
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
But I plan to improve it, and what I'm looking to
really do is try to noc disturb that land as least
as possible, and I'm looking into putting a slab
foundation, not a basement.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I didn't realize until
I looked ac it that that property cut around, I
thought it went scraight down to che canal.
9
MR. VILLANTI:
It's ilL!! shaped, it's an
10
11
odd lot. But it's a pretty nice lot.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Mr. Orlando?
12
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you the
adjacent property owner as well?
13
14
15
MR. VILLANTI: No.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
So you got free
16
shrubs from them planting them?
MR. VILLANTI: You mean co the west?
17
IS
19
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes.
I'm curious
if you were che homeowner or you owned chat parcel
as well?
20
21
22
MR. VILLANTI: No.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You currently use
23
this now for?
24
25
MR. VILLANTI:
I have my boat there.
There's a cabana shed wich bath facilities, and
November IS, 2004
.
e
.
28
1
2
3
4
5
there is an existing septic syscem that I think it
was back In '98 when that was approved and
installed, and it's been used very little.
It's
only during boating season, and ic has cown water
to the property, and there's electric in there.
6
7
8
It's a fully improved loc at this point.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You stated this
9
footprint 59 by 34, that's everything, it's the
deck?
10
11
12
13
14
15
MR. VILLANTI: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because I thought
that was all house.
MR. VILLANTI: No.
In reality che house
is probably under 2,400 square feet, a two-story,
try to keep the footprint of the house as small as
possible and going up a second story to
accommodate that.
16
17
IS
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
How high will che
20
house be to the ridge?
MR. VILLANTI: Probably no greater chan 35
feet but more probably like 28 or so.
21
22
23
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jerry?
24
25
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
It's a difficult
lot.
I can appreciate what you've done.
I don't
November 18, 2004
.
.
.
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
have any objections.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You do have kind of
a cough sicuation wich the flood zone and the drop
in elevacion there and really looking aC chis
piece of property, I don't see any way chac you
could sicuate this house without a variance.
I agree with thac.
MR. VILLANTI:
I would
actually like to situate it in a different spot.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
I don't see any way
that you can, physically I don't think ie's
possible. That's my only comment.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
Definitely a
hardship, I have no objection co it.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One other quescion,
19
are there right of ways across your property co
access those docks?
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. VILLANTI: No, not at all. Actually,
the Fordham Inlet there, you actually own the dirt
below the canal because those lots were deeded out
parcels of the canals co different landowners.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
They were done back in
the '60s.
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
30
1
2
3
4
5
MR. VILLANTI:
I think che subdivision of
'62.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Those several docks
are yours then?
6
MR. VILLANTI: Yes. There's one big
floacing dock where the boat is tied up, and then
the bulkhead is "L" shaped, I think it's 116, 117
linear feet, I applied to the DEC, I think you
have a copy of that letter, and it was a
nonjurisdictional because prior to '77 when all
that was constructed.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That's all yours In
there?
MR. VILLANTI: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No other
comments.
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Anybody else in the
20
21
22
audience would like to speak to this application?
If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing,
reserve decision until later.
23
24
25
(See minutes for reso1ution.¡
---------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
The next hearing is
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
31
1
2
for Arthur Torell, who wishes to build a new home
on Westward Lane in Greenport.
MR. TORELL: Good morning, I'm Arthur
Torell. This request for a variance is due to me
showing an application and drawings and building
plans to che Building Department, at which time
they told me that the back area, open area, was
not enough based on the footprint of the
foundation and the size of the lot. This projecc
I started in '98 and had applications from the
Board of Appeals and the Building Department and
Health Department, the DEC, but I had to stop thac
project at that time due to some family issues.
In 2003 I restarted the project, reapplied
to the DEC, the Health Department and at the same
time worked with an architect to get my building
plans from '98 up to 2003 New York State codes.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
So everything was happening ac the same time.
I
20
have a permit from the Health Department dated
21
April 30, 2004.
I have a permit from the DEC
22
daced September 13th, but I'm here now to request
23
a variance for the back distance.
It should be 50
24
25
feet and at this poinc, I have 37 and a half
feet.
I must point out that in '98, the house was
November IS, 2004
.
e
.
32
1
2
70 feet -- house and garage were 70 feet long, at
3
chis time it's 67 and a half feet due to some
4
economy and the architect's ingenuity. But also
c
~
during this year, working with the DEC to squeeze
6
chis house into that parcel, I was asked to push
7
it, move it, do whatever I could to get the
8
footprint furthest from the wetlands.
So thac's
9
why the combination of making the house shorter,
10
but that didn't compensate because che house had
11
to be slid back a little bit and to the north
12
based on what the DEC recommended.
13
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Did you have to go to
14
the Truscees too?
15
MR. TORELL: I did and I have the
16
Trustees' permit. In fact chey just approved a
17
one-year extension which takes me through I think
18
next July.
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Mr. Orlando?
20
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, the backyard
21
neighbor there, your backyard neighbor is Suffolk
22
County wetlands; is that correcc?
23
MR. TORELL: Yes, it is. Well, the back
24
neighbor is I think Green Space and it's a
25
de'.'eloper, it's Eastern Shores. To the south or
November 18, 2004
33
1
2
left of the property, viewing from the street,
chat is the Town of Southold, then behind that
is - -
e 3
4
5
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Inland Pond Park,
e
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
isn't it?
MR. TORELL: No. Behind that large
parcel, which is like two acres I say where the
bog is that is Southold's, behind that is one of
those sunken holes wich a fence around ic.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
A sump, a recharge
basin?
15
MR. TORELL: Right.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So in '98 you came
before the Zoning Board for a merger of Lot 67 and
16
17
18
68?
19
MR. TORELL: An unmerger, which was
approved.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Then you also came
20
21
22
23
before us for a variance?
MR. TORELL: Correct, because the building
department said I didn't have enough area on the
side yard.
I needed 15 feec and only cen, so chat
24
ten foot was granted.
e
25
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What happened to
November 18, 2004
·
e
e
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
the other lot, Mr. Torell?
MR. TOR ELL:
I still own it.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you didn'c have
a rear yard setback at that time?
MR. TORELL: No one flagged it as an issue
during that process.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But the footprint
didn't change?
MR. TORELL: The footprint has slid back a
liccle bit to the rear yard.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Hence the rear yard
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
setback?
MR. TORELL: Yes. The house is shorter
but it had to slide back a little bit.
16
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
It was scill less
17
IS
19
20
21
22
chan 50 feet at that time?
MR. TORELL: Yes, but at the time in '98 I
think I noted to you that there was no measurement
on the drawing for some reason, and no one flagged
ic as an issue. So I didn't know how far awa~' ic
was, but I guess the Building Department looked at
it and just visually looked ac it and said it's
far enough.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You'll be residing
23
24
25
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
35
1
2
in this house?
3
MR. TORELL: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions.
4
5
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia?
6
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm jusc
7
8
9
10
11
wondering if we shouldn't be amending the prior on
this so we can incorporace it, but I guess it
doesn'c matter too much.
I don'c have any
questions.
I remember your former application
'Jery well.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
12
Jim?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
No quescions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All my questions
were answered.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Is there anyone in che
audience who would like to speak on this
application? If not, I'll make a motion to close
che hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
20
21
22
-----------------------------------------------
23
24
25
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Next hearing is
Salvatore and Margarec Detrano on Great peconic
Bay Boulevard, in Laurel.
Is there anyone who
November 18, 2004
.
e
.
36
1
2
would like co speak for a right of way easement?
3
Yes, sir?
4
5
6
7
MR. LEONARD: Robert Leonard for Salvatore
and Margaret Detrano. Whac we're basically
proposing here, we would like to propose addicions
and alcerations to che first and second floor of
8
the exiscing house on the lot.
What we're here
9
10
11
12
13
14
asking relief for is additions co the first floor
of the house,
Due to the size of the existing lot
and the location of the residence as it currently
sits, any additions and alteracions to the house
would require a variance going out to the front or
rear of che property.
The additions chac we are
15
proposing for the rear of the property, for the
rear yard setbacks do not exceed the distance --
the existing setback for the existing deck that is
16
17
18
19
chere now.
The additions at the fronc of che house,
the bedroom that we're proposing co connect the
house to the garage is not proposed to go past the
existing front of the house; che other additions
and alterations to the fronc comprise cwo bay
windows in the living spaces and an open portico
at the entrance that will shrink the existing
20
21
22
23
24
25
November IS, 2004
e
.
.
37
1
2
setback at the front of the house.
3
4
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Leonard, I
5
met with the applicanc one Saturday afcernoon, and
I hadn't been up there in a lictle while and I was
amazed to see that drop off the way it does drop
off.
6
7
8
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Big drop off.
10
11
12
13
14
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
In your
parcicular field, is the construction or the
reconscruction of this house going to affect that
low land area in any way?
MR. LEONARD: Absolutely not. The only
foundacions we're proposing to install for the
house is a crawl space for the master bedroom
we're proposing, the rest is going to be at the
second floor level resting on columns. We're not
going co be going back there doing any massive
excavacion other than column foocings.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did any other
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
agency of chis town or state agency require you to
puc any cype of hay bales or anyching down?
MR. LEONARD: Of course we always put the
25
hay bales down there whenever we see any type of
November 18, 2004
e
.
.
38
1
~
L
wetlands, but no, we didn't need anything from any
3
other agency.
4
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
5
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your 25 foot and 21
6
feet are all based on the fronc yard and using the
7
easement, correct?
8
MR. LEONARD: Yes.
9
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 14' 1", would
10
chat be your easement then?
11
MR. LEONARD: We're using the existing
12
propercy lines, so the 21 foot 21 three-quarters
13
we're proposing on the front would be to the
14
propercy line not the easement, same thing in the
15
rear yard, it's 20 and-a-half feet to the
16
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
To the deck?
17
MR. LEONARD: Yes, to the deck, which is
18
che existing setback now to the existing deck.
19
We're proposing that to the enclosed porch we're
20
looking to put back there.
21
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the 14'1" lS
22
your side yard?
23
MR. LEONARD: Yes. And we're not asking
24
for any relief at the side yard.
25
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the 20'5" is
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
39
1
2
3
4
your rear yard?
MR. LEONARD: Yes, the building
departmencs determined the front and rear yards
because there really is no road on the site.
5
6
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other
7
questions.
s
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia?
9
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, you just
10
answered my question.
11
12
13
14
15
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
No questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jerry, anything
further?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
16
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Is there anybody else
17
18
In the audience chat would like to speak on this
application? If not, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
19
20
21
22
-----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Next hearing is
23
Kristopher Pilles who wishes co have a waiver of
merger on Cedar Drive Wesc, East Marion.
MR. PILLES: Good morning.
24
25
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
40
1
2
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Yes, sir, good
3
morning, how are you?
4
Going through
MR. PILLES:
Pretty good.
5
this process, I guess chere's four questions I
6
have to address in front of you guys.
The firsc
7
being that the variance will not affect the
8
density of the neighborhood.
From looking at the
9
tax maps, there's several other similarly sized
10
locs in the neighborhood.
With that said, my
11
plans -- obviously chis is a long process going
12
from here, if I gain your approval with the
13
Suffolk County Department of Healch and other
14
agencies.
15
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Let me interrupt you.
16
Do you have Greenport Water there?
17
MR. PILLES:
No, I don't.
I would have to
18
get a variance after putting in a test well.
19
So from looking at the other properties in
20
the area, I think that the lot just from my
21
opinion should be room for a variance without
22
affeccing the density of che neighborhood.
23
The next question is is it consistent with
24
the size of the lots in the neighborhood.
M"
,
25
feeling yes, again, from looking at the tax maps.
November 18, 2004
.
.
.
41
1
2
Additionally, not on the tax maps is an exiscence
of the private road that runs between Stars Road
and Aquaview Drive, which would reduce the size of
some of the other lots that are there, making it
even smaller than the one I'm proposing to build
3
4
5
6
7
8
on.
In regards to economic hardships,
realistically, to live on the north fork is
9
10
11
12
expensive.
I came inco this property through my
father's passing, and I'm in the process of
renting the other house in order to pay the
13
mortgage.
I don't know, I think that to stay out
14
15
on the north fork I probably need to keep that
house rented, use that positive cash flow to pay
down the mortgage on building on this lot, and
then I can stay here.
To address the fourth issue, the lot, che
natural details and characters and contours of the
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
slopes of the lot will not be affected. The lot's
pretty clear. I wish the lot was a little bigger
but I kind of have to work with what I have.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Whac are the
dimensions of the lot?
25
MR. PILLES: It's 50 by 120.
November IS, 2004
.
e
.
42
1
2
We did some
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
3
investigacion and all of these small lots were,
4
5
shall we say, merged or unmerged back in the '60s.
These are old lots when we didn't have zoning.
It
6
just started and it's one acre zoning, of course,
7
in that area.
And we try co make our lots come up
8
co somewhat near at least R40 in one acre zoning.
9
I understand your plight and whac have you, but
chese lots were merged back in the '50s and when
you purchased it back in '98, I believe it was.
They were still merged; were you aware of it?
10
11
12
13
14
15
MR. PILLES:
No, I wasn't.
In all honesty
my father's intention was to be standing here
himself.
Now ie's fallen on my shoulders.
16
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Let me ask our Board.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I kind of mirror
23
what che Chairwoman is saying. The lot is
extremely small, and it doesn't have any utilicy
such as public water, and I grew up on a block
very similar to this one out here, and I
understand whac a 50 foot loc is, and I underscand
24
25
chat there are a couple in che neighborhood.
But
cercainly the elongation of thac house would serve
November 18, 2004
e
e
e
43
1
~
L
well, if one were so inclined to do so, into
3
building on this property rather than trying co
4
squeeze it on.
If you wanted to in che future,
5
even if you agreed, if you felt you had to sell
6
it, I think it's more valuable leaving that lot in
7
its existing condition, and that's my opinion.
8
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Vincent?
9
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
I'm looking at the
10
Town property card when your dad purchased it In
11
'98, I have to ask the assessor, maybe che cown
12
attorney, but it says $80,00 for two parcels.
13
MR. PILLES: That's what he paid at the
14
time. Coming into it from an escate, I had to pay
15
fair market value.
16
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
I had to ask the
17
assessors what it stands for, ic looks like two
18
parcels. Do you concur with chat?
19
TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Looks like it's
20
parcels.
I suspect that means, were there two
21
other tax map parcels?
22
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
No. Owners were
23
purchased back in che '50s so they merged and even
24
when Mr. pilles boughc them in '98 they were still
25
merged.
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
44
1
2
3
4
5
TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Merged by operation
of law.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
I think I can
clear that issue up, if you would like me to.
6
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Go ahead.
7
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This cown has
8
relied an awful loc on those tax maps.
If there
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
was a perforation between those two lots, meaning
dotted lines, I suspect thac the assessors would
have said the house parcel/parcels if that was the
case, but since it's a solid line and maybe you're
receiving two tax bills that's the reason they use
the plural notwithstanding the fact that zoning
exists and they are merged.
MR. PILLES: Can I ask a question? My
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
confusion is when these lots were created, the
intention was for two building lots, correct? I
mean, when the zoning many, many administrations
ago.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: One lot was created
prior to zoning, Lot 36 was created in 1952, prior
co zoning. Both lots have been merged since Lot
36 was purchased in March of '52 and the other was
In August '56. What relationship are you co Alice
24
25
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
45
1
2
3
4
5
and George Blaze?
MR. PILLES: None.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: His father
purchased it from them.
MR. PILLES: Actually, he purchased it
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
from the estate, I believe it was Alice's estate.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No.
I made the
comments I'm going to make.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I think that they
15
were merged in '83, when the merger law came into
effect, and, you know, you had been receiving two
separate cax bills even after that point.
16
17
IS
19
20
21
MR. PILLES: Still are.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I knew your
father, I worked with him a lictle while, and it
seems to me there was no intention to merge these
lots. Gentleman just purchased a lot next door to
him and hoping some day to puc a house on
it. That's my opinion, of course, as always I
think the Town is remiss that they don'c nocify
22
23
24
people that they do chings. Unless you read the
suffolk Times thoroughly every day, every week,
25
November 18, 2004
.
.
e
46
1
~
L.
then you may miss out.
There's no law that says
3
you have to buy the Suffolk Times.
4
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Or the Traveler
5
Watchman.
'"
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Is chere anybody else
7
ln the audience that would like to speak on this?
8
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Yes, Pat.
9
MS. MOORE:
I don't have any relationship
10
with Mr. Pilles, but I want to put something on
11
the record that I think the Board should keep in
12
mind.
We are going right now through several
13
hamlet scudies and the stewardship meecings and so
14
on, and the whole emphasis of it is co cry to
15
create diversity of neighborhoods and provide for
16
alternative or affordable housing, not to say that
17
this lot is necessarily going co be an affordable
lot, but it's certainly going to be less expensive
chan a one acre, two acre lot anywhere else in the
18
19
20
neighborhood.
21
I know I've had various applications on
22
behalf of clients on Stars Road and I know the
23
Zoning Board has been reluctant co I say
24
"grandfather" the subdivision chat got approved
25
with the Stars Road subdivision that creaced chis
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
47
1
2
property, but maybe it's time to start thinking
about the policies and the goals that che Town
3
4
Board has expressed.
We are doing all these
5
studies chese moratoriums, a lot of community
input is being sought for the purposes of creating
6
7
8
some density.
Why are we creating density in
9
ocher areas and creating a whole process when we
have these existing preexiscing subdivisions that
provide that alternative housing types. Stars
Road is an example of it, Maccituck has some
examples. Where I live we have a diversity size
parcels. Where I live on a half acre, my neighbor
a nice man lives in a small cottage on a parcel
10
11
12
13
14
15
that is about the same size.
We can create
16
17
18
19
diversity in this community, and we have the
zoning controls through setbacks and variances so
that the houses that get built on these
substandard lots are in conformity with the
20
neighborhood.
But to force che merging of
21
properties where zoning has already through
history provided for a neighborhood thac is
diverse, we should try to keep that in mind or I
ask the Board co keep that in mind because we seem
to be trying to move forward but going backwards
22
23
24
25
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
48
1
2
3
4
5
at the same cime.
I know you're constantly considering that
balancing, and you do a very good job with thac.
I know your hearts are in the right place, buc
also keep in mind thac Stars Road somewhat middle
income homes are available co the public, and I
chink you have an applicanc right here who is an
example of that.
6
7
8
9
10
11
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
The problem is going
to be to get the Board of Health approval?
12
MS. MOORE:
That's always a problem, but
13
14
even the Health Deparcment recognizes that in
subdivisions that are substandard, if you're the
lase guy to be developed, there has to be some
flexibility, and chat's what the Board of Review
15
16
17
18
is there for.
You can't blame che last guy to be
developed to fit the bill for everybody else's
19
sanicary and well.
You don't have co be che
20
21
enforcement body for the Health Department.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I realize that, thank
22
you.
Yes, sir?
23
24
25
MR. SAKELLIS:
I'm a neighbor of this
particular lot.
My name is George Sakellis.
I
bought the house a few years back with che idea
November IS, 2004
·
·
·
49
1
2
3
that I will have some peace and quiet, and of
course, it doesn't look like it's going to work.
4
This particular lot is very small.
It's close to
5
I can't imagine chat out here we're
my property.
6
going to have similar city buildings, close to
each other, 20 footers and 15 footers, and I think
this is ridiculous that we going to allow chis
man, which I don't know, to build one house on
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
this particular lot.
Many people as you see In
che areas spend a lot of money for lots for
buildings, and they are not squeezing in between
driveways to make the house.
This man has been
15
renting the house and che new house that he's
going to do, he's going to have to rent ie,
16
there's no way.
So if that's what we want co do,
17
18
19
20
21
renc our houses up there, I think it's "very good
idea for him to build a nice 20 footer house.
I'In
'tery opposed to it and I'm very aggrava ced.
appreciate your decision.
I
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Thank you very much,
22
sir.
Is there anybody else in the audience who
23
would like to speak on this application?
(See minutes for resolution.)
24
25
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Ma'am, chair,
November 18, 2004
.
.
.
50
1
2
3
4
5
can we take a five minute recess?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Make a motion to
recess.
(See minutes for resolution.)
6
I Of f che record.)
7
8
-------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Our next hearing is
9
for Thomas and Annette Jordan ac 1680 Brigantine
Drive in Southold.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Mr. Hermann, we had this before us last
year, go ahead.
MR. HERMANN:
For the applicant, Rob
Hermann, of En-Consultants, 1319 North Sea Road in
Southampton.
I was wondering if you would recall the
application.
At the time it was chen contract
"Jendee Gary Gurnes who had filed an application
before che Board for 15 feet of relief for a house
19
20
21
22
situated 25 feet from Brigantine.
It was
cestified to in the record by two of the nearby
property owners and also by Member Orlando chat
the established setback for this area was 35 feet,
and the Chairwoman I believe indicated somewhat
23
24
25
unambiguously that Mr. Gurnes should go back to
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
51
1
2
3
4
5
che drawing board and come back with something
chat was in keeping with the 35 feet.
Long sCory
short because of objections that were also raised
to the scope of the Gurnes project by DEC,
ultimately the Gurnes contract with che Jordans
was terminated, the Jordans decided to pursue the
permic approval process themselves and retained
En-Consulcants to represent them.
What we did was reconfigure and
significantly downsize the scope of the project in
a way that would conform to the requirements and
recommendations of all of the involved agencies.
And so since you last saw this application on
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
behalf of the Jordans we were able to obtain
approvals from the New York State DEC, from the
Town Trustees and also from the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services.
So essentially we
19
are back before this Board wich a house whose
20
footprint has been reduced by roughly 30 percenc
21
22
saying it's been a while, but we essencially wenc
back and did what you asked us to do, and could
you now look favorably upon the variance
23
24
application which is now just for five feet.
If
25
you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer
November IS, 2004
·
·
·
52
1
2
them on behalf of the Jordans.
3
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
We do have a copy of a
4
5
6
7
8
letter in opposition by Mr. Abelli.
HI am not a
residenc in the immediate area of this
application, but I do own a residence and
addicional property in Harbor Lights.
"In my opinion this proposal is contrary
9
to the best interests of this neighborhood.
I ask
10
11
the Board to reject the requesc for a variance.
The proposed setback of 35 feec is completely out
of character of the setbacks of other homes in che
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
immediate area.
The consultants report says thac
the average established setback in the area is
about 35 feet; this is not so.
The setbacks of
che two adjoining homes are probably 40 to 50
feet.
Those of the homes across che street are
probably close to 100 feet.
I estimate the
22
average setback of the seven homes in the
immediate area is about 70 feec.
"If this request is approved, the
resulting house would projecc well in fronc of che
23
24
25
other two adjoining houses.
The fronc yard would
be considerably smaller than those of the other
properties in the immediate area.
The garage and
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
53
1
2
driveway would be very close to the road, and the
3
driveway probably would noc be able to accommodate
4
5
more than two vehicles at a time.
Anything above
chat would require vehicles to park in the street
6
which is narrow and curved at thac point.
would present safety hazards.
"The bottom line unfortunacely lS that
That
7
8
9
chis property is not a useable building lot.
It
10
never has been.
The wetlands in the back require
11
12
13
14
15
pushing a building so close to the road that ic
conflicts with neighboring homes that have been in
the place for many years.
John Abelli."
Respectfully submitted,
I just wanted to read thac into the
16
record.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HERMANN:
Certainly I would not agree
with the gentleman's conclusions.
Actually the
property immediately adjacent to the subject lot
is owned by William Kelly, who was granted a
variance by this Board for a 35 foot setback.
again, I would reference the minutes from the
Board's hearing in January of '03, Member Orlando
And
quote, "If this meeting is adjourned, you may want
to chink about a new house plan because the
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
54
1
2
average setback in this neighborhood is abouc 35
feet." I believe Mr. Kelly also testified, his
quote is "The code for a lot less than 40,000 or
20,000 square feet is set at 40. But then there's
a seccion in the code that also reads that any
plot plan subdivision that's been established
afcer 1957 allows it to go back to what the
setback was at the time of that. And when I did
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
mine" -- this is still Mr. Kelly talking -- "I
researched and I found chat 35 feet was what was
allowed ac the time that subdivision was done.
11
12
13
Ie's preccy much withouc question 35 feet would be
allowed. Anything beyond 35 feet I would
14
15
definitely be opposed co.
I have built two houses
16
17
18
19
20
21
on that street, and I've lived on it for 17 years,
and incidentally, both houses that I built, I had
to deal with the wetlands issues and front yard
variances, and I've always referred back to che 35
foot rule and everyone in that neighborhood has as
well. There's not one house built in that
22
neighborhood after 1968 when the subdivision was
done that's less than 35 feet."
23
24
25
Again, I believe that was the kind of
information that this Board relied upon, and,
November 18, 2004
.
e
.
55
1
~
¿
Chairwoman, you had indicated again thac che
3
applicant go back and return with a setback that
4
would meet 35 feec.
5
The wetlands in the back do, of course,
6
create che problem that the owners are confronced
7
with and why a 40 foot setback could not be mec.
8
BuC I would say wichout question, the site plan
9
that's before you, if you look at the survey
10
chat's been presented almost the entire parcel
11
between the wetlands themselves and the 42 foot
12
nondisturbance buffer adjacent thereto is
13
preserving almost the entire property.
I would
14
also note too, the neighbor Mr. poliwoda who is
15
located across the street and scill is, also
16
objected to the setback at that cime but said he
17
would also withdraw his opposition to a 35 foot
18
setback.
So I would say the record is
19
subscancially clear, concrary co the letter you
20
jusc read, that 35 foot setback is the accepted
21
secback in this neighborhood, and most
22
significantly to the people who are located
23
immediacely adjacent to and opposite to the
24
Jordans and, according to you, the person who
25
wrote chat letter is noc.
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
56
1
2
3
4
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Sure.
5
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to
6
excuse us, I do so many of these, as this Board
7
does, are there any C and Rs that prohibit a 35
foot setback to your knowledge?
MR. HERMANN: To my knowledge, no, but I
would imagine based on Mr. Kelly's testimony and
this Board's having granted the same variance to
Mr. Kelly I would assume not.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember,
8
9
1û
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
every piece of property is unique.
I don't know
what che wetlands configuration lS on his as
opposed co this one.
I tend to think this has
19
probably got a smaller envelope chan the other one
does. But the other question is -- and I'm not
suggesting this Board do it unless the Board
20
contends to want that
the width of the road is
21
what, actual pavement?
22
MR. HERMANN: The width of the road
23
icself, it's a 5û foot road, is ic not?
24
25
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
It's a 50 foot
road?
November 18, 20û4
.
e
.
57
1
2
MR. HERMANN: You mean in theory or
3
4
actuality?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
In theory, 50 fooc
5
right of way.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The road is
definicely not 50 feet, I was down there last
Sacurday.
MR. HERMANN: The house will actually be
approximately 47 feet from pavement if that's what
you're driving at.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that's what
I'm driving at, and I'm also driving at the fact
chat we do have a neighbor that mentioned that the
setbacks are much more extensive, and chey are
more extensive, I think, on the other of the
street than this side of the street, but this
Board has in che past
and again, I'm not
19
suggesting this, I'm only planting it as a seed
that we could ask you to measure the average
setbacks on these houses, and I don't know if chis
Board still wants to do that. Notwithscanding
Mr. Kelly's application, I'm sure that che houses
are setback a little more, there's no question
20
21
22
23
24
25
about it, and that's chat.
November 18, 2004
e
.
.
58
1
2
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Thank you, Jerry.
3
Vincent?
4
5
6
7
S
9
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO.
No other questions,
you've heard my concerns.
I'm interested in how
you made out with the Trustees last night.
MR. HERMANN:
I wasn't here on this
projecc.
The Trustees had actually issued a
permit for the larger scope house in the past.
So
10
11
12
we had to go back co them and obtain an amended
approval again for what I'm calling a much
improved and downsized scope, and they had no
problem approving that.
13
14
15
16
17
18
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Thank you.
Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
I think you have
caken a very difficult lot and come up with a very
workable plan.
You did take into consideracion
the Board's concerns.
It is a five foot variance
1 SI
at this stage.
And I don't
That's what it lS.
20
21
22
see how there's any way that you could construct a
house on this loc without a five foot variance,
parcicularly, if you look at your proposed house
23
now and you look at what was before us, it's very
clear that you have jimmy-rigged the house to
conform to environmental constraints and to do the
24
25
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
59
1
2
3
4
5
best you can with the front yard.
that's what you've done.
In my opinion
MR. HERMANN: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
6
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I agree with Lydia
7
wholeheartedly. The house is modesc and the
dimensions of the house are the smallesc you could
8
9
10
11
get a room that would be comfortable. I think you
have done a nice job.
MR. HERMANN: Thank you.
12
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I think the 35
13
14
15
16
17
18
feet, if you look down that street, is preccy
close to the average.
I don't think it goes much
more than that.
I agree with Jerry that the other
19
lot, especially Mr. Kelly's, was further away from
the wetlands than this one is. Besides that, this
lS I think the minimum amount of house that you
could build on chis lot. That's all I have to
20
say.
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I would agree
too. You met what our requirements were last
cime, the 35 feet, and you've met that.
Is there
anybody else in the audience chat would like to
speak on chis application? If not I'll make a
November 18, 2004
e
.
e
60
1
2
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
3
until later.
(See minutes for
4
5
6
7
8
resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Next hearing is Ellen
Schultheis.
MS. MOORE:
Good morning, this application
9
is taking an existing ranch and doing some
renovations to it and putting a second scory on
10
11
12
for the family.
In designing the renovations they
actually took great pains to design, renovate this
house in such a way that it would create the
13
14
15
16
17
18
minimal impact on neighbors.
So you can see chat
the existing garage is remaining as a one-story
portion of the house.
The new garage that has to
19
be added, actually has been moved over away from
the neighbors so as to not increase the degree of
nonconformity with respect to che existing setback
chac is ac the spot where it would be extended at
least 7.6 feet from the property line.
The rear yard or where the brick pacio is
20
21
22
23
essentially noc changing because a second story is
going over the main portion of the house, and this
property is also a corner lot, Illinois Avenue is
24
25
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
61
1
2
actually, while ie's a road, designated road, it
3
4
5
actually is a right of way, a LIPA right of way.
So you can see in some of the photographs chat I
gave you, some high tension lines that run along
6
Illinois Avenue.
So there's no neighbor on the
7
8
9
10
11
Illinois Avenue side that would have any impact by
chis addition.
I have the plans.
I submitted chem to
this Board so you could see the height of the
structure.
The average, the mean roof height is
12
going to be 26, two and-a-half feet which lS a
13
14
15
16
17
18
normal two-story addicion; we're just convercing a
ranch into a two-scory home.
I'll try to answer any questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Your total lot
coverage is going to be almost 30 percent and ours
is 20 percent, which does pre sene a problem.
19
MS. MOORE:
The problem is that we're
20
taking a ranch with a breezeway and turning chat
space into living space. We have to have a garage
because otherwise che families are going to have
21
22
23
24
25
nowhere to store their belongings.
Essentially
the two sisters are going to live together.
They're putting one house and living together as a
November 18, 2004
.
e
.
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
one family unit, so the space is needed, they're
trying to accommodate the family needs.
Ie's kind
of a sprawling ranch to begin with and their
additions are tucked within the existing
footprint.
The only new square footage is the
7
8
9
10
11
12
proposed garage.
I'd hate to see a family come
together without having a garage space.
The
husband will have a hard time without being able
co do his tinkering without a garage.
That's a
needed item.
And if we were to cut back the
garage in any way, you're cutting back the living
13
space as well.
It's a difficult situation.
14
15
The property is a relatively small
property, but it's kind of spacious in that it's a
corner lot. You only have neighbors on two sides,
16
17
18
and no one expressed any objection.
They liked
19
the idea of having this house renovated and che
im'estment put into the neighborhood.
We can cut back a litcle bit of the porch,
20
21
22
23
24
if that's somewhere where we could, the
architectural design, I think it was a nice
design, but they could always go back and do some
cut backs, they have a nice, kind of a country
porch on che front, they could change that a bit.
25
November 18, 2004
63
e
1
2
3
4
5
That would take some of the square footage off the
house.
But I hate to see -- the garage is really
necessary, particularly where the one family is
6
coming together.
round home.
This is going to be their year
7
8
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Is there any way you
could gee this down to say 25 percenc?
I mean I
9
it's a large house now, it's a beautiful spot.
10
It's rather a sprawling house.
3 massive addition here.
You're asking for
11
12
MS. MOORE:
The problem is that it's going
13
over top of an existing house.
So we have liccle
e 14
15
16
17
18
flexibility where this garage is going co go.
Aside from keeping the garage where it is, ic
means that we would have to put in a much larger
addition.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
You're putcing on the
19
one-story addition, you're putting a second scary;
then you're closing it in between the original
garage with other another proposed two-story
addition; then the one-story garage is another
living space; then you're going to put another
garage on?
20
21
22
23
.
24
25
MS. MOORE:
Right.
We have to have a
November IS, 2004
64
1
2
e
3
garage, that's the problem, ie's popping the
garage somewhere along in the footprint.
4
5
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
Is there a garage
now there, Pat?
6
MS. MOORE: The garage is there now.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: May I interject?
MS. MOORE: Go ahead.
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
e 14
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
It's an adorable
neighborhood, it's a great place. My reservation
is this is putting a benchmark down because I
think besides the house across the street, they're
all preccy modest to small.
If we give 29 percent
15
here, the next one/s going to be 3D, and so on.
You understand that, Pat. So we want on put a
benchmark down here. That's why I think 25
16
17
18
19
percent is reasonable.
I'd like to do chat wich
20
you, give you a number and let you tweak it the
best way you like to do it.
MS. MOORE: Right. The problem is the
setbacks. We don't want to establish cercain
setbacks.
21
22
23
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
I don't ha'Je a
e
24
25
problem with the preexisting setbacks, chat's
fine, that's che way ic was, but if we give 30 the
November 18, 2004
65
1
2
next guy's going to want 31.
·
3
MS. MOORE:
I anticipate that che neighbor
4
5
to the south, there's been a change in ownership
chere, and I anticipate they'll be renovating.
6
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
Hence the reason
7
8
9
10
11
why we're a little conservative there.
MS. MOORE:
We can cry to work with 25
percent.
The issue is do we have front yard, side
12
yard variances? The family really needs a garage.
If we can take some of the house -- in the back
there's a little protrusion in the back, I guess
we can cue off a little of the back where you see
13
· 14
15
16
17
IS
the 11 by 12 on the rear around che brick, right
now it's an entranceway, that's an area we could
probably cut off, try co reduce some of the
19
20
covered porch, go back to the drawing board with
the archicect. We could take out from chere, but
I don't know if we can meet the 25 because again,
we have the existing structure that's already,
kind of the garage on one end with the breezeway
kind of the space in between is the common sense
area is where you would expand a two-story house.
You have existing living space.
Why don't we leave the hearing open, calk
21
22
23
24
·
25
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
to your architect about how we can modify this in
such a way that we preserve the garage.
I know
it's very important to your husband to have a
garage.
MS. SCHULTHEIS:
I chink the home right
now is 23 percent.
I'm already over the lot
coverage, but without thac room in between che
garage and the house.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
MS. MOORE:
I think we're over the 25
already.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We're not cargeting
but we know what's going to happen afterwards, the
next neighbor comes in.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
It's a 12,000
square foot lot. The plans are humongous.
MS. MOORE: If you were in the Village of
18
Greenport where you have 12,000 square foot lots
generally you go up to 30 percent because it's a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recognition.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There's no analogy.
We're not there, this is where we are.
MS. MOORE:
I am giving you an analogy of
why 30 percent is quite common when you have
undersized lots. Two hundred square feet can
November 18, 2004
.
.
e
67
1
2
bring you over a loc coverage.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Thac's noc what our
3
4
5
code says.
MS. MOORE: We'll hold the hearing open.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Massage the house,
6
7
S
see what you come up with.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jerry, do you have any
9
comments?
10
11
12
13
14
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. As I said
before, I think you have to begin on these large
loc coverage issues -- Miss Moore?
MS. MOORE: Yes, I'm sorry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No problem. To
scart putting the garages and I realize this is a
relatively flat lot, either under the house or you
have to embody the garage within the construction
of the house so that you still have the
availability of putting the second story over the
garage and thereby eliminating some of the lot
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
coverage.
MS. MOORE: That would not be a problem,
23
but then we'd have a two-story portion over the
garage. Thac was our original design, was make
the whole two story over the existing strucCure.
24
25
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
68
1
~
L
We came ln trying to address the other concerns
3
you always raise with respect to increasing the
4
nonconformity on the horizontal plain because
5
we've got a setback of 5'611 and 7'6'1.
We have no
6
problem with that alternative, but then you have
7
to be prepared to grant us a variance for going up
8
over a garage.
That was the first choice.
9
(Whereupon, Board Member Goehringer left
10
the hearing.)
11
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
Sometimes you can
12
submit both plans to the Board, they will consider
13
both at the same time.
14
MS. MOORE:
I can give you four plans ac
15
once.
16
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
Couldn't the garage
17
be subsurface on this one? The lot's a little
18
high.
19
MS. MOORE:
I don't know structurally
20
whether the architect was planning to use the
21
existing structure of the existing house in pare
22
of che design.
If we're demolishing and starting
23
over that's one thing, but here you have probably
24
a slab under the existing garage.
I don't know
25
engineering-wise whether that works.
November 18, 2004
.
e
.
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MS. SCHULTHEIS: And the expense of it.
How about if we backed up the garage -- five feet
of the garage backing that up into che house, help
the lot coverage?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
As I said, it's a
benchmark in a small neighborhood, the next person
is going to want 26, and it snowballs.
MS. MOORE:
If you would prefer to see us
10
11
12
13
14
15
put che full two stories over the existing
structure and the contiguous portion, the
breezeway area, that's structurally where the
house would be expanded, so chat area there is a
common sense area, within the existing structure.
I'm trying to always guess what you would prefer,
and I'm sorry, we had that as an initial
consideration, and then she goc from me and as
well as from other sources, the contracCor,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
everybody said we think you'd prefer to have the
one-story garage pushed out, so we changed it. If
'{OU would rather see us come back with the two
story scarting within the existing framework of
the house, that works for us as well.
23
24
25
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia, do you have any
other comments?
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No.
I just chink
the loc coverage is too large.
MS. MOORE: That would eliminate the lot
coverage issue.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I understand your
confusion, Pat, because I'm going to a meeting
today that will essencially outlaw you from doing
that because they want to do this pyramid law
thing. To raise chat roof is probably not going
to be legal.
MS. MOORE: Without variances.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
Maybe not even
15
with variances.
16
17
18
MS. MOORE: You better tell them they
better have some method of relief.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
Well, hold on
19
because this Board in the past has frowned on
20
thac.
I don't know how you're getting from this
21
22
Board suddenly put a second story addition 5.6
feet away in lighc of the Walz decision.
I don't
23
understand how chey're encouraging you to do
24
25
that.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No one nodded or
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
said yes co her suggestion.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
You said come back
with the plan.
I can see you looking at the Town
before you're doing your application, sitting down
with these people going no, no, no you don't want
co put that second story on, let's ask them co go
out.
I understand that's how you came to this
9
particular plan, and to me it's kind of confusing
co an applicant or people up here to say now,
well, we would consider you putting a garage
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
underneath.
For the life of me I don't underscand
that.
Second, when I looked at this application,
because chis is mine, I said you have co move che
garage.
That was my --
MS. MOORE:
The proposed garage.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
Thirty percent is
just too much.
We don't grant 30 percent.
Thac's
my opinion.
I gave you two opinions there, I know
21
they kind of conflicc, but as soon as I saw the
proposed garage and figured out the lot coverage,
it's either that or you start lopping stuff off
22
23
24
25
your house.
I don't know which one you want.
But
I personally don't think we should be considering
November 18, 2004
e
e
e
72
1
2
a two-story addition of 5.6 feet away from chat
lot line. Not in light of the fact of whac we've
had to do to people for the past three years.
MS. MOORE: Another option is maybe
stepping back the addition in such a way that even
chough it's five feet at its closest point, you
3
4
5
6
7
8
can kind of dormer back some
the second story,
9
start it not right over top the existing footprint
of che garage but step it back somewhat so you
have kind of somewhac of a pyramid law.
10
11
12
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
If you went 10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
feet from there you probably wouldn't need a
variance, Walz would not kick in or 15 feet.
MS. MOORE:
15 feet may be too much.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did you hear my
suggestion to Pat, I suggested a subsurface
garage. No one was saying yes, go second, that's
why I suggested subsurface.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Actually, we're
suggesting you go back to the client and the
architect.
23
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Sounds like Jimmy
and I are in agreement that che second floor would
not be conducive, but subsurface, that house is a
24
25
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
73
1
2
liccle bit higher, you could get one under chere.
MS. MOORE: Kind of a split-level garage.
We'll go back to the drawing board and try to
design different alternatives and see what we can
come up with, we'll try to keep it straight 25
3
4
5
6
7
percent.
8
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: On the grade where
the house is higher you can cut into.
MS. MOORE: Right, thac may be possible
because the height of the mean is actually 26
here, which gives us a chance to move up a bic.
9
10
11
12
13
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You can keep the
single story and have the garage underneath it,
and have the workshop and all chat stuff.
14
15
16
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
That's all I have.
17
18
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Is there anybody else
in the audience that would like co speak to this
application? If not, I'll make a motion keeping
this hearing open uncil December 16th.
19
20
21
22
23
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
It will be in the
morning at 9:35.
(See minutes for resolution.)
24
-----------------------------------------------
25
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Next hearing is for
November IS, 2004
.
e
.
74
1
2
3
4
5
Thomas DeWolfe about a simple lot line change.
MR. DEWOLFE: Good morning, I think you
all have copies of the map that show the little
increase to the property, and I think you can
easily see why I'm seeking the variance for that,
and I'm happy to answer any questions you might
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
have.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, if you could
elaborace a little bic, you live in Lot 9?
MR. DEWOLFE: Yes, I think so.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
Are we creating
Lot 10 now, is that what we're trying to do?
15
MR. DEWOLFE: No.
16
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're moving a
17
18
line, or is it just a backyard line we're moving
here?
19
MR. DEWOLFE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Just to kind of square
20
21
22
it off?
23
MR. DEWOLFE: Have you seen the property?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. You're the
24
25
house co the left, chat house right there we gave
a variance to as well?
November 18, 2004
e
.
.
75
1
2
MR. DEWOLFE: My property is south of the
ocher property.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: There are two
3
4
5
houses, in Tremont Lane it was the house next to
6
che wall.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're this house,
7
8
you don't own chat house?
9
MR. DEWOLFE:
I do not.
10
11
12
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So we're doing a
lot line change in che center?
MR. DEWOLFE:
It's shaded there.
13
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Just a liccle
14
15
sliver.
16
MR. DEWOLFE: Yes. As you see the old
property line is the north wall of what is my
17
18
19
house.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So your neighbor
doesn'c mind you taking some property?
20
MR. DEWOLFE: No.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
That's what I'm
21
22
23
24
25
getting at. The other neighbor doesn'c mind you
doing this; he's aware of this, she's aware of
chat?
MR. DEWOLFE: Yes, we discussed a
November 18, 2004
e
e
e
76
1
2
3
4
5
financial arrangement.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
I can see the
reason for --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia?
6
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No problem.
7
8
9
10
11
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
No questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Does anyone else wish
to speak on this application? If not, I'll make a
motion closing the hearing reserving decision
until later.
(See minutes for resolucion.1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
------------------------------------------------~
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Our next hearing lS
for John Reventlow on Stillwater Avenue in
Cutchogue, less than 50 feet from the rear loc
line. You have a beautiful piece of property.
19
MR. REVENTLOW:
It's not used very well.
20
21
Accually, toward the back of che property I have
more front property, close to 90 foot of front.
The back is where I'm running into the
problem. Basically I'm looking to put an addition
of a sun room which will extend ouc 16 foot from
che house, which will leave roughly 25 foot at the
22
23
24
25
November 18, 2004
.
e
.
77
1
2
3
4
5
closest point to the back property line. The
house is set on an angle to compensate for the
property being on an angle itself running parallel
to Stillwater. The house itself is actually only
32 foot at the shortest poinc from the propercy
line.
6
7
8
I talked to the neighbor right behind me
who would be the most affected by this, and he
doesn't have a problem with ic.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That would be
9
10
11
12
Mr. Smith who we granted a variance to several
months ago for an addition.
MR. REVENTLOW: For privacy we're going to
puc additional plantings back there, possibly a
fence ac one point, we're going to cry wich
shrubbery first, see how that goes.
13
14
15
16
17
18
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
19
20
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
No questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia?
21
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No.
22
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
vincent?
23
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions.
I
24
visited che site, spoke with the owner in front of
25
us right now.
I have no problem. We were
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
78
1
¿
wondering about Mr. Smich and obviously he lS a
3
4
5
6
7
good neighbor. We weren't sure.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Do you have the green
cards?
MR. REVENTLOW:
Yes, I do.
I had to send
ouc 12.
I only received ten of them as of right
8
now.
The other two are coming from Souchampcon
9
and Massapequa.
10
11
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
Just mail them in
when you can.
12
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Is there anyone in the
13
14
15
audience who wishes to comment on this
application?
If not, I'll make a motion closing
16
the hearing and reserving decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
17
IS
---------------------~-------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Next applicacion for
19
Risa Arin for the piece of property on Soundview
Avenue in peconic for replacemenc of a deck thac
was previously there.
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. ARIN:
Basically I'm asking for a
variance of six and-a-ha1f feet.
I replaced an
existing deck, the setbacks are the same.
It was
quice dilapidated and quite an eyesore.
I'm just
November IS, 2004
e
.
.
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
asking for a variance so we can complete it.
It's
been started as you can see from the photo, and we
stopped work immediately when we were alerted we
needed the variance and we'd like to finish the
construction.
7
8
9
10
11
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I don't have any
questions.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No.
12
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Vincent?
13
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
I'll ask some
14
questions. How much of this deck was existing?
15
MS. ARIN: There was a dilapidaced wooden
portion, a huge cement slab.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right, I saw that
16
17
18
part.
19
MS. ARIN:
I can actually show '"{OU, it's
20
21
22
23
24
25
the only photo I have from the original, it's kind
of hard to see, it's from the realtor when we
purchased ic back in 2000.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
I saw che cemenc
portion. But I didn't see anything under here.
This is all, actually this front piece is cement
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
and this was the dilapidated wooden portion and
there was a little piece in here that was broken
up slate. So we kept the setback the same but
smoothed it out so this is the straight line
now.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's no larger
than it was. I saw a sign it could be larger you
put some sonic tubes in there. I could see
obvious old deck in some parts here.
MS. ARIN: There's no old deck left . This
was, pieces of this was crushed up slate.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
It was more patio?
MS. ARIN: Yes. The secbacks are the same
as they were originally. We jusc squared it off.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you got a phone
call from a neighbor or the neighbor called che
Building Department somehow?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MS. ARIN: Yes.
I come out on the
weekends cypically, and I had a note from the
building inspector, because I was using the
existing setbacks because che deck was falling
down, it was becoming a hazard, and I finall:.' had
enough money to build a new deck, I went forward
with it and because I was using the exiscing
23
24
25
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
81
1
2
space, I didn't think it was an issue, only to
find out ic was.
3
4
5
6
7
8
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the person who
built it didn't think it needed a variance?
MS. ARIN: No, and it was a local
contractor.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
It's not uncommon
9
and they protrude out more co the beach chan
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
you.
I was just curious as to how you came to be
in front of us today. You received a love note?
MS. ARIN: Yes. A nice yellow love note
in my door.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You don'c plan on
2xpanding this deck any further than this?
MS. ARIN: No.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
Rails?
MS. ARIN:
I've actually been told again
with the Building Department that I don'c need
rails.
It meets the height requirements.
I'd
prefer not to, 'cause you don't obstruct the view
when you're sitting inside if I don't have to have
the rails.
~4
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
You're not going co
25
enclose it?
November 18, 2004
e
.
.
82
1
2
MS. ARIN: No, no.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I don't have any
3
4
5
6
further questions.
I don't think there's anybody
else in the audience left.
Is there anyone else
in the audience who would like to speak? I make a
mocion closing the hearing reserving decision
7
8
until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
9
10
11
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I'll make a motion to
adjourn.
12
¡See minutes for resolution.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
I'll make a motion
co reconvene our meeting on November 18th.
(See minutes for resolution.)
-------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Our next hearing 1:00
p.m. is for Barry Barth in Mattituck for an
approval for a deck. Mr. Barth?
MR. BARTH: Hello.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
What would you like co
22
cell us?
23
MR. BARTH:
I submitted an applicacion to
24
che Building Department for a deck on my house ac
2040 Cencral Drive in Mattituck. The application
25
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
S3
1
2
to the Building Department was rejected. And I
3
4
5
was told subsequently that I needed a variance
because the deck was proposed in front of the 100
foot bluff line setback. So I made the
6
application.
I have presented the notification of
7
my neighbors, copies of the drawings of the deck,
and amended --
8
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Is this going to be a
10
replacement in-kind/in-place or are you expanding
a deck?
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MR. BARTH: There is a preexisting deck
there, and it will replace that deck, and it will
excend out I believe slightly less than the
existing deck and it might be two feet wider chan
the existing deck.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
A bit of a different
shape than the existing deck?
MR. BARTH: The existing deck was kind of
square, this is kind of rectangular.
19
20
21
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Vincent?
22
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
I visited the site,
23
lovely site. Yes, I would agree thac your deck
was in need of replacement. There was some
24
25
hesitance on my part to stand on the deck, and I
November 18, 2004
e
e
e
84
1
2
see you're clearing down below, chat was the
reason for the steps off the deck? I wasn't quice
sure you wanted steps.
MR. BARTH: We felc that that eventually
might turn into a garden area with some plantings
like we did in the front of the house.
3
4
5
6
7
8
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Yes, they had kind of
9
a slope in the front.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
I was wondering why
10
11
you didn't want to just replace the deck as is,
and have stairs going right down. You're puccing
a little interim deck?
12
13
14
15
MR. BARTH: Ante deck or smaller deck
about three, four steps and then eventually steps
will go down inco that garden area.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other quescions
at this time.
16
17
18
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia?
20
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The notice of
21
disapproval says the closest point of the deck is
going co be 72 feet; your survey is showing
actually 83 feet. What is the closest poinc? In
ocher words, what's on the survey shows S3 feet.
22
23
24
25
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: On the closest
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
85
1
2
corner it's 76.
3
4
5
6
7
8
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Lydia, 76-5.
On che one corner
MR. BARTH:
I needed to have that survey
amended.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
It was received on
October 29th, so it was probably with a separate
9
one.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So it's 76?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 76-5.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Where is it 76-5
to? The bottom of the steps.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The bottom of the
seeps to the bluff.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Not the bottom of
che steps, the corner.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
I don't have any
19
other questions, I'm very familiar with the
property.
20
21
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Jim?
22
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
No.
I noticed
23
thac ic said 72, and I kind of didn't see that
24
25
ei ther.
It's 76-5, that's what it is without
going any closer?
November IS, 2004
.
e
.
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
MR. BARTH: No.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
That's all I have.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to speak on this?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Yes?
MS. JAKUNSKI:
I'm Judy Jakunski, the
ocher owner of the property. The ante deck, the
reason for that is one, the big deck didn't look
like it was suspended into nothing. So that it
was a nicer flow with the contour of the natural
cerrain. So there would be another seating area
down there. Right now the deck che way it lS
looks like ic was suspended into nothing.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Transitional?
16
MS. JAKUNSKI: Yes, so it was an easier
17
18
cransition with che property itself.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Anyone else wish co
19
speak on this? If not, I'll make a motion to
close che hearing and reserve decision until
20
21
22
23
24
25
later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
-------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Our next hearing is
for Frances Kestler on Main Road in Pacific Street
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
87
1
2
in Mattituck. Hi, Bill.
MR. GOGGINS: That's correct.
3
4
5
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
Is that October
27th?
6
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Yes, I was looking at
7
8
9
10
11
12
an old one.
MR. GOGGINS. The original one was June
30ch.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
This is October 2Sth.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: 27th.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
You wish to have an
13
apartment over the doctor's office?
MR. GOGGINS: We're gOlng to withdraw che
application with the apartment at this time
without prejudice for us to renew that
application. Dr. Kestler is under a deadline. He
needs to be out of his old office in January, and
for him to get the apartment finished and have the
inspections done, it would probably take too long.
So what we would like to do is either adjourn ic
for a long period of time at least as to the
aparCment application or withdraw it wichout
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prejudice.
I'm not sure what the Board would do
in this situation. He intends to apply for it
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
88
1
2
3
4
5
again; however, at this time he jusc doesn'c have
che time to gee it done.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
Procedurally, you
would have to submit a new application for the
apartmenc separately, if you want us to rule on
6
7
Lhe area variance.
S
MR. GOGGINS:
Okay, so we'll sever che
9
application, withdraw the requesc for an apartment
use above the office, and we'll proceed wich the
other part of the application.
10
11
12
13
14
15
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
Is there a pre CO
for the cottage yet, Bill?
MR. GOGGINS:
No, there isn't.
This was a
single-family residence with a cottage for a long
16
cime.
Initially, when it was built, the main
17
IS
19
structure was a bar/restaurant in the '20s and the
cottage was a single-family residence.
And as
time went by, the bar/restaurant became a
single-family residence and the cottage became a
20
21
22
23
24
25
rental unit.
Right now we're in a process of
getcing che affidavics to prove the continuous
use.
Right now we pretty much have it but we have
a small gap.
We have a concinuum since 1922 but
we have a small gap in the '70s which we're trying
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
89
1
2
3
4
5
to cighten up, which we don't have yet.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The cottage will be
the apartment?
MR. GOGGINS: No. The cottage is a
separate building which we claim is a preexisting
nonconforming use.
6
7
8
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is before us
9
today?
10
11
12
13
14
15
MR. GOGGINS: We're putting a dental
office in the main structure. The property was
zoned residential office, so when Dr. Kestler
bought it, the intent was to put the dental office
in, chen we chought about putting an aparcmenc on
top, because that's what it's zoned for.
I guess
16
che problem is that the property is less than
40,000 square fooc in bulk area. That's the
reason for the application.
We also have a simultaneous application
for the Planning Board because we're putting in a
parking lot which will have an entrance and exit
off of Pacific Street.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What would be the
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
intent for the cottage?
MR. GOGGINS: The intent now is to make it
25
November IS, 2004
·
e
90
1
2
a residential unit as it has been.
If we're
3
unable to prove the nonconforming preexiscing use
of it, then I think his intent is to make it
office space to keep the use of the property
consistenc.
4
5
6
7
8
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
Potentially in the
fucure there could be two rentals, that cottage
and above the office?
9
10
11
Correct, potentially, yes.
MR. GOGGINS:
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
Because there's
12
nothing In my notice of disapproval that talks
about an area variance.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
When it firsc
started ic was for an apartment and conversion of
the building co an office.
As we went along, we
understood that the Building Department was not
able to issue a pre CO because they were waiting
for more information, and in order to move it
along so the office could be occupied with the
other buildings, Mr. Goggins submitted an area
\rar iance because chere would still be cwo uses on
23
less than 40,000 square feet if a pre CO were
issued for the cottage. I'm not sure if the
application is complete or not, I would like to
24
e 25
November IS, 2004
e
e
e
91
1
2
leave that to the Board to decide.
3
I'm a little
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
4
confused, Mr. Goggins.
Let's scart off with this.
5
I can think of at least five dentist's offices or
6
similar professional offices that we have
permitted on nonconforming lots and there was no
7
8
area variance required.
So that's one thing that
9
I'm confused about.
10
11
We just cook guidance from
MR. GOGGINS:
the Building Department.
said we couldn't do it.
The Building Department
12
I said, okay, give us a
13
14
15
notice of disapproval and we'll go to the Zoning
Board.
I didn't think I needed anything.
"Ie're
16
not going outside the footprint and initially they
actually gave us approval saying that we didn't
need Planning Board approval, we didn't need ZBA,
we could just go forward and have a dental office
17
18
19
20
21
22
there.
Then something happened, I'm not sure what
it was, then six, eight weeks later, we got
another document from the Building Departmenc
revoking the previous determination saying chat
they were revoking what they had said that we
23
24
didn't need.
So then we had to reapply again, and
25
at that time that's the time they gave us a nocice
November 18, 2004
e
e
e
92
1
"
2
of disapproval that was dated June 30, 20G4 and
3
chat's what directed us to come co the Zoning
4
Board of Appeals. Then most recently, for some
5
reason, the Building Department decided to amend
6
the nocice of disapproval on October 27, 2004
7
claiming chat we required a special exception from
s
Souchold Zoning Board of Appeals.
It's been
9
confusing to me as well.
10
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
I'm confused
11
because all we have to do is walk out this door
12
and go 300 feec down Main Street either direction
13
and very few of those lots are 40,000 square feet
14
and there are a lot of professional offices there
15
so at what stage did the rules change?
16
MR. GOGGINS: Also when they did the
17
rezoning in 1983 they made this residential
18
office, so it's a permitted use.
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I don't see why you
20
need it either. Conversion to che dental office
21
with an accessory aparcment above, which you don't
22
want now anyway. So it's really for a dentist's
23
office, which is allowed.
24
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
I wanted to add one
25
other part. On the disapproval the application
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
93
1
2
that was addressed by the Building Department was
3
noC to address the pre CO for the coccage.
They
4
5
6
7
8
haven't gone that far yet, so if the Board doesn't
have jurisdiction on this, Mr. Goggins may be back
again, if he gets denied for thac.
I was trying
to save him that trouble.
9
MR. GOGGINS: We never made application
for the pre CO on the cottage. We merely said we
want to put a dental office. I put in an
10
11
application and said, do I need any approvals from
the Building Department or the Planning Board
because chat's when they designated che Building
Department co be lead agency to determine what
requirements you need, whether we need Co go co
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals.
And initially they said no, Planning Board
approval isn't required. And later they said,
gee, you misled us, we didn't know it was a
residence and you're converting it to a dental
office, and we're revoking what we said before.
Then we made the application for the dental
office, and it's been a residence and specifically
stating ie's been a residence, and that's when
22
23
24
25
they gave us the initial notice of disapproval.
I
November IS, 2004
e
e
.
94
1
~
¿
guess in the end we need a decision from the
3
Zoning Board of Appeals approving of che use as a
4
dental office.
5
You don't need a
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
6
special exception for a professional office.
7
MR. GOGGINS: That was my belief also.
8
But you can't fight the Building Department, you
9
just have to accept what they say and move forward
10
and come here because this is our only redressing.
11
The notice of
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
12
disapproval doesn't say that he needs ic for a
13
dencal office, it just says he needs it because he
14
wanted co puc an apartment above it.
If he no
15
longer wants to put an apartment above it, I see
16
no reason we have to make a decision.
17
MR. GOGGINS: What they stated was that
18
pursuant to 100-71 B3 that because it was less
19
than 40,000 square foot that we needed approval
20
for the lot area as well as the special exception
21
for the apartment.
22
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
That's for two
23
uses, which they're actually wrong about too, buc
24
it certainly doesn't apply if you go to an RO
25
district, and you're doing a permitted use, you/re
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
not putting the apartment, because the apartment
does require a special exception.
So they
interpret it that now you need 80,000 square feet,
which is not correct.
If you're saying to us
today that you no longer wane to go for that
special exception, then I see no reason why - -
that's not to say you know what happens becween
O"ller here and over there - - but I see no reason
9
10
11
12
why you even need co have an application before us
to put a dentist's office in.
MR. GOGGINS:
That was our position it was
13
almost embarrassing for me because I represented
14
15
16
17
18
19
Dr. Kestler when he bought the property and he
said can I put a dentist's office here, I
researched it and go, of course you can. We
bought the property and now we're having all these
problems and he's looking at me like I'm an idiot.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How many uses do
you have on the property right now?
20
21
22
MR. GOGGINS:
Right now, just one che
dentist's office.
23
24
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Is che accessory
building being rented?
25
MR. GOGGINS:
Not right now.
November 18, 2004
e
e
e
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
And che previous
owner didn't either?
MR. GOGGINS:
I don't know, Dr. Kestler
says yes.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, continuously?
MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
7
8
9
10
11
12
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
That's what you're
trying to prove except for that spot in che '70s.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So the issue of
whether ie's preexisting nonconforming will still
have to come back here. Here's what I think lS
13
going co happen: Right now you have one use on
there, you shouldn't be here. The minute you want
to have two uses on there, they're going to slam
you with their interpretation of 100-718, which
says you need 40,000 square feet or the following
uses are permitted by special exception provided
not more than one use shall be allowed for each
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
40,000 square feet.
I don't know if they're
talking each special exception use.
MR. GOGGINS: At that point we're going to
have to sit down with them and gee very clear
direction as to which way they want to go or how
chey're going to proceed. Even with the Planning
23
24
25
November 18, 2004
.
e
.
97
1
2
3
4
5
Board, I don't think we need Planning Board
approval but we're going through that.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: For whac?
MR. GOGGINS: Because we're putting in a
parking lot.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where in che c.::Jde
6
7
8
does that say that's required?
9
MR. GOGGINS:
I haven't found ic.
10
11
12
13
14
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
They have a right
to require that you go before the Planning Board,
just submit a site plan.
MR. GOGGINS: Right, which we have done.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We'll see what
15
happens.
16
17
IS
19
20
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The previous owner
was Richard Reinhart?
MR. GOGGINS: And right prior to chat it
was the Mileska family for many years.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Right now you only
21
22
have one use.
It doesn't require our approval,
ie's permitted in the district.
[VIR. GOGGINS: Can we have decision Chat
23
24
25
scates that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Can we make a
November 18, 2004
e
.
.
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
resolution saying we have no jurisdiction as
applied for at this Cime?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
I'd just say thac
che use is a permitted use and doesn't require
special exception.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As to the removal
of the accessory apartment.
MR. GOGGINS: Can it specifically state
chac a dental office is permitted at this site?
If we don't have that specific language, they're
going co look at us and say we don't know what
this means.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We would need
somebody to entertain a motion for that.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I will move it.
(See minutes for resolution.)
-------------------------------------------------
19
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Our next hearing lS
20
Orient Fire District. I think first I would like
Mr. Reale to come up, if you don't mind.
Mr. Reale, would you please tell us why you wane
an adjournment or some time to be allowed to
entertain or find out more information chan you
21
22
23
24
25
have now?
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
MR. REALE:
The members of the Orient
Association as members of the community wanted to
have an opportunity to work with the fire
department to determine what the needs are.
The
need for the tower is the real crux of the issue
here.
The association is not opposed to improving
8
9
10
11
the communication facilities, but the question lS
the need.
And over the pasc year essencially, che
association has attempted to get information, some
of which has only come through the Freedom of
Information request and the idea chat the
association has retained one specialist, expert,
to work with them and there's another John Turner
Communications expert who is willing to work with
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
them co assess the whole picture.
The entire
communication need picture not just the monopole,
but whac are the other needs and how can they be
addressed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
You mean as far as
what the fire department needs for their dead
22
spots?
23
MR. REALE:
Correct, or whatever their
24
25
needs are, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Have you received any
November 18, 2004
.
e
.
100
1
2
information that was relevant?
3
MR. REALE: We received the Werwerter
report, which we got through the Freedom of
4
5
6
7
8
Information request.
There has been some
informational meetings, but the true information
has been limited. In fact, your files on this are
excremely limited. Most of what we heard, we all
heard all sitting in chis room last go round.
It's hard to have an expert analyze that when it's
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
presented in that way.
So what we were hoping to
do is have the cooperacion of the district with
our experts to work together to try to come up
with a plan that may, in fact, che conclusion may
be you need the cower that big, but no one seems
to know the answer right now.
There are many,
many technical issues that need co be addressed.
The association's willing to commit the time to
that and commit che people and do it right away.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We're not trying co delay this.
That's not the
intention.
On the question of the delay, it came
up at the last meeting, che association's done
nothing to delay chis, the application was filed
almost a year ago.
It was changed maybe five or
six times, the building inspector had five or six
November IS, 2004
e
e
e
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
denials in the file; none of that had to do with
che associacion.
And they were ready to proceed
at the last meeting.
We're looking to work
together.
We're not looking to fight this.
We're
not looking to stop it.
We're looking to work
cooperatively with the districc to try to do
something to get the best coverage.
9
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
How long a period of
10
11
time do you think you would need?
MR. REALE:
Two monchs, come back in
12
January.
Try to work intently, obviously some of
13
che work has been done, we don't need to reinvent
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
the wheel, the idea is to come and look ac che
other issues.
Candidly, the association's Vlew lS the
approach has been somewhat tainted by the
commercial carrier that wanted co do this -- we're
not sure if this is crue -- but perhaps the impact
has tainted the analysis.
Now we're just dealing
21
with the fire district, everyone's got the same
goal, thac could be done cleanly and hopefully
22
23
24
25
quickly.
We'd be willing to come back here at
your first January meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
You would be looking
November 18, 2004
.
e
.
102
1
2
3
4
5
at jusc the fire departmenc's needs or che
telecommunications also?
MR. REALE:
I don't think the communicy is
concerned with the profitability of the cell phone
6
companies; they're worried about the emergency
serVlces, as is the fire district.
7
8
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Thank you.
Mr. Boyd?
9
MR. BOYD:
Good afternoon, first off, at
10
11
our last meeting here, I was asked co provide
certain cases specifically Nanuet Fire Enqine
Company Number 1 versus the Chairman of the Zoninq
Board of Appeals at the Town of Clarkstown;
secondly County of Monroe versus City of
12
13
14
15
Rochester.
I thought that Mr. Ray had presenced
16
17
18
those cases.
I'm not sure now that he had.
I
would like to give you the appropriate number of
the copies of each one.
I believe he only
19
presenced one copy to the Board.
With regard to the application for an
adjournment of this hearing, I think ic might be
advantageous to take a minute and review the
20
21
22
23
24
25
posicion of the applicant.
Orient Fire DisLrict
is a policical subdivision of the State of New
York.
It does not stand on the same ground as an
November 18, 2004
e
.
.
103
1
2
3
4
individual citizen.
It is an entity created by
the government of che stace.
It has ics own
geographic area.
It has its own taxing authority.
5
Ie is given certain rights and responsibilities.
Among those rights are to construct and build
edifices and other structures that are necessary
to prepare for the public safety in the area.
A fire district is governed by a board of
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
commissioners.
Board of commissioners come from
the community.
They must be residents of che
district, and they are elected by other residents
13
of the discrict.
That is exactly what has
14
15
16
17
18
happened in Orient.
The five commissioners there
have been elected to manage the affairs of che
Orient Fire District for the good of all
concerned.
The commissioners at their regular
monthly meetings, which have gone on for the past
two plus years, on the subject of communication at
each and every meeting have discussed the
communication problems within the Orienc Fire
District and the solucions to those problems.
19
20
21
22
23
These meetings are open to the public.
The public
24
25
is invited co come, to question what's going on,
co give suggestions to the commissioners.
With
November 18, 2004
e
e
e
104
1
2
3
4
5
the exception of one meecing, one meeting, not a
member of the public has ever shown up to voice
their posicion on the communication needs of the
Orient Fire District. We have now at the 11th
hour in this matter and we're being asked to delay
further in the hope -- unspecified -- that there
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
may be some magical solution to provide new
communications for the district.
This matter has been explored very, very,
thoroughly.
I hear Mr. Reale mention that there
have been several notices of disapproval from the
Building Department sort of coming seriatim, but
we're as mystified by that as Mr. Goggins was on
his prior applicacion.
We can't explain the
16
series of disapprovals that have been coming out.
We've tried to answer them and co respond to them.
What has happened over the past two years that's a
':ery healthy sort of thing, the fire district has
17
18
19
20
21
refined its communicacion plans.
When they started on this imprm'emenc
project, a large part of it was rooted in the idea
of staying in the 46 megahertz band, which is what
we're all used to in the fire service, but it's
22
23
24
25
become apparent over the past several years that
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
105
1
2
the 46 megahertz band is doomed to extinction and
3
failure.
The manufaccurers are not supporting it,
4
equipment is very, very, hard to find, most fire
districts are going either to 450 megahertz or 800
megahertz. Orient has decided to join that and to
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
go there as well.
I don't see the point of further delaying
chis hearing when we have our expert here to
explain in copious detail why we must go to 120
feet.
The simple macter is 120 feet is the
minimum that we can get away wich for 450
megahertz radio sysCem.
When the commissioners initially set forth
their parameters for this communications, they
wanced to reach the furthest east end of Plum
Island because Orient Fire Deparcment being the
closest fire department to Plum Island is going to
be the first mucual aid responder to that island
In case of emergency. And not having
communications there could be in a word disastrous
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
for the safety of the people on the island as well
23
as che members of the fire district who have to
24
call in to get instructions and to relay what's
going on at a particular time at a fire scene or
25
November IS, 2004
.
.
.
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
in an emergency, and we're not limiting ourselves
to emergencies on Plum Island that may have co do
with che biological aspects of it.
It's very
possible to have a boating accident out
there.
Ie's possible to have an airplane
accident.
All those things would be far beyond
9
che capabilicy of the Plum Island Fire Departmenc
to deal with and would require mucual aid from the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
mainland.
The Orient Fire District is trying to
go one step ahead and to provide that.
We're troubled by the fact that if this
were an application that somehow came before the
Zoning Board for the purchase of a new fire engine
or a new ambulance, we wouldn't see the cype of
questioning that we're getting on building this
cower.
It would be agreed that the purchase of a
fire engine or ambulance are wi chin the expertise
of the fire commissioners of the district.
They
are doing the job chat they have been elected for,
doing the job they are mandated to perform.
But
because in this instance they are creating a cower
that is going to be visibly noticeable in the
community, we seem to have actracted a great deal
of attention that does not appear to be warranted.
24
25
November 18, 2004
e
.
.
107
1
2
We've done our studies on this.
We know what's
3
required in order to give sufficient
4
communicacions to the fire department and to
"
~
provide for the safety of the fire fighters and
6
allow chem to respond to emergencies the way they
7
should.
s
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Excuse me for
9
interrupting you, but you have given the people in
10
the Orienc Association thac have some expertise
11
all this information exactly what is needed, what
12
the cechnical aspects are?
13
MR. BOYD:
Quite frankly, I don't know
14
what's asked for.
I get copies of letters from
15
time to time which say they're looking for
16
specific instances of poor communications.
I
17
believe those have been supplied.
Beyond chat, I
18
don't know whac is being soughc.
There's this
19
feeling, a strong feeling among certain segments
20
of the community that if we all work together
21
there must be a better solution.
Well, gee, we".~e
22
tried very hard to come to a better solution and I
23
chink we have atcained chat.
And I don't know how
24
we're going to improve upon that by setting this
25
thing back for another month or two months of
November 18, 2004
e
e
e
108
1
2
3
4
examination on matters that are particularly and
peculiarly within the expertise of the fire
district within the commissioner's purview.
5
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Mr. Boyd, you have
6
delayed this hearing at least five or six times
over the past year, and yet now when it comes to
the 11th hour, you don't want someone else to
investigate what they would like to know about.
7
S
9
10
MR. BOYD:
The hearing was delayed to try
11
12
and accommodate che coexistence on the tower of
commercial uses.
It was not delayed as a resulc
13
of the fire department component application.
14
15
16
17
18
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I do not believe chis
Board had that information.
MR. BOYD: That certainly is the case. It
was delayed because new tenants were comlng on to
the tower. We went from one tenant to two tenants
19
20
to three tenants, each time thac happened, the
idea was to put the hearing off so all of the
co-tenants could come in and join in the
application at the same time.
At the last meeting of this Board you
bifurcaced the applications and decided to
21
22
23
24
25
eliminate che commercial aspect.
That's fine, we
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
109
1
2
have no problem with that whatsoever, but the fire
3
department porcion of chis thing is going directly
4
ahead.
In order for us to have efficienc 450
c
~
megahertz communications, we must get our antenna
6
to a 120 foot level. What happens below chat, is
7
merely support for our antenna at 120 feet. We're
8
crying to produce a Cower here that will be as
9
visually pleasing as can possibly be.
10
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Mr. Boyd, in all due
11
respect, you say you need the 120 foot tower and
12
I'm not disputing you mighc, but I don'c think
13
anyone on this Board has the expertise to know if
14
you really need 120 foot tower.
15
MR. BOYD: That's why we have brought our
16
experts back today to give you that informacion;
17
chat's exactly why we're here.
18
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Ma'am, Chairman, a
19
point of protocol. We have a request for
20
adjournment and the Board is going to vote on ic
21
shortly.
I would like to ask, I have heard you, I
22
would like to ask Mr. Reale some questions, Madam
23
Chairman, may I?
24
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Yes, go ahead.
25
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the
November 18, 2004
e
.
.
110
1
2
3
4
5
information that you are specifically missing at
this point that you would like cime to obtain?
MR. REALE:
Frankly, we don't have very
much, there was the Werwerter report that came out
that was commissioned by the district that reached
a different conclusion about needs and height that
6
7
8
was presented at the last meeting.
Whac the
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
specific problems are with communications, they
have already acknowledged that the equipment needs
to be upgraded, that doesn't necessarily translate
into needing more height.
The question was
whether the equipment upgrades, the repeaters, the
new types of equipmenc would necessarily require
16
that you go to 120 feet.
chat.
No one has analyzed
17
18
Mr. Boyd just acknowledged a couple
minutes ago that the delays had to do wich the
19
tenants coming on board.
This whole thing has
20
been confused by the commercial aspecc.
Clearly
21
everyone seems co acknowledge chat the system
22
23
needs to be acknowledged entirely, che hand-helds,
whatever else is employed. Whether that goes
together with needing to go up this high has not
24
25
been escablished, and that's really the issue, and
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
III
1
2
what the specific problems are, and what the new
system will do at any height is something that has
not been disclosed.
3
4
5
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
So that's what you
6
would like the adjournment to do, to do an
7
8
individual assessment of your own?
MR. REALE:
Well, to have experts being
9
paid for or retained by the association co look at
the work already done and see if there are any
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
other solutions.
We're noc looking to reinvenc
che wheel, we're not looking co start over again,
or come In with something contrary.
The members
of the association are part of the same community
that the fire commissioners serve.
They want che
best safety as well.
They are concerned abouc the
impact.
Mr. Boyd mentioned he's mystified why
this is not like an ambulance.
Thac's why we're
in front of this Board.
We wouldn't be in front
of this Board if it were an ambulance.
This cower
21
has an impact on the community.
That's why you
22
23
have jurisdiction over it.
whac needs co be answered.
Those questions are
24
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I guess I can
25
speak.
I'm kind of looking at this.
I don't
November 18, 2004
.
e
.
112
1
2
believe che fire department even needs co be
3
before this Board for a tower.
Lee me just point
4
co you at Greenport School put up lights on the
5
football fields, and not a single permic was
6
issued, not a single notice of disapproval was
7
given or a stop work order by this town, and I
8
believe that was because chat Greenport School
9
District lS a voting entity unco itself, a taxing
10
district that makes decisions.
I underscand chat
11
you have questions concerning this, as I do
12
myself.
13
MR. REALE:
Can I address the Greenport
14
School District? New York State Education Law
15
specifically provides that all school districts in
1c
~
New York State are special cases.
All
17
applications for all construction is exempt from
18
local zoning, it's all approved by the State
19
Education Department, whether you're pucting up
20
lights, a gym, a field, anything, the town has
21
nothing co say to any school district in any town
22
in New York State, that's a special exception.
23
Thac doesn't apply to the fire department.
24
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I was unaware of
25
that.
In any case, even if that were the case,
November 18, 2004
e
e
e
113
1
2
I'm wondering why the Zoning Board is being asked
to make this decision between people who are in
3
4
5
6
7
8
the same district.
In other words, why hasn't
this been discussed by the people you elect or to
the people that you elect that made this decision?
In ocher words, they're representing you, now
we're being asked to mediate between the people
9
you elect and you.
To me that's a litcle bit
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
confusing.
This would be betcer brought to the
commissioners.
And certainly, if people in thac
district didn't like the decision that the
commissioners made after much, I'm sure due
diligence and all the work that they have done,
then they have their remedy for that, of course
you know that, and I read the papers a few years
ago and a good friend of mine was elected on those
issues.
I read that report and I'm concerned that
20
two months is a long time.
Anything can happen
21
22
becween then.
I mentioned the fact that I lost
two of my brothers 25, 30 years ago, and I am
concerned that you have volunceers here that seem
co have made a decision based to the best of their
ability to service the community that they were
23
24
25
November 18, 2004
e
.
.
114
1
2
elected to serve and to delay that any longer to
me, my mind, if I were part of that delay and
something happened, I'd be feeling precty guilcy.
So I'm wondering specifically what you have in
mind, what you feel you can discover between now
and two months from now that's so important?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
MR. REALE:
If I can address one other
thing first. I have been involved with this for
about a year. I know that members of the
association have tried very hard to get
information from the commissioners.
We're trying
to work with them, and we're not trying to be
adversarial here, but the answers we have goccen
have been akin to what you heard from Mr. Boyd,
which is it's peculiarly wichin our own knowledge,
we know what we're doing, we're in charge here.
We haven't gotten a sharing of what the problems
16
17
18
19
20
21
are.
There was a meeting of the Orient
Associacion, there must have been 350 people ac
22
this thing a year ago this September that the
23
commissioners were invited to, and it ended up In
24
a speech from Mr. Canuscio that went on for abouc
25
an hour that provided no information.
I was
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
115
1
2
personally present at that.
There hasn't been
3
a sharing of technical information, we get
4
information, this is what we need to do.
"
~
The question on the delay, again, the
6
delay here is occasioned by waiting for the
7
telecommunications company, these private
s
individuals to decide what they're doing, thac's
9
just been admitted.
We're not crying to delay
10
that.
We have been crying co get information all
11
that time.
So if it was that urgent all along,
12
then they shouldn't be waiting for Mr. Canuscio's
13
team to figure out who's going co be the tenants
14
and how much money they're going to make on chis
15
thing.
The effort has always been to try to get
16
che information.
17
We still don't know all the technical
18
stuff.
It's not something I know anything abouc.
19
Again, the question has to do with, they're going
20
to have co upgrade the equipment, everyone agrees
21
with that. will the upgrade require you to go up
22
120 feec. Assuming that the upgrade will be done
23
and it's necessary, no one's disputing that, the
24
further question is will that address che
25
problems, do we have co go that high.
Werwerter
November 18, 2004
e
e
e
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
said you could go 90 in his report. Ma¡be you do
have to go 120 feec. We don't know that. The
information has not been shared. All we're asking
for is cime to get chat information.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
If I may request,
7
my opinion on the Board, I would like you co put
your questions, your requests in a hard copy,
8
9
10
11
12
forward it to Mr. Boyd, a hard copy to us.
So
next time we get together there's no he said,' she
said.
We know what che questions are.
MS. WAXBURGER:
Freddie Waxburger:
The
13
meeting ac which Mr. Canuscio spoke he said
specifically that it had to be 120 feet to enable
him to make back all his money, because if he were
building only to 90 feet he wouldn't be able to
14
15
16
17
18
fit on all the carriers.
So his point in going up
chat high whatever now they're saying about che
frequency, he said specifically at that meeting
that he needed the height in order to be able
19
20
21
regain his investment in building the tower.
What I wanted to say lS all this seems to
be -- all this discussion, and Mr. Boyd's quite
disingenuous wondering why chere should be all
this fuss, is there is a specific law, and it's
22
23
24
25
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
117
1
2
noc as if the law were written capriciously that
60 foot limit in a residential neighborhood,
according to my reading of the law specifically
says the ZBA isn't even empowered to give the
right to go above was based on a lot of research,
a lot of other municipal entities in New York
Scate and the preservation and protection of
people's propercy values, in the impact on an
hiscoric district and as I mentioned last cime, a
3
4
5
\:;
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
tower that was only four-fifths of this proposed
tower in height and virtually the same spot
almost, was declared a Type 1 ace ion by the
Planning Board on the basis of your consultanc's
advice.
And that was characteristic of these
kinds of Cowers allover New York State. So I
don't like the disingenuousness about, oh, I can'c
lmaglne.
I think che main thing here is thac
19
there is no transparency that we have only
one-sided analysis, and that one-sided analysis is
based clearly on commercial encerprize that came
in and actually solicited che fire deparcment.
20
21
22
23
MR. BOYD:
Thac's not true.
24
MS. WAXBURGER:
It is.
Therefore, what
25
we're asking for is an independent analysis so we
November IS, 2004
.
.
.
118
1
2
3
4
actually have two sides presented not just one
side.
MR. BOYD:
May I please respond to some of
5
that? We're not dealing with a commercial
application here. We're dealing with che fire
districc alone. The 60 foot limit we're talking
about has to do with the telecommunications
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
towers.
Ie doesn't have to do with the Cower that
the fire district may puc up for its own
communications use.
That's all we're here for.
And in that regard I have to agree with
Mr. Dinizio completely.
We have come before this Board because we
13
14
15
16
17
18
were trying to put the two matters together. We
were trying to have the telecommunications tower
as well as the fire department tower for ics
antennae.
I submit to you thac we have absolutely
19
every righc to build a tower to 120 feec Comorrow
without any input from this Board or any other
20
21
Board in the Town of Southold.
I point to you
22
what's been done by other fire districts in this
community and other fire discricts in Suffolk
23
24
County.
There are large cowers and numbers of
25
them and chey never get the blessing of the Zoning
November 18, 2004
e
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Board or Planning Board or anything else so in
that regard Mr. Dinizio is 100 percent accurate.
TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So is it your view,
Mr. Boyd, that the Zoning Board does not have
jurisdiction over what we're talking about here
coday?
MR. BOYD: We are here in an actempt ac
comity. We are here to try and do this through
9
10
11
12
13
che normal process.
I believe we can go ahead and
do it on our own without further
TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Do you have support
for that?
e 14
.
15
MR. BOYD: Yes, I do.
TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Would you like to
supply it?
MR. BOYD: Yes, I will.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I would like to
commenc. Usually this Board has always tried to
accommodate one of the opposing people of the
application for an adjournment for some time to
let them do it. And it seems that I hope we have
support of the Board to adjourn it until they have
such time until they feel chey're comfortable with
cheir information.
Ie just makes for a better
November 18, 2004
e
e
.
120
1
2
community when both sides agree to it, and being
that, Mr. Boyd, it has been postponed so many
3
4
5
times.
It's not as if it's a life or death matter
tomorrow.
6
MR. BOYD:
We don't know that.
7
8
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
None of us know thac.
They have asked for an adjournment, at first you
said yes then you sent a letter saying no.
9
10
11
MR. BOYD:
When did I say yes?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI:
Well, he didn' c
12
speak with the client yet.
When we had a
13
14
15
16
17
18
conversation in the office the day that I notified
you that chere was a postponement being requesced.
MR. BOYD:
Yes.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And you said you
had no problem but you had to discuss ic with your
client because you understood that the Board mighc
make a decision at that next month meeting anyway,
and even if there were written testimony
19
20
21
22
submitted, there would be a two-week back and
forth.
23
MR. BOYD:
I think my written submission
24
to the Board stands for position on that.
25
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I would like to make a
November 18, 2004
e
e
e
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
motion adjourning the hearing until January until
such time thac the Orient Association with their
experc can at least look into what is really
needed, there's an accommodation between the
commissioners, the firemen and the community at
large of what is really needed in Orienc for
better communications for the fire district.
7
8
9
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Mr. Orlando had
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
asked for written information to be given co the
fire district and back and forth; does that still
stand?
MR. REALE:
If we had the adjournment we
could do that tomorrow.
I would represent to you
that we would do that.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
It eliminates they
never cold me, he never asked.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But the Board
doesn't have the information until January, will
the Board get copies of everything?
MR. REALE:
If you would like.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
How about one
month?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
I think with the
holidays -- it's you're asking coo much.
November 18, 2004
.
e
.
122
1
2
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I think you're
3
4
5
6
7
asking the fire department coo much because you
want to enjoy your holidays.
I think you're
asking them to postpone it for too long. Listen,
if you have to work on Thanksgiving because you
want to accomplish something, well then, work on
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Thanksgiving. That's all I can say.
I think this
has been carried on long enough. We're basically
mediating a fight between two people who have
their own recourse, which is their district and
anybody can find out how far a radio frequency is
going to go at what footage in about a day.
It
doesn't take that long.
I can't speak -- and this
19
gentleman has not brought anyching up, not a thing
up about anything else except that 120 foot. Now,
anybody can take a radio at that frequency and
ride the entire streec system of Orient in a day
and find out where the dead spots are. This
20
21
22
doesn't take that long.
to do thac.
It doesn't take an expert
23
So, I think if you want to accommodate
these people, a month is enough, holidays
notwithstanding.
24
25
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
I agree, 30 days.
November 18, 2004
·
·
·
123
1
2
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: December 16th ac
3
1:15 in the afternoon.
4
5
6
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
December 16th, I'll
make the motion. Do I have a second?
(See minutes for resolucion.)
7
I would like to second the
MR. BOYD:
8
request that we do receive specific questions that
9
we can answer.
10
11
12
13
14
15
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Absolutely.
MR. BOYD: We can't answer amorphous-cype
chings like what are your problems.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
I think chose
requescs should be within cwo weeks of che
hearing.
16
MR. BOYD:
I think Mr. Reale can get chem
17
IS
19
20
21
to me more quickly chan that.
MR. REALE: Can we clarify all chis while
we're here?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Go ahead, Mr. Reale.
MR. REALE:
I think that the suggescion of
22
wricten questions is correcc and appropriace and
we're noc trying to slow this down and we'll do
that, but we need some give-and-take. We need
some understanding from the commissioners and the
23
24
25
November 18, 2004
.
e
.
124
1
~
¿
commissioner's experts that they will communicate
3
with our people during this monch period.
That's
4
really whac we're looking for.
5
with the technical
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
6
information that you request?
7
MS. MCNEELEY:
My name lS Ellen McNeeley,
8
I'm a member of the Orient Association and have
9
been very involved in this whole issue for some
10
time.
11
Without knowing the power of the proposed
12
equipment, which they haven't told us, it's not
13
possible co plot coverages and function of
14
antennae height.
Antennae height is really one of
15
20 or more factors affecting communications and ic
16
can't be taken out of context.
It must be studied
17
in more and open detail and any study of this
18
nature is driven by the operational procedures of
19
the entity in a careful identificacion of what
20
communication does not work, and ic needs to be
21
careful because often communications problems are
22
caused by situational factors, poorly charged or
23
low batteries, damaged antennae, improper
24
orientation of the hand unit, eC cetera and this
25
can only be uncovered by a qualified person who
November 18, 2004
e
e
e
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
understands the best communications praccice.
And whatever Mr. Scheibel has done or is doing is
noc in the public domain, no cost have been
associated with it, no competitive bidding has
been done and there's an unknown impacc on che
community.
We offered to do such a study for the
fire department, and John Turner, who is military
command and control communications experc as well
has offered to lead that.
We have gocten Richard
Seuss, who I believe you know, Mr. Dinizio, who is
a radio fellow in Greenport who is doing something
,'ery similar from the Greenport Fire Department at
this point at 460 megahertz to agree to work with
us on this study, and what we would like to do lS
co approach the fire department first to study the
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
communications problems in detail in terms of
operational issues which impact on it as well as
technical issues and to develop a series of
specific recommendations to improve
communications, to develop an RFP to puc ouc for
competitive bidding for the upgrade and John is
very experienced in writing granc proposals to see
if we can get come federal and scate money to
assist in doing this.
21
22
23
24
25
November 18, 2004
126
.
1
2
3
This is not something that necessarily a
one month proposition, although, it could be; the
4
technical part of it certainly could be.
But the
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
technical part is basically easy in a sense, you
either use this equipmenc from this manufacturer
or whacever.
The measurements of signal
propagation may not take thac long Mr. Scheibel
and Mr. Dinizio may be correct about that.
It's
operational and impact and operation lssues and
terrain issues, et cetera and che measurement of
them which take longer.
This we are willing to
13
hire someone to do, and we have concracced someone
e 14
15
16
17
IS
who I think Mr. Scheibel also knows, and you know,
Mr. Dinizio, in order to assist us in doing that
and we'll go as far as we have to do in order to
get whatever kind of best situation that meets the
needs of the fire department.
We really want to
19
20
meet che needs of the fire departmenc.
We don't
21
22
necessarily feel we have to fly in the face of
zoning in order to do it.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:
You better call him
23
because the clock is ticking.
.
24
25
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
Everything you
just said it may be correct, ma'am, but che
November 18, 2004
.
.
.
127
1
2
problem is most of what you said is better
addressed to the people that you elect, not co the
Zoning Board.
3
4
5
6
7
S
MS. MCNEELEY:
We have attempted to do
that over and over.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
We're not here to
mediate thac.
That's not what we're here to do.
9
We take a look at the zoning and we deal with
10
11
that.
How you finance this tower, what equipment
you choose co pick, what's best for you in that
~ommunity is all up to you folks because you're
all one entity as far as we're concerned, and
honestly, I worked in radio frequency for 20 years
and I know one thing, if it doesn't work at 90
feet you go to 95; if it doesn'c work at 95, you
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
go to 120.
MS. MCNEELEY:
Or increase your
19
transmitter power.
20
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:
Ie's that simple
21
22
23
to me and is honestly what chis gentleman
represented to me today, and why I say a month is
because all he seems to be concerned with is the
24
technical aspect of it, is where those radio waves
25
will go ac what height, and honestly that can be
November IS, 2004
128
1
2
answered In a very short amount of time, and I
e
3
read che report from the gentleman you're speaking
4
about.
His credentials are impeccable, certainly
5
knows more about it chan I ever will.
But it
6
still comes down to you key the mike, you get
7
reception, you key your mike you don'c gee
8
reception, and crees and buildings, contours,
9
they're all along the roads, you jusc drive and
10
key your mike.
Where chere's a dead spot, you try
11
to decermine whether or not you can get reception
12
there.
More times or not you're probably not
13
going to be able co.
.
14
MS. MCNEELEY:
There may be other
15
alternatives.
16
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:
Just this one lady and
17
then close this down.
We've made our decision.
18
MS. SPERRY:
Glena Sperry, I'm actually a
19
neighbor that has co look at the tower.
There's
20
one issue that nobody has addressed and
21
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA:
Ma'am, we have
22
adjourned.
So that's the issue that when you come
~o
L.~
back you can bring them.
24
(Time ended:
2:05p.m.)
. 25
November 18, 2004
129
1
2
e 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
C E R T I F I CAT ION
I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
State of New York, do hereby certify:
THAT the within transcript is a true record of
the testimony given.
I further certify that I am not related by
blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
action; and
THAT I am in no way interested In the outcome
of this matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand this 18th day of November, 2004.
-,
/
. A'" I
~/ "Ì1d_¿i
{I !J~
l..-'/'
Florence V. Wiles
November 18, 2004