Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/21/2004 Hearing e e . 25 1 ¡yV / . (~~{\/ C\\i/ 'Dt- ' .. ' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD / COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK 2 3 4 --------------------------------------------x 5 TOW N o F SOUTHOLD 6 7 Z 0 N I N G BOA R D o F A P PEA L S 8 9 --------------------------------------------x Southold Town Hail 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 10 11 12 October 21, 2004 9:30 a.m. 13 Board Members Present 14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman 16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 17 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 18 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 19 KIERAN CORCORAN: Assistant Town Attorney 20 21 22 23 24 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 1631) 878-8047 2 1 e 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The first public hearing next one is Tyrer on Oriole Drive, Southold. MR. RICHTER: Good morning, Craig Richter, builder for the Tyrer project. We're requesting a '/ariance for the garage in the side yard along side a deck that was built. When we first started the project, I had a survey that did not show the deck on the survey. We were told that with the Building Department we would have no problems, then we realized at the end of the project that the survey did not have a deck on there, and it made it habitable space. So we're requesting a variance for the garage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this application? Any members of the Board have any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, we see these occasions occur occasionally. There's no doubt it lS where it is. That's it. MR. RICHTER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. Is there any problem? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We reviewed the file. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 ------------------------------------------------- 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do I have a motion to approve that hearing? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That it have the normal conditions that we place on any deck. No habitable area in the garage, contain the utility of the electricity and maybe an outside water spigot, that's all. (See minutes for resolution.) 13 19 20 ------------------------------------------------- 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is a carryover from 9/14 for Kevin Miller concerning the garage on Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. Tom McCarthy, are you here? MR. MCCARTHY: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We received your 22 23 24 letter. e 25 MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, I believe we responded to the points we brought up in the previous meeting. Just reading from the letter dated October 21, 2004 3 1 2 e 3 October 18th, we're proposing of evergreen plantings to the -- they will be either spruce feet tall planted at eight to for screening on his side. The Board also brought up what the question was, what utilities will be brought into the garage. He will definitely have power In there for whatever normal purposes In the garage on the first floor and the rest of the space upstairs. He does not have a plan for today, but will be operating under whatever the code is and whatever the code allows him to do. The third issue is complying with 280A or at least 280A, and we have agreed to remove the ruts In irregular surfaces on the road, grade it out In front of his property, put out a recycled agate stone blend and pave the roadway in front of his home, and we believe that those three things address the concerns that the Board had at the prevlous hearing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have any questions of Mr. McCarthy? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: writing, what you just said? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes. We submitted that last week to the Board, and we have spoken to Xavier and Basil, the two neighbors and we obviouslj' have a difference of opinion of what Mr. Miller is willing to do, and we understand and appreciate their opinion, it's not what they're in favor of but Mr. Miller for his purposes and because of the topography on the site, wishes to proceed with this and acknowledges and respects their position, but wishes to proceed with his application as it is with the letter we submitted to augment the file. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Tom. anybody else want to comment? MR. FLEMING: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board. My name is Xavier Flemming, 555 Wunneweta Road. I have two packages of pictures that I would like to give to you. I want to thank you for adjourning the meeting last time because it gave me an opportunity to look further into a couple of things that Mr. McCarthy represented at the last meeting, and I don't agree with a number of things he represented, and I'm landscaping by means southerly neighbor or plne eight to 10 10 feet on center 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 Do you have that in 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Does 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 4 1 e 3 prepared to explain that to you now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine. MR. FLEMING: If you could hand out one of each of these to everyone. They're two separate packages. One is photographs of homes that Mr. McCarthy took previously and submitted to the Board; the second lS photographs of existing homes on Nassau Point that are built on hills. For the record, I would just like to glve yourself a little background on me. I'm a 45 year seasonal resident of Nassau Point. I'm in my ninth year as a board member on the Nassau Point Property Owners Association. I've served two years as president of the Nassau Point Property Owners Association and worked with the Suffolk County Water Authority on the water main installation, and I'd like to consider myself rather knowledgeable of the area. I'd like to direct your attention to the photograph on the first page, it says 1800 on the pillar, In that package. These are photographs of houses that Mr. McCarthy took and presented as characteristic of the neighborhood. This is 1800 Little Peconic Road. The second picture lS the house on Old Mahaden Lane, Dorothea Hours house. The third house is 2325 Rathgerber on Nassau Point Road. The fourth house lS 6675 Nassau Point Road. In the envelope there's a letter from Mr. Scott Russell, the assessor, indicating that Rathgerber, 2325 Nassau Point Road, Winchester 6625 Nassau Point Road and Concostco, 1800 Little Peconic Road are waterfront properties and thereby they're exempt from no garage in the front yard rule. Dorothy Hours house, if you look at my photo versus Mr. McCarthy's photo, shows a garage that's attached, not detached, as the applicant's lS. The second group of photos is photographs of either attached or detached garages on Nassau Point. The first three are Mr. Asciutto, the Estate of Joseph Flemming, my brother; the third is Joseph Decker. The photo of Mr. Asciutto lS not very good because his garage area lS well concealed, his house is well concealed. The point is that three houses on that hill on that Wunneweta dirt road extension are built In conformance of the code. I drove up and down all the public roads 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 5 1 9 on Nassau Point, and I think I can state with substantial confidence that there are no existing garages in front yards that are not waterfront properties and exempt as per Section 100-33C. There was a comment last week on the application of the Broadwaters Cove project, I believe it was 1845, where you approved a garage in the front yard with significant screening. In my mind there's a significant difference between that application and this application in that there's an existing house there that prohibited the owner of that house from building in his backyard and the hardship was not self-created. In this case, the hardship was admittedly self-created in the application. The house could be changed, the garage could be changed to accommodate the garage. In Mr. McCarthy's argument he emphasized the percentage over the minimum setback of his building. I have no problem with the setback. It's not the issue that's being addressed here. My objection is the detached garage in the front yard, which I will be forced to look at. I'll have to look at two buildings instead of one. I would have no objection with moving the house to the side of the proposed garage. The house plan is very attractive. I believe this code was written to establish a standard for the community with consideration to aesthetics from the street and from neighboring properties. This garage will be the first garage on Nassau Point built in the front yard and I think it sets a bad precedent. I would like to, if you could follow along with the topography, I think it would be helpful because I would like to bring forward some points on the alleged practical difficulty hardship. There are three topo lines that go through the garage, one is 122 elevation one is 124 and one's 126 for an average of 123.33. There are four topo lines that go through the house, 132 feet, 130 feet, 128 feet and 126 feet for an average of 129 feet. The difference between the elevation of the average in the garage and the average of the house is 5.5 feet and that's over a 76 foot difference. I'm suggesting that this is not a hill, this is a slope. Once ý'ou climb that hill, and there is a hill certainly 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 6 1 7 where the driveway is that's very steep, once you get up the elevation of the garage the hardship is behind you. In front of you lS a reasonably gentle sloped land. The topo lines on the right side of the house are 122 feet and 124 feet, which lS the exact same elevation as the proposed site of the garage, and it's about 80 feet away. The elevation's the same on the right side of the house as it is on the center of the garage. A driveway on the right side of the house is a possibility that should be considered. A garage could be put in the back with the dri-.reway that goes up the right side of the garage, and the topo lines again, all the way back by the pool are 124 feet and 122 feet on the right-hand side of the property. I contend that the applicant lS not building on a hill but he's building on a grade at the top of a hill, and the low point of the garage lS 122 feet; to the far left corner of the propertj', the highest point on this land, which is 136 feet, over a 228 foot distance there's a change of 14 feet of elevation -- this is from the garage to the back left portion of the property, which is a 5.52 percent grade. The grade change, from the low point of the lot, which is the bottom right corner, is 90 feet. Now, if you were to take that and compare it to the center point of the garage, which lS 122 feet, there's a 32 foot grade change there over 118 foot distance, there's a 24 percent grade change there, which lS significant, I don't deny that. I'm trying to dri 'Je home the point that the hardship lS between the road and the garage. Once you get above the garage, you're looking at a slope, you're not looking at this intimidating hill that you climbed up to look at the property. In the application the applicant has stated that he is going to grade and excavate the land. Certainly he's not going to increase the grade, he's going to reduce it and with any kind of grading work he's going to be less than this five percent grade change that I'm representing here. And it's my position that if he can accommodate a 20 by 40 pool in his backyard excavate and grade for that, he can certainly excavate and grade to construct a garage in his backyard based on the topography representation I ¿ . 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 7 1 9 just ga'Je you. I have two final points with reference to the screening. The screening does not do anything for me. Six months, a year I'll be looking at this garage. The second point is it does nothing for visibility from the street, which I will admit It'S not a well-traveled street. The screening on Asciutto's side with small evergreen trees will not, in my opinion, conceal the garage in our lifetime, because they grow so slowly unless they're out in the sunshine all the time, and we ha'Je a tremendous oak growth back there. And the final thing is I scaled the garage at the Building Department and it appears to me to have a 21 foot elevation, not the 18 foot maximum. I thank you for your time and again, I request you review the information I have given to you and reject this application. Do you have any questions for me? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Members of the Board? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the degree -- I think you mentioned it -- between the start of the lot and the actual edge of the garage? 2 e 3 4 ~ ~ " 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 24 MR. FLEMING: Ninety feet is the low point of the lot on the bottom right. This is the low point of the garage, not the average, is 122 feet. So you have a 32 foot grade change over approximately 118 feet, and it's a 24 degree change, according to my calculations, which is quite steep, of course. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If we looked at 33 degree, which we're used to looking at, that which is the norm, it's less than that. MR. FLEMING: I don't know what you mean by norm, Slr. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Evidently In your presentation you have dealt with in your business, and you're very good at it, I have to tell you. MR. FLEMING: I'm a zoning board member In the Village of williston Park, so I know what you're up against, and I've been on both sides of the table. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's difficult for us to visualize what 24 degrees is. If we took a trapezoid and we looked at 33, we looked at 45 and we looked at 90, it's difficult for me to 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . 25 October 21, 2004 8 1 9 visualize what 24 is. Holding that pen in front of you is that approximately what 24 is, I don't know. So if you could give us some indication on what 24 is on a sheet of paper. MR. FLEMING: I think maybe for practical purposes, and I don't have a protractor with me, but I think if you were to draw a 90 degree angle and bisect it, you have 45 degrees then, it's a little more than half of that; lS that fair enough? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. FLEMING: That's an average grade change, it's based on Mr. Miller's topographical survey. Any other questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No, sir. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak about this application? MR. ASCIUTTO: My name lS Basil Asciutto, I live at 620 Wunneweta Road, I'm the neighbor directly adjacent to the parcel. And Mr. Fleming and I consulted with each other, and he did a very good job of representing our case. My biggest objection also is that I'd be looking at the side of a garage, and if there were screening, if you were to approve this, if there were screening six or eight feet high, it's grossly inadequate because my first li'Jing level is at least 10 feet off the ground, so I'd be looking over these trees. Everything else we pretty much covered in Mr. Fleming's argument. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Slr. Any of the Board Members have anything else to say? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to ask Mr. HcCarthy a question. Mr. McCarthy, I realize the applicant is with you, but is there a specific reason why the ridge on this garage has to be 21 feet? Can that be lessened a little bit? MR. MCCARTHY: I'd have to let him speak. I noticed that in Xavier's comments he mentioned that the ridge was 21 feet, and his perception being an 18 foot max, the way the code is written, it's 18 feet, and that's used as an average from the 18 feet from the ridge to the rake. It is permitted. It's not penetrating that maximum le'Jel. 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's right. If we take it in reality the garage has to be on October 21, 2004 9 1 9 level land. It's eight or 10 feet to the ceiling then I assume the entire upstairs. Can that upstairs be lessened in height so as to create less impact on the neighbors? ¡'1R. MCCARTHY: It could 'rery well be, but I guess that would be an aesthetic concern of how flat that roof gets and the pitch together with the architecture of the building. I'm sure that could be done, you can bring it up to 18 feet and give it a flat roof, but I think what Mr. Miller has proposed is something that is architecturally appealing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that, but there sometimes has to be a little bit of agreement in between on the weighing of these aspects, and since Mr. Flemming has come up with some very interesting data in reference to the height of that garage, if we could lessen the impact of the height of that garage -- again these are all issues that this Board lS going to be dealing with. I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm speaking for myself. f1R. MCCARTHY: We can certainly take a look at that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In reference to the issue of screening, as you know, in our past decisions having been before this Board manj', many times not only on your own projects, but representing other people, the Board does have the right to enhance and de-enhance screening. I have to tell you, I have never seen a deenhanced, it's always been enhanced. So an example of the application that Mr. Fleming is referring to on Eroadwaters Road, that was probably the most intense screening that we have ever required on an application, mainly because of its position In the front yard area. And that applicant did voluntarily reduce the height of that particular building. MR. MCCARTHY: I'd be happy to take a look at that and follow back up with the Board. In addition, Xavier brings out just a point of clarification on the photos we submitted to the Board was to give the Board an idea of other properties that were on Nassau Point. It wasn't to say that everything is exactly the same. Those properties that he mentions, and he's given addresses of where the garages are closer to the 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 10 1 .oj street, they happen to be waterfront properties, but I believe that they have the same impact to the tra'reling public than any other garage that may be in that particular yard, even though they may be exempt because they're waterfront properties. So you can see those garages as 2'ou're traveling down the street. You may not be able to see the water, but you still have the impact of a garage closer to the road. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: .¡hat is the distance between the garage and the house? MR. MCCARTHY: Approximately 60 feet between the front stairs and the garage. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you could just repeat for me again why it is that you can't comply with the code? MR. MCCARTHY: We feel that the house could be -- there are other options here, and I believe we spoke about that last time, but we believe it's a practical difficulty with the slope and walking up to the house. If the house is located somewhere different, there's a grading issue here. Mr. Miller perhaps could connect the two structures and that's something we have talked about. He has located this garage 20 feet off the side yard line to Mr. Asciutto's side, that's not 'Hhat the code says, the code allows him to go to at least 10 feet on this particular structure. He could connect the two structures, he could also make this structure 35 feet tall if he wanted to because he's meeting the principal setback on the side yard. 2 e 3 4 5 '0 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: attached it? MR. MCCARTHY: If he attached the two of them, I believe there would be a larger impact on Mr. Asciutto than if they are unattached because it is 18 feet average versus his home being 35 feet tall, which the code allows if he were to bring the two of them together. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Correct me, then, actually, this is a plan that you feel is better for your neighbor? You mean if he 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 MR. MCCARTHY: Yes. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But you could comply with the code, but you feel that if you complied with the code that you would have more negati'.-e impacts to the neighbor; is that so? 24 October 21, 2004 11 1 9 MR. MCCARTHY: I believe so. We could move this garage closer to Mr. Asciutto's side if it was a detached structure and we've brought it further away to try to be a good neighbor and try to lessen the impact. We could bring the house and the garage together at this 20 foot setback, but this could also be 30, 35 feet tall. It could have two and-a-half stories in that same location where he's proposing an 18 foot average structure, he could have a 35 foot average structure if he closed the gap between the house and the existing garage, which, in my opinion, I don't know how well Mr. Asciutto feels about that, I think that would have a much greater impact on him than this smaller structure separated from the home. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Have YOll talked to Mr. Asciutto about this? MR. MCCARTHY: We spoke briefly this morning about this and we spoke last meeting as well about some of the options, but this is something that we feel will have the lesser impact. Mr. Asciutto said can't you put the garage underneath the house, that's where I have mine. That's something Mr. Miller is not willing tD give up, his basement space. He's got children, he's going to be using his basement space for recreation for his children. He doesn't feel the topography will work well with that. ~¡e feel it's a compromise. We don't see it going all the way in Mr. Miller's favor. We see it's a compromise with the neighbors. As far as Xavier's comments go, we could bring the house closer to the garage; he would still have to look at it. It would be taller, and he could do that. We would not be standing here today if we closed the gap between the house and the garage. Mr. Fleming would have the same vista that he has now, if there was a breezeway attaching them or more of a house or more square footage, it would ha"Je the same impact to Mr. Flemming as it does as we look at it and it could have more of an impact because it could be a larger structure in the same location. MR. ASCIUTTO: May I make a comment? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. MR. ASCIUTTO: I don't think the purpose of putting the garage in the front is to help the neighbors. I have no objection to following the 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2~ ¿ 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 12 1 9 code, attaching the garage and the house could be as tall as the zone permits, that would disturb me less than the proposed plan because all the houses are lined up in the a row and therefore the house would not be set back another hundred feet. I'd rather have the houses lined up, follow the code, whatever the setbacks are, whatever the heights are that meet the code is fine with me. I have an objection to the garage being where it is, and the house being where it is proposed because it's directly in my line of sight when I look in the back. So I have no objection to following the code. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Slr. Anybody else have anything? MR. MILLER: Hi, my name is Kevin Miller, I'm the owner. I want to thank the Board for hearing this case, thank my neighbors for coming. I look forward to a long, pleasant relationship, no matter what the outcome is here. When we initially proposed the plan here, I was not only thinking about myself, of course we were thinking about our needs, but I was also thinking about my neighbor Basil as well because I felt that having a garage in the back of my house ',¡ould mean I would have to take my driveway up along his property line and basically the cars would be parked not only in my back yard, but also visible. If they were out enjoying the backyard they would be out looking at my cars as well. I see that's not his opinion, but that was the original intent. I thought it was a good compromise. I believe everybody's presented their cases very well, and the alternative of connecting the garage with a breezeway would be another that would probably be our alternative because I do not want to give up the basement space of ha,ing a garage underneath my house, and I do belie,e that this is a pretty good compromise. It would be impossible to move the house forward. It would be a practical difficulty with the grade there. So I do want to keep the house where it is which is the flatter portion of the property, and I want to thank everybody for hearing the case. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. Aný' other Board Members have any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I just want Hr. McCarthy to come back with a plan that may ~ L. . 3 4 ~ ~ G 7 .s 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 13 1 7 lessen the height of the garage. I hate to ask anybody right at the moment to do that, but if we close this hearing, I would like to close it pending some additional information from ¡"1r. McCarthy. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are the Board Members agreeable to closing the hearing and reser'-,ing decision for later pending the outcome of Mr. McCarthy's proposal? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Someone make the 2 . 3 4 5 6 motion? 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll make the motion. 9 (See minutes for resolution.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for the Connells for making alterations to existing dwelling less than SO feet from the rear lot line at Krause Road, Mattituck. MS. CONNELL: Hi, my name is Suzanne Connell and my husband and I purchased this home at 550 Krause Road about three years ago with the intent of moving back to this area. I grew up actually right arcund the corner from this house, and I have four children and we had had the intention of mO'iing back here permanently and now we're here. We have four children and the house we're living in right now is small, so we need to put an addition on. So we have spoken with builders and architects and things of that sort to try to figure out what's the best thing for our family and making the house bigger and more practical for li'ling there permanently. When we got involved in this process we talked to Linda from the Zoning Board on the proper way to handle this and she explained the process to us and we feel like we followed it to the best of our ability. Linda gave us the list of people, our neighbors with their addresses that we needed to contact them, and she asked us to notify them and send them the information about the addition that we were doing. We sent certified letters out with return receipts and a package to all the neighbors, and I believe you have a copy of the people that we sent this package out to. We received the green slips back from the 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 October 21, 2004 14 1 9 post office, all but two of the neighbors had returned their slips. So I contacted Linda from the Zoning Board because I was concerned about the two neighbors that had not returned their slips. So she let me know that one of our neighbors, the Kenneys, had been in to inquire about the addition, and they were concerned because they had not received the package and Linda looked up the information and realized that the address that they had was an address in Port Washington, which was not where they were living; however, the address that she gave us to send out the information was Port Washington. So I guess the neighbors had never changed the address with the Town. And the other neighbors live in Syosset and have not responded to a number of phone calls that we have tried to get in touch with them on. Regarding our neighbors the Kenneys, Linda from the zoning Board suggested that I leave the package, which I did, in their mail box on this past Monday evening, because Monday morning lS when I spoke to Linda regarding the concern I had c'.'er the two neighbors that had not complied or not responded to what we were doing. In any case, my husband is more involved with the planning of this process, so I'd like to turn this over to him, if that's okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine MR. CONNELL: I don't have too much to say 'Jther than what's on the plan. We have a house at 550 Krause Road, and it's a corner house with a right of way behind it so we are kind of stuck with three front yards, and the fourth yard has been deemed a back yard, that's the direction we ',·/ant to go out. The house with the current zoning law is already about 11 feet and not complying with a 50 foot back yard setback. What we would like to do is go expand that, move the garage over and put a family room in the middle, a garage with a bonus room on top. We're asking for an additional 24 foot, which would put our property, building 15 feet from the property line. On the other side of the property line there's about 10 feet and the neighbor's garage. Like Sue said, when we started talking about the architects, this was deemed the best way to expand the house other than go out in other directions. 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 15 1 '" Other than that, we spoke with the only two neighbors that have property that touches our property, Vance Crawford and Brian Murphy, and they're both actually excited that we're renovating the house. So that's what we're asking for, an addition to go out 24 foot west towards the neighbor's yard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So the 15 feet that you want in the backyard then on the other side it's just 10 feet to your neighbor's garage not living quarters there; is that correct? MR. CONNELL: There's a breezeway, just attaching, a couple feet that touches, but no, there isn't any living space, it's a garage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, Mr. Connell, looking at the second page of your detailed plan, if you could just turn to that, one second. Which basically shows you the present house and then the new addition aspect of it, if we were standing y.'er the top of it. MR. CONNELL: Okay. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Was there any intent at any time to detach the garage and place it in the area which is over in the corner, which I guess you could refer to as the south corner, basically looking at the original plan, it's the area where it says 40 foot rear yard? Let me show ~'OU, was there ever any intent taking this and putting it over here, over in this area (indicating)? MR. CONNELL: No, there was another attachment up further in the front, but never to go back. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only reason I say that is because a reduction from the code requirements to 15 feet is rather an ambiguous reduction. I'm saying that that's just my opinion. I really have no tremendous objection to the project, that's just an opinion. I realize 2'ou're forced with that setback of 15 feet from Camp I>1ineola Road. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He also has the paper route there too. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think it's a nice design, I know vou're in a tight spot in that situation. I was just wonder, I see you have a nice boat and you park it on the side, and you 2 e 3 4 5 ~ 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~ ~, ¿¿ 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 16 1 9 plan on still putting it on the side, I think the lS foot might be a tight squeeze, you probably ha'Je about a 10 foot beam on that boat now. I don't have a particular problem but I would be more likely in favor of this application if you had a 20 foot side yard, because I think you really want to store that boat on the side as well. MR. CONNELL: The boat's going away. The boat will not be there. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Can we still do 20 on that rear yard then, is there a possibility of a reduction, as Mr. Goehringer said, it's a significant reduction in the code? MR. CONNELL: Okay. MRS. CONNELL: But why, though? MR. CONNELL: I look at five feet - BOARD MEMBER ORLANDû: It's a substantial reduction in the code. And the neighbor on this side, is that the Kenney's? MRS. CONNELL: No. It's Brian Murphy. MR. CONNELL: Kenney's property doesn't touch cur property. MRS. CONNELL: Brian Murphy is very happy we're putting this addition on. We have spoken with him and we have a very good relationship with him, and he and his wife are very excited about this addition. The boat will be moved. Right now we still are In the process of moving. We're not settled. We have some cars that we need to get rid of. Our lives are a little bit out of sort because I'm moving my four children down. And we don't have enough room to put our stuff, we have a storage place where we're gOlng to put our things wltil we finish the addition of this home. Brian Hurphy is the one that would be most affected by the changes and additions that we're putting and he has no problem whatsoever and he gives us the blessing to go forward. MR. CONNELL: Nor does Vance Crawford c,n the opposite side. The only thing is we do have a number of architectural plans, one design does move the garage a little further south so that the front of the garage is even with the front of the house, so it doesn't protrude into the front yard like on this drawing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But it still keeps lS foot setback? ~ '" . 3 4 5 ~ 7 8 10 11 12 13 ·e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 17 1 9 MR. CONNELL: Yes. there's a line of trees that separate -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Could you submit a copy of that as well? MR. CONNELL: Yes, absolutely. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just a flat plan would be fine. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I know you have a tight spot there, but I do feel that you can get a little larger setback than 15 feet, that you have adequate space to do that, and the required setback is 50 feet, you're asking for 15, and I think you have some options here. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: More than 50 percent. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That's what I'd like to see. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, when I first looked at this application and read it, I said, well, if this were a house on any lot other than this particular lot, you wouldn't even be before us, and you know, I'm prone to, and I honestly, this is the way I always think, that the hardship is created not by you wanting to add this, but by the fact that the Town interprets that you ha'.'e three front yards and it's more a mathematics geometry problem than it is a practical problem. And for reasons unknown to me, 15 feet is a normal setback for a side yard to another house and I can't for the life of me figure out why this Board wouldn't grant it as it is, simply because it serves the Town no purpose whatsoever to deny this. The Town gains nothing by allowing you to have that 50 foot setback. I just wanted to make that comment for the record. MR. CONNELL: I appreciate that. We did ~xplore alternatives, but with budgetary constraints to do it any way other than this and to make the house livable for six people comfortably, it isn't going to be that big a house, but it's a lot more money to go out in other directions. In fact, we're kind of nixing ~?en going out in the back part of it as well, with the main part of the house. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I hav~. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there ¿ . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 18 1 9 anyone else in the audience that would like to comment? Yes, ma'am? MS. KENNEY: Good morning, my name is Phyllis Kenney. I am the neighbor that the Connells discussed. I never did get that package, which it's not really their fault. So I don't have anything before me to show you, but I went to the Town and I looked at the plans, it's a beautiful [1()me. My problem is that I am the flag lot behind them, and I'm at the mouth of James Creek and their 15 feet from the border is going to be right in my backyard. There is an easement on my flag lot that lets me in and also allows three small lots on the south side of James Creek for access to boats. So our house is on Ole Jule, the actual address but I am between Ole Jule and C~mp Mineola. If they were allowed to build the house, I feel I would lose the pri'Jacy of my backyard because my house is situated so it faces James Creek and the south. So when I look out I would see their cathedral ceiling bedroom. It's 15 feet from my backyard, not the garage and the Murphys. r.1y interpretation is couldn't they move the house out more towards Camp Mineola and not so close to me, and I apologize, I have nothing in front of me to show you what I'm talking about, but I am the flag lot behind them, and they are going to be in my backyard. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You drive down the right of way then? MS. KENNEY: Yes. And if you notice in the file, there are no pictures of my house showing where I am in proximity to that house, and it's a factor. I am the one of all the houses that will be affected the most. I don't have anything else to say. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you just come I.y,rer and show us where you 1 i ve, ma / am? MS. KENNEY: I'm Lot 41. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You live there on 2 . 3 4 5 '0 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 41? . 25 HS. KENNEY: Yes. MR. CONNELL: Our addition doesn't border 15 feet on their property. It's 15 feet on the Hurphy's property and to the right of way, you are the owners of that right of way. Actually, I'm on the right of way, and it's a 25 foot right of way at the back of my -- it's my third front yard. 23 24 October 21, 2004 19 1 9 You have the 25 feet, and then their property starts, but this addition is an addition from the 25 feet, I think it's about 45 to 50 feet away from the right of way, which we put it 65 feet from their useable property. MS. KENNEY: According from the pictures I saw your backyard is 15 feet off the right of way. MRS. CONNELL: Can I also make a comment? She neglected to say that her house is on the mé\rket. MS. KENNEY: So was yours. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We're only here to address this, please. MR. CONNELL: I just want to clear that up that the closest, with the proposed addition for the first floor on the main part of the house, would still be 40 feet from the right of way. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you come up and show me that? You're 15 feet here (indicating I MR. CONNELL: That's the Murphy's, their property is down here (indicat ingl. So we ha'Je an additional maybe 50 feet to the right of way, an additional 25 for the right of way, and that's somewhere between 65 and 75 feet away from their actual backyard. Here's the right of way? MR. CONNELL: The right of way is right there. You can see even the addition is 40 feet from the right of way over on this end, and this, the 40 feet plus when the house is 20, 25 feet. And on the other side of their property there's a big new home, there's a big second story with a huge third story window, that's all wooded area in there as well. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Connell's property bisects their property on that boundary. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a couple 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 1~· ¿ 13 . 14 15 1;; 17 18 19 24 questions" CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Might as well clear this up. You are on the tax map Lot 38? MR. CONNELL: On the corner? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, right? MR. CONNELL: Correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And Brian Murphy lS Lot 377 r1R. CONNELL: BOARD MEMBER 20 21 22 23 the south of you, Correct. DINIZIO: And this lady is to Number 41. I don't know, where . 25 October 21, 2004 20 1 9 is James Creek? MR. CONNELL: It's at the south end of Lot 40, very south. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: James Creek is south of your house? MR. CONNELL: No. It's south of the edge of Lot 40. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Comes up to Lot 40? How do you obstruct her view? MR. CONNELL: We don't. In fact, it's verý' hard to see our house from that area, it's a wooded area, and even if there isn't you have to really look. We're in the opposite direction of James Creek. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So she doesn't look towards your house to see James Creek? MR. CONNELL: No, in the opposite direction, ,::orrect. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She looks the other 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 way? 25 MR. CONNELL: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then you're going to be 15 feet from the property line of Mr. ¡"Iurphj", 37, not 41, looks like you're 70 feet from there or whatever. Okay, I'm confused as to what maybe you ought to look at the application, ma'am, ::let an idea. MS. KENNEY: I did look at the application, unfortunately, not through any fault of theirs, I didn't get it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe you ought to look at the application because it seems you're worried about something that -- MS. KENNEY: The way I read it, it was 15 feet from the right of way. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you're wrong. you look at the application CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's 15 feet from Brian r.lurphy's garage. MS. KOWALSKI: Mrs. Kenney, did you want to look at the map in the file? You're here, this shows what the addition is going to look like after. MS. KENNEY: property line? MS. KOWALSKI: From CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: MS. KOWALSKI: From If 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 2û 21 22 23 How many feet is this from the 24 e Krause Road it's 40 From the right of Krause Road? feet. way. October 21, 2004 21 1 ~ ¿. . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. Road, this would be the right MS. KOWALSKI: So the map misleading, it didn't show the this other sketch. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: take a look at it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have any comments on this application? Yes, sir? MR. KENNEY: Good morning, my name is Peter Kenney, that's my significant other, in case no one has figured that out. Yesterday was our 37th '\nni'lersary, and the reason for saying that is if I didn't stand up at the appropriate time I probably would have never made 38. In any e'Jent, I think that testimony that has been given so far for the Board to review is based either on hearsay or he said/she said it was okay. I would request that the Board reserve decision either until we get something from Mr. Murphy in writing because it seems that he has a tremendous amount of weight on this decision regarding his offset or setback whatever, and in light of the fact that we did not receive any of the information, my wife and If we would be willing to have it and review it. And if there's not a conflict, we don't have a problem with them expanding their home and making it a nicer home. This is of way. would right not Krause be of way with 4 We'll give you time to 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a suggestion? Why not just go over and see r1r. Murphy? It's very difficult, in my opinion, to get a letter from him. We certainly can request it or Mr. Connell can request it. Why dc,n I t you go over and see him? MR. KENNEY: I personally don't have a problem with that. But if the Board is weighing a decision on "Mr. Murphy said it was okay," without Mr. Murphy's presence, I would request additional information or verification. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just comment on 17 18 19 2D 21 22 that? ~ 0 ¿~ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not a question of what Mr. Murphy or who would live next door to this neighbor as far as I/m concerned, it's more a question of the practical difficulty of the lot and how the Town determines here's the front yard and what your side yards are. This person's 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 22 1 9 Ii 'Jing on a peninsula surrounded by front yards, with a much more restrictive setback than a front 2'ard brings. As I look at it, anybody could live next door and I would consider that side a side 2'ard, just simply because the rest of the lot is front yard. So he's being asked to comply with a much stricter setback because of the position of his lot or the location of his lot to these three, what we call, roads. So he has a problem. He definitely has a problem with if he wants to expand that house. And Mr. Murphy doesn't dictate whether or not we get it, it's his proximity to that piece of property that in my mind says to me, hey, look, he has a practical difficulty, this gentleman does, and if he wants to utilize that as a side yard, that's fine. The health, the safety and welfare of the town is not going to be upset by the fact that this is a 15 foot setback on this line because almost every other lot in the town is allowed to do that, actually 10 feet. So Hr. Murphy -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 10? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Whatever it is. Some houses are 10 feet. This one is 15, he complies as far as the side yard, as far as I'm concerned. So Mr. r~urphy is not neither here or there as far as I'm concerned. The point is I think the 'jentleman deserves some relief and my personal thing is I think he's not requesting anything that's out of the ordinary, and he does have a practical difficulty. But there's four other members on this Board that could feel differently and more times than not they do feel differentlj' than I do. I felt it was important to have the discussion, and not based on what Mr. Murphj' wants or doesn't want, but what is practical for this particular lot, and that's how I look at it. If you have an objection to that, certainly voice it, and I wouldn't object to holdin::¡ this off, if you need to really take a look at that file, in all honesty. If you want to come back next month, I don't object to that, if you want to look at the file, get your facts together, please, feel free to do so. I wouldn't object to that. Thank 2 · 3 4 5 " 7 8 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ..,rou. · 25 r~R. KENNEY: Thank you for your comments. I do agree with you, a couple things come to mind, 2'QU go out and buy a car and you ride down the October 21, 2004 23 1 9 road with it and after you ride down the road, you sa)r, oh, hell, I can fit seven kids in here, I wanted to put 15. So I think what I'm going to do is put a double axle on the back and expand it and take the pipes off so I can go faster, go where I want to go, well, that's against why that car was built. So what I'm saying, if you buy a house and that is too small, when you look at a house, you say I've got four kids, oh, my four kids won't fit, hell, I'm going to expand it, I'll do this, I'll do that. I'm going to go before the ZBA, and I'm going to say, I want to expand my house, let's ,change some of the rules. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. He's not asking for change -- MR. KENNEY: We're asking for a change in '..-ariance, are we not changing the rules? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. He's asking for relief from a practical difficulty in that his lot lS unusual for most of the lots of the town. MR. KENNEY: It's a corner lot. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it's a lot with three front yards, sir, not just two front yards but three front yards, which limits his ability to expand in any direction. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He's just asking for a house the size of anybody's house in town. He's not asking for any more than that. And the practical difficulty is that the Town interprets that he has three side -- three front yards, and the Town says you have a front yard, you have to set it back further. So he has a practical difficulty here and this is not the car, you see a ¡:ar )rou count the seats, that/s fine. This is a lot, and the Zoning Board is here because of that. Because they recognize, the Town recognizes that not every lot is the same. When you create lots, they have practical difficulties. My mind, this is not that car, think of it that way. MR. KENNEY: I'm not here to cause friction with a neighbor, and I don't want this to be interpreted that way. With that, I would appreciate it if we had the opportunity to reserve the information submitted to the Board and we'd be more than happy to reappear. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. What is the Board's pleasure; do you want to close the hearing? 2 . 3 4 c ~ 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 tit 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 24 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should 9 close the hearing. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Didn't the gentleman want to adjourn it? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Give him a two-week comment period, that's all. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion closing the hearing but leaving it open for two weeks for written comments on this application, reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say, I"Ia' am Chairperson? Whatever comments they make to the Board, the gentleman that just spoke prior to the applicant here, would just have to submit those comments also to CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, yes, to give a copy to the Connells. MRS. CONNELL: I appreciate what you're saying. It really is true. We have three front yards, and there are limits that we have to deal with because of these laws that are in place, and I appreciate your taking the time to sort of explain that because not everybody knows that. And I really feel that if Mr. Murphy had an lssue with anything we were doing, I know that he would be here right now speaking his mind in a nice way to let us know that. So, our timing is important to us, and we are living in that house and bought that house because I grew up on Ole Jule Lane, and we would like to live in that neighborhood and that's why we are not selling that house and moving to another location, which might be easier in the long run on us, but we'd like to stay in that neighborhood because my parents are still living there. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I have a second on the motion? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. (See resolution for details.) · 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ----------~-------------------------------------- 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Zuhoski for a degree of nonconformance of less than 35 feet from the front line on Freeman Avenue in Mattituck. MR. ZUHOSKI: Good morning, my name's Jerry. 1"1,,' wife and I, Debbie, we're planning an addition, and in order for us to do that, we got to get a variance because the addition is falling 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 25 1 9 too close to the road. It's not 35 foot, what the zoning calls for, so that's about it, we're just requesting a variance for that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually, your existing house is about 19, 20 feet from the road and your proposed addition would be 21 feet four inches, correct? Do the Board Members have any questions, [·'Ir. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs. Tortora? BDARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER DRLANDO: I guess it's a nice little addition, but I guess you just don't want that garage, do you? MR. ZUHOSKI: When you raise two kids and the two kids get married and have kids, it gets a little tight at the holidays. Garage is probably not e'}en a future for me. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm sorry. No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The porch on the front of the house facing Freeman Avenue will be an open porch, it's just going to have a roof? MR. ZUHOSKI: Just roof, an overhang, to stay out of the weather. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's it. No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the audience have any comment about this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the application and reserve decision until later. ISee minutes for resolution.) 2 . 3 4 5 I:' 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 ló 17 18 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: the Ferrells on Lloyds Lane ['Iesiano. The next application is in Mattituck. Cathy 21 MS. MESIANO: We're back again. I submitted revised plans to you. I'll make that brief because I don't know how much voice I have left. I did submit plans to you, does the Board have questions? Let's start at that point. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want me La comment? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I see before us, Mrs. Mesiano, is a less than a fill in ~- L¿ 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 26 1 e 3 deck on the rear portion of the house, with a portion of that deck cut away and the silhouette of a gunite swimming pool at somewhat ground level. How much elevated with that gunite pool bP? 2 4 MS. MESIANO: Most likely no more than two 5 feet. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGEP: Basically you're straightening your grade out and placing this pool in the same location that the questionable above-ground pool was there before? MS. MESIANO: Basically. It required a little more elbow room around the pool because going from the steel wall pool to the gunite pool requires a greater excavation area and some retaining wall area, which is why the area is somewhat expanded. We have held the side yard but I just should note that we did increase -- excuse me, decrease the distance from the top of the bluff to the seaward most point of our proposed activity to 80 feet to allow us to have room to install a low retaining wall in conjunction with the construction of the gunite pool. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Mesiano, will that retaining wall go across the entire front of the reconstruction of the wood deck Gn the house, or will it mainly be on the north ~asterly side? MS. MESIANO: It should new pool and deck area. There's extend it to the existing deck. rebuild that existing deck. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The elevation of that wall above grade will only be to the degree I mentioned to you before you came back and said approximately 24 inches? MS. MESIANO: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This pool is an in-ground pool but because of the topography on one side you're raising the grade on one side to make it an in-ground pool, correct? MS. MESIANO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No quest:ions. guess all in the end here it's a question of whether you call this an in-ground pool or an only be around the no reason to We only want: to 6 7 8 11J 11 12 13 e leI 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e I 25 October 21, 2004 27 1 2 . 3 above-ground pool? This is an in-ground don't think you can make a gunite __ MS. MESIANO: And again, I think reiterate that we're here for a variance setback from the bluff. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: homeowner's association. MS. MESIANO: That I think is a pool, I we should for a 4 5 My concern was the matter 6 for 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree, that's a matter for somebody else, but it's too bad that we can't honor that. MS. MESIANO: I think we've come as close as possible to conformity with that in that che proposed pool is a gunite structure that will be beneath the existing grade and because of the topography there will have to be some fill brought in but essentially the strucCure is subgrade. The entire structure will be lower chan the existing deck. So for all intents and purposes it's being a gunite pool subgrade. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? Jerry, do you have more? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. MS. MESIANO: I would like to submit a letter to the Board from Mrs. Ferrell. She has a family medical emergency that she's dealing with ( handing I . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in the audience wish to comment on chis application? If not, I'd like to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. ¡See minutes for resolution.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 i Brief recess.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for James and Eileen Buglion for a front yard setback at less than 40 feet at Clearview Avenue and Gegan's Landing. Is there someone here to speak tc, this? 21 22 23 MR. BUGLION: I'm James Buglion, the applicant. Basically the house, we want to increase the front porch by three and-a-half feet and the front of that house, according to the diagrams and photos, faces the wooded section of Mr. Johnson's house. I should preface chis by saying that all the packets were sent out and 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 28 1 2 , fir. Shoenbacher was here, and he did not have a card, I explained it to Linda and she understands. ;'.11 the neighbors did receive their packets. I also listed on my posting a picture of the house :,<nd laminated it, and everything there is documented. Basically that's what I'm trying to do, increase the front porch by three and-a-half feet both aesthetically, because it's a small house, it's 30 by 40/ I'm trying to dress it up a little, give it some dimension, and my wife had the issue of the kids running around, it would be too small for them. That's it, I'm sure you have questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the distance from the steps to the Gegan's Landing from the end of your property? MR. BUGLION: I didn't compute that. I didn't think the steps came into the equation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would just like to have it for the record. I know the steps are exempt. . 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 by 8? MS. KOWALSKI: Are the steps 8 by 10 or 8 . 14 MR. BUGLION: tiS. KOWALSKI: setback to the bottom than average. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We can address that in the decision if he so chooses to say that and state that the steps are and the part that he's requesting is 36 feet. MR. BUGLION: Right. agreeable and the stipulation CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If to what, 5 by 67 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It's 8 bj' 8. CHAIRWOMA}! OLIVA: It's 8 by 10. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying it does not affect the variance aspect, if he tends to go with that and the Board wants to grant him the steps, we can write the decision in the duplicate manner. MS. KOWALSKI: That's why the question was asked for the size and for the record, the setback is 10 feet out, Mr. Buglion, it would be a 26 foot setback. MR. BUGLION: Correct. The other problem is it's a high house because we put the garagE The steps are 8 by 10. That's why they need the step because it's larger 15 16 17 18 That would be would be fine. we just decreased it 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 29 1 2 underneath the house, we have such a small footprint, so the steps are going to be steep. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They are. And you had to build up because of FEMA, it really looks like, but it's not your fault. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the steps are 80 square feet. They're 10 feet wide and 8 feet deep? MR. BUGLION: Yes. I could check with the builder, I could probably make them eight. I don't know what the rise is going to be, I'm not a framer. . 3 4 5 n 7 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, anything else? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 3G feet as depicted on the survey on the extension of Gegan's Landing Road as it exists right now; is that correct? In other words, we're looking at those porches as they exist on the house right now; are they there already? MR. BUGLION: BOARD MEMBER thought. So there's house other than the OJ"'''' today? MR. BUGLION: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Meaning railings, decking. MR. BUGLION: Right. I didn't put the footings in yet. We have temporary bracing until we get this approval but there are no railings, nothing else, and a good pair cf temporary steps. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I thought they were temporary steps. MR. BUGLION: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And those porches will remain open? MR. BUGLION: They're covered with required railings. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in the audience have any discussion on this application? The porch is up. GOEHRINGER: That's what I no change in that side of the finishing aspects of what we 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 30 1 ~ L e 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This lS a series of two porches, a lower porch and an upper porch? MR. BUGLION: Yes, boch the same dimensions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Both the same dimensions, the first is on the first floor; the second is on the second. And they're running the entire length of Gegan's Landing Excension, meaning the house? MR. BUGLION: It's 40 foot. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 4 5 6 7 8 9 !See minutes for resolution.) ------------------------------------------------- 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Jeanne LaPorta on Private Road in Orient. MR. LAPORTA: Good morning, I am the father of the owner/applicant and we're here this mornlng regarding 1995 Deitrich Road, it's a private road. I'm Alfred LaPorta. The existing deck is in very bad condition and we're taking that existing deck down and replacing that existing deck. The existing deck is approximately 18 feet from the front property line, and the deck towards the front property line is the new deck will be over 20 feet. So we're actually asking for a reduction in the original variance, and that's basically what we're here for. 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. LaPorta, I was to the house, I don't have any objection to the application. The only objection that I have, and it's not going to be favorable to either you or your daughter, is the fact chat I find the right of way extremely narrow, and I have to tell you, I was almost run over by somebody there. MR. LAPORTA: You mean the private road? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Somebody's got co widen that right of way. I don't know how you would get a fire truck down there. MR. LAPORTA: We only have the right to use that right of way. We're not in charge of that, and we don't own that right of waj', that right of way is actually owned by Ms. Abboc. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Dorochea Abbot? MR. LAPORTA: Yes. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 31 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So ,"ou only have the right to use that right of way, you have no jurisdiction over it? MR. LAPORTA: Right, we have no jurisdiction over it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Somebody's goc to cut that right of way back. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It goes back to the 2BOA aspects. I'm not asking to go into Chat co any degree at this point, but I think within the decision it should be staced that the property has got to be 15 feet wide for clearance. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's supposed to be. It's got to be 15 by 15. That's not your problem. MR. LAPORTA: That's correct, buc I think the road is approximately 15. I don't have it on my survey, but it's approximately 15 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's pretty narrow, rutty. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. LAPORTA: The thing that makes it appear narrow is the brush on either side. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's what has to be cleared because of fire and ambulance access, two properties, I think it is in che code, it should be cleared 15 feet wide and __ MR. LAPORTA: I know Miss Abbot does have someone come occasionally there clipping the branches. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, if I put in the decision the right of way must be widened to meet the code; would that be acceptable to you? MR. LAPORTA: It wouldn't be acceptable to me because I have no authority or control over that road. It's a separate issue completely from rmr application. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have the sinking feeling that it's going to probably be a condition in this decision. MR. LAPORTA: It is not relevant to this decision. 13 . 14 15 It:::: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 the BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MS. KOWALSKI: You might owner of the right of way. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? I disagree. have to contact October 21, 2004 32 1 ~ ¿ BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I would not agree to put that as a condition into this because the man has no control of the right of way. He does not have fee title or ownership to it. Kieran? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: He doesn't have control over it, but I query whether the Building Department will require the right of way to be expanded. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To the owner, which is I'hss Abbot. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: My question is is the Building Department going to grant permit on this application if the right of way doesn't meet code. So the applicant may be put in a difficult condition, where you may get your ':ariance, but I don't know whether the Building Department will grant that permit until the right of way is increased. MR. LAPORTA: Actually, we don't have any factual information which establishes that that right of way is not proper. Right now it's just jour feeling that the dimensions of it are not proper. But we don't have any factual information IJefore you on which }'OU can make that decision. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's why I said the right of way must be widened to meet the code. Because the person that makes that decision is ]oing to be the person that gi'Jes you the building permit. MR. LAPORTA: To say it has to be widened has an assumption that it's not wide enough, and you don't have enough factual information before you now to make that assumption. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we're going down a real slippery path because what we need to do is to hold this hearing until you present us with that evidence or just let the Building Department make the decision, or we can leave it ::Jut. My preference is to leave it out. The Board ['Iember did say what he wanted, when we make our decisions, you're not present BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: He can be. BOARD MEMBER DINIZlú: He can't testify. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it would be better when we decide to grant or not to grant, to leave that open and for us as a Board to write a note to the code enforcement officers to COIltact that owner of the right of way stating that it is . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 33 1 2 e 3 stated in the code that it should be inspected and brought up to the code standards. That is not your problem. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm going to leave that out of the decision. MS. KOWALSKI: Are you going to extend the hearing or close the hearing? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this application? If not, then I'll make a motion ~losing the hearing and reserving decision until later. 4 5 6 7 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. (See minutes for resolution.) 9 ------------------------------------------------- 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Jimmy Falbo to reconstruct a house on Sound Avenue in Hattituck on a very narrow lot. Is there anj'one here who would like to -- hi, how are you? MR. FALBO: Hi, I'm Jim Falbo from 10120 Sound Avenue, Mattituck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir. MR. FALBO: It's not actually a house that's there now. It's a mobile home that was put there in the '60s, very narrow, very old, basically falling down. It's on a full cinder block foundation, which is basically disintegrating and falling apart, and my proposal is to get some side yard setbacks so I can demolish the mobile home that's there completely including the foundation, the old septi~ system and construct a new dwelling on there at the dimensions of the survey plans that I gave you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. MR. FALBO: It's a one and-a-half bedroom mobile home that I purchased a couple years age, and it's only myself and my one son right now, my other son is presently serving in Iraq in the Army Reserve, he'll be home in a year I hope, and I want to make sure we have a bedroom for him when he gets home. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. think it will be an improvement. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? I 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 34 1 2 . 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The proposed building is a one-story? [VIR. FALBO: Yes. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions, good luck. 4 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to be the person that's a little different. I know the person that built the building, I went to school with him, not that it makes any difference. I dcn't understand why one of the side yards can't be conforming, Mr. Falbo. MR. FALBO: It's an inline ranch. Ie shows a small, open wraparound porch in the front, which I figure would make the house look a little more aesthetic to the area rather than have a perfectly rectangular house, like a shoe box. It would add a little character to the house and the property itself. I believe it's only about eight foot long on that one side. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to be the opposed person because I fight the fires in Mattituck. I represent myself as being a fireman for 35 years, and I assure you that 10 feet is not without question on one of those side yards, and that 10 feet has to remain open and unobstructed and that's the story. MR. FALBO: So can it be shifted to one side to give you 10 feet? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Five feet is very narrow also. I'm telling you that the building has to be reduced. That's my opinion, I'm not speaking for the Board. That is going to be my proposal before the Board when we go co deliberate on this application. That is 10 and five, which is a total of 15, and that's not unreasonable, you've got jogs in the hc.use, which I do appreciate the fact that you want to not create a box-type of situation, but it is a small piece of property, and I'm just telling you Chat it's going to be a nay if it's this one from me, unless you have 10 feet minimum, and that's it. You have a long narrow lot but you can go back farther so that's the story. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Jerry, you want SlX inches on the ease side? ó 7 8 9 lû 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: other side, it should be 10 feet. It's 9'111 on the If it's going October 21, 2ü04 e e . 1 2 35 to be 10 feet and we're looking at it on the east side, it should be 10 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ten feet instead of BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Instead of 9'1". It's got to be 10 feet. You have to have at least one conforming side yard. I don't have any particular objection with the size of the property next door that he goes for 5.1 on the 'dest side. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be reduced if he moves the other nine inches or so. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You're looking at 4'1", 10'1". Just slide it over a foot. MS. KOWALSKI: Are you saying reduce the five foot to four foot? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just make the house longer. He's got a lot 350 feet long here. This is not a 100 by 50 lot. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The proposed dwelling is 28 by 62. You can't build 27, which would give you 10 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Whatever he has to do, he has to do. I have to tell you on a normal 50 foot lot a 24 by 36 foot house, which could be 24 by 40, it could be 24 by 50, whatever you want to make it, conforms to the 10 and 15 side yard. I'll go along wi th the one s ide yard reduced to 5'1", but I can't go along with the 0ther. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What do we gain with 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The ability to get vehicles in and out. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Emergency vehicles. MS. KOWALSKI: There a fence there now? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's all overgrown. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment on BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can comment 0n anything. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: ',vhatever that happens to be? going to make a difference to ','ehicles. 3 9 '1 II . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 inches? 18 19 20 21 that? ~~ L¿ 23 24 Talking about .9, 10 inches that's not any fireman or fire 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The fire trucks are 11 feet wide. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Did you read the October 21, 2004 36 1 2 paper last week? There was a fire on Sterling Street In Greenport. I happened to attend that fire because I lived in that house. That house was built right on the property line, you know ,,,hat? We fought the fire. We're talking about the guy's made plans, he's probably already got his plans for the house. He knows what he wants. We're talking about, because you're gOlng to get a fire truck to go into the side to the back of this house, which I don't believe anybody would in their right mind would drive a fire truck on any kind of ground. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: we're driving a fire truck. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What are we talking about here, maybe some fire hoses going around the back. Go on the other person's property. I don't think that should be a reason why, and I just think that that's a red herring. I think he made his plans. I think it's disingenuous. I think it's almost arrogant to say, make the house smaller. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, he didn't. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I make the house smaller, I said make You don't listen. MR. FALBO: That's gOlng to deviate from m'i house plans. I also was a fireman, an ex-chief of a fire department for 25 years and we fought fires where we could barely fit between the house and fence to get a hose around to the rear of the house, and stuff like that. We really never had a problem. Like the gentleman said, already the plans have been submitted. I would ha'.'e to get an architect, new set of plans and start from scratch allover again for 10 inches or whatever it comes out to be. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I already spoke. didn't have a problem with the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? I make a motion cclosing the hearing and reserving decisiDn until later. I didn't sa'i . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 He didn't say that, . 14 didn't say it longer. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I 23 24 (See minutes for resolution.) . ------------------------------------------------- 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Gotbetter and Ramis at Diamond Lane on Sound October 21, 2004 37 1 2 Avenue In Peconic. MS. GOTBETTER: Good morning, mj' name is Marion Gotbetter and this is Carmen Ramis. We ::o-own the home at 425 Diamond Lane in Peconic. We don't have a lot to say. We have lived in the house for about nine years. We now li'Je here half time. We're planning eventually to live here full time. The house is pretty small. We want to keep with the aesthetics of the house and keep it fairly modest. We're going to finish the upstairs attic, put a master bedroom and bath, and we would like to add a garage, which I think is most at issue here. Our restrictions are that we ha'.'e two front yards where our rear yard is a steep, steep slope down to the sound, we can't put the garage there, and the access to the house and where the garage would be there's only really one way to get there. So we're asking for a modest garage. Our c'ar keeps getting pelted and pounded, and we' \'e lost several windshields. We don't have a basement we'd like more storage and that's basically it. The only thing within the house that would be expanding, the garage would be attached and we want to expand a foyer area because right now we walk right into the kitchen so we thought it would be a good opportunity to give us an entry way. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because you don't have enough room to get in. Jerry, do you ha'Je anj' r,:.'omments? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You were the ladies we met two years ago? MS. GOTBETTER: Yes, we spent a lot of time and effort preserving the area and we're committed to being there and keeping it the way it is. You saw us with the Trustees. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One thing's for sure that because of the nature of this property, it really doesn't have a specific impact on anything. Because of 'lour setback away from the water and because of the fact that it's a private road that really services a couple of houses. ~¡.s. GOTBETTER: This really has no impact on any of our neighbors. It's just really cur property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank :¡ou. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My one question, it . 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 1 38 2 looks like just a portion of your garage needs a variance, correct, as I read it? Probably 75 percent of it has a 40 foot setback; is that ·-::'orrect? e 3 4 MS. GOTBETTER: There's two frcnt yards. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The private road lS also your front yard? MR. RAMIS: Yes, we do have two front yards even though Diamond Lane doesn't exist, that's why probably 75 percent of the garage would be sitting in the front yard. But we are trj'ing to maintain a 20 foot setback from this private road, CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which has ne"er been cut through anyway. It goes down that slope. MS. GOTBETTER: It's just a foot path and the other side is our driveway. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And if j'OU extended that road, you'd end up in the wetlands. So I don't see any reason why that's going to happen. MS. GOTBETTER: No, please. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nice area down there. I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 5 6 7 8 ') 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 ------------------------------------------------- 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is James and Maura O'Malley on Mill Road in Peconic. r'1R. MCGANN: Good morning, my name is Doug McGann. I've been wcrking on the O'Malleys fcr the last year on a project to build a lcg cabin on their lot on the corner of Mill Avenue and Miami Lane in Peconic. We applied for a building permit after getting the plans together, and then applied for a county board of health permit. And we needed to do a test hole to get that permit. We did a test hole and the test hole revealed a large clay layer and the county required us to do an excavation inspection. We did an excavation inspection, which took a long time, in order to get a building permit, and this excavation lnspection got rather involved, had to dig a hole 56 feet deep through the clay layer, se"Jeral large pieces of equipment, two excavators and a crane 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 1 39 2 all positioned on this lot. And we finally got the approval after doing this and filling it with sand. Then we went to file a permit and found that we needed a waiver of merger because the lots that have been in the family since the beginning of time as far as I know, were merged by the Town. The O'Malleys are going to speak more about the property. They own four lots that are actually two lots with two parcels on each lot, all with separate tax bills, and they were unaware that they were merged until we applied for this permit. That's why we're here, to apply for a waiver of merger. Since that time I know there's been quite a bit of opposition to the waiver of merger, and I'm not sure the opposition is for the waiver of merger. I think it's more an opposition of what we've done to the property there, which is created quite a mighty mess. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, we saw it. MR. MCGANN: The rain, it's been a vert' ,>vet summer, it hasn't helped us out. Their intention is to build a log home there, and landscape it with plenty of trees and restore that road to its condition. I went down and looked at the road yesterday, first time I've been there for a month. I see some of the silt from the lot has gone over the stone, Miami Avenue, and I will restore that road this week with gravel and hay bails to prevent any further rain damage to Miami .;;'venue. We are here to request a variance for a wai ~\rer of merger. I'd like to have Mrs. O'Malley speak about the chain of deed for that piece of property. Before I do, I just want to give the Board a picture of what the excavation was and how deep the hole had to be. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MRS. O'MALLEY: I'm Maura McGuire O/Malley, this is my husband Jim and my parents, Eileen and Ed McGuire. My mother actually bought the lots on Miami Avenue corner. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 13 and 14? MRS. O'MALLEY: Exactly. About 50 years ago, it will be 50 years ago April, with the intention of building on those lots. Twice in the e 3 4 5 6 7 .s 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 40 1 . 3 first couple of years my father had those lots cleared to build on. But in the interim, a couple of years after they bought the lots, the house, the white cottage that they're in now on 10 and 11, was up for sale and my father's mother, who lived in Mastic Beach, bought that cottage with the expectation of living there to be close to us. Before we had a chance to build, both times when my father had the lots cleared, his company actually went on strike. It's a whole thing, we all know about this, and they didn't ha\'e the money to put the house up on the Miami Avenue lots. Then shortly after, a couple years after my grandmother bought the house on Mill Lane, she died, and we started using that as a summer house. But my mother was the one who actually bought the lots on Miami Avenue, and though they saw the lot with the cottage, those were two lots. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 10 And 11? MRS. O'MALLEY: 10 and 11. There's two 50 foot lots, and we always saw that as one parcel of land that was my grandmother's property and the ,~ther two lots face on Miami Avenue, 12 and 13, were considered other lots. That was an undeveloped lot, the other was cleared and the house lot. So, when my husband and I have been planning to move here, my husband is retired, I'm a nurse. I'm in the process of getting nurse my practitioner, I'll be graduating in a year and my kids are graduating from college. So we had planned for a while to move to peconic, and my mother suggested, why don't you build on the Miami Þ."Jenue lots. Especially now that my father's not driving and they both need people around to just be available for them, and everyone in the family thought that that would be the perfect solution meeting everyone's needs really. So that's what happened. She transferred the deeds over to us, and when we went to Riverhead to post those deeds, we thought that was the process of whatever had to be done so we proceeded with getting the septic system set up, and that was started back in June, and we thought that would be a couple week process, and it ended up going on for 10 weeks. We had to get more and more equipment in then we had that all set and had to go for the building permit and that's when we found out that, in fact, 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 41 1 2 the four lots were being seen as one rather than the two and the two. So what we're here today for is to ask if those lots could be separated back into the original two parcels. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do understand that back in 1983 that any lots that were not in different ownership were automatically merged. So really all four lots have been merged since 1983. MRS. O'MALLEY: We understand that now, but my parents because there were actually four lots, two parcels in one part -- two lots to one parcel and two lots to the other parcel. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They were in the same e 3 4 5 IS 7 8 9 name. lû ~IRS. O'MALLEY: They didn't come into the family in the same name. It was under Grace McGuire bought the cottage and Eileen and Ed bought the other one. They were bought in different years, and we always just thought of them as separate parcels. One is cleared land with a house on it, the other was always my mother's lots, and that we didn't understand that, until even after we went to Riverhead we thought that that was cleared then. Then it was in the process of going for the building permit that we realized that, in fact, it was being seen as one parcel. So do you have any questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: IJo, not now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: IJo. MR. MCGANN: I just wanted to say a couple of things. I have read all the letters from the neighbors, and it's disheartening to want to move into a neighborhood where everyone's against what you want to do, but back when they built their homes, their lots were also cleared, and it's been forgotten. I'm a builder in the area, and I clear lots on a regular basis, and I have never, ever cleared a lot and had the people come over happy about it. When you get used to having a wooded lot next to you for a long period of time, no matter what you do to that lot is going to create some bad feelings. This one certainly has done that, and I agree with the people, it is a mess. I'm sorry about it, but it is only a temporary problem. When it's done the place will be 11 12 13 e 14 15 11) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 1 42 2 . 3 landscaped. It will be much nicer than it was. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For the record, you had to clear that land for the Board of Health. MR. MCGANN: Exactly. You can see from the pictures. They had to build a ramp 30 feet long to get the excavator 18 feet down to dig to the 56 foot line. You can't do that in a tight area. 4 5 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand. MR. MCGANN: I totally agree with the neighbors, all the problems, the dirt and everything, I completely plan on rectifying e'Jerý'thing that's there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just need to ask who Grace was? MRS. O'MALLEY: Grace was my father's mother, and this is my mother. Grace owned the cottage lots, where is house is now, and my mother bought the wooded lots before Grace. Grace only bought the cottage in order to be near us because we were building, and then she died a few years later. In fact, my father cleared the lots twice to build, but couldn't get the house built at that time. Then my grandmother died, and we started using that house. It wasn't exactly what they planned on using, but we never got to build on the other one. Everyone in the family knew that that was my mother's lot and it would be built on. If grandmother had bought two lots down, she would have, whatever came up she bought on. But to us it was always separate. Then it wouldn't have been an issue of being attached because we never thought of them as being attached. MR. MCGANN: There's no issue as far as setbacks go. The proposed house is well within the guidelines of all the setbacks on the lot, not undersized. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you have copies of the tax bills? MRS. O'MALLEY: With us? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. You could send 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 them. 24 MRS. O'MALLEY: They're here. ¡'Ie could provide those. The tax bills came in four separate lots. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Each year? . 25 October 21, 2004 1 43 ~ L MR. MCGUIRE: For the last 50 years. MRS. O'MALLEY: Mom, as far as the tax bills, they're asking if you have copies and if they come in separate. MRS. MCGUIRE: No, they don't come in separate. ~1RS. 0' MALLEY: Do they come in for one . 3 4 5 l,:)t? 6 MRS. MCGUIRE: One, two, three, four lots. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Four separate pieces of paper? MR. MCGUIRE: Right, exactly. MRS. MCGUIRE: My hearing's impaired. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I want to see if anybody else in the audience has any comments on this application? MR. HIGGINS: Good morning, my name is Bill Higgins. I received a letter from the Zoning Board of Þ.ppeals regarding this situation. I li':e at 25 Miami Avenue. I have lived there since 1993. My property is south of the property in question along Miami Avenue. When I purchased my home in 1993, I had been told by several people that the property in question could not be built on, it was one of the reasons I bought my home. I'm testifying on behalf of my neighbors on Miami Avenue, which there are onlj' five neighbors on Miami, Moll}" Kurz is here on her own time, Seymour Brooks, Bob Messimo, all neighbors, all concerned about what's happening on Miami Avenue. I'd like tc. relay a series of events which will substantiate my position on the matter and the position of mj' neighbors. I do find it kind of uncomfortable to align myself against a neighbor, Ed and Eileen [v]cGuire who I've known and I' 'Ie got along with ~ery well for all these years, but I feel what's been going on there has pushed us into a corner, and we have no other position but to oppose this. I'll relay some of the facts of the case. Sometime in June an entry was made into the property in question, and construction '.'ehicles and equipment went into the property to do some type of work. Nobody on Miami Avenue objected to that, that entry, to do whatever they had to do. Later on, around June 11, I arrived at my home, and I discovered that the entire lot then 7 .g SI 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 44 1 . 3 had been cleared. Beyond that, beyond the property line of that lot, the entire north side of l\liami Avenue had been mowed down, e'/ery tree, every bush, every blade of grass. Miami Avenue is 50 feet wide, there's a 10 foot road bed and 20 feet, I would call a buffer zone north and south of the road. It was this buffer zone on the north side, which is 20 feet wide and about 200 feet long, was completely obliterated. When the property was cleared, I discovered there was a large pit, at least 10 by 10 feet wide, which Mr. McGann now seems to indicate it was 56 feet deep. It was unsecured. I have eight grandchildren that run around the property. I know Pat Sitler has a daughter who runs around the area. I felt it was a dangerous condition, very dangerous. I then called the police, the police arrived, they examined the hole, and they felt too it was a dangerous condition. They then contacted the Building Department, and Mr. McGann who subsequently had to come down and secure this pit. Now, I would just like to ~how you some photos of before and after, on Miami Avenue, \vi th your permission? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. MR. HIGGINS: Before and after this 20 foot zone, 20 foot by 200 zone, which was a private road. We consulted with the highway department and town attorney and we were led to believe that all that roadway was shared with Lesidents on the avenue. Here's the before, you can see the trees, and on this, this is the after where you can see everything. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Can we keep that for the record? 2 4 5 Q 7 8 c, 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 13 19 MR. HIGGINS: Yes, you can keep it. This 20 is the pit in question. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: These excavation pits can be nasty, we've had experience with those, sir, but they are legal. MR. HIGGINS: So, when the police arrived they instructed Mr. McGann to secure the pit. At that time Mr. McGann told me that I was out of line for calling the police. I then showed him the survey markers where the property, the McGuire's property ended, and showed him 20 feet wide, 200, what was the purpose in removing all of the trees and the shrubbery that had been 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 45 1 2 there. It was beyond their property line. His reply was I'll do any damn thing I want to build this house. I asked him what would he do if somebody did something like this on his block. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would just like to remind you that the hearing is not on the excavation or what happened with that lot. It is strictly on the waiver of merger. MR. HIGGINS: These are some of the reasons we're opposing this, the unsafe conditions is one of them. The destruction of the property on Miami Avenue that's shared bj us. The way the property's been maintained Mr. McGann mentions about the runoff of the propert:/, that's been since June and recently we had to contact the highway department to come down and sweep Miami Avenue and Mill Lane because so much sand had accumulated in the roadway it became a dangerous situation, cars were skidding on it. Mr. King from the highway department came down, examined the area and felt it had to be swept. And he in turn mentioned that he thought there should have been bales of hay along the property line to prevent the runoff. As a result of the runoff mud and sand went down Miami Avenue and into Goldsmith's Inlet contributing to pollution of the inlet. If you don't mind, I'll show you some more exhibits which shows the mud hole, going down Miami Avenue and you can see the clear brown line that extends of silt from one end of Goldsmith's Inlet to the other end of goldsmith's Inlet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I appreciate your concern, but again, our hearing is on the waiver of merger. Do you object to the waiver of merger in order for them to build a house or not build a house? I sympathize with you on this occurrence, but that is not the matter of our hearing today. MR. HIGGINS: At this time based on this and other things that have been done to the environment, I would object and on behalf of my neighbors that are here, and it's not just a question of Mr. McGann says of restoring the road or grading the road out. There were large trees that have been there maybe 100 years that are gone. Aside from that, there's the application to the permit we had some questions about. On the application it says, does proposed construction violate any zoning or ordinance regulation; it e 3 4 5 ,., 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 tit 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e ~" ¿~ October 21, 2004 46 1 2 . 3 says no. It appears that was a deceptive answer. Another question is, is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland, that was answered no, and I think it is probably about five feet beyond 100, but the other part of the question is, is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland, that question was not answered and it's only within about 105 feet of Goldsmith's Inlet, which I believe is a tidal wetlands. .Z\gain, it seems to be deceptive. And I would say in closing, we feel that because of the way the environment has been altered and the unmerging of the lots and possibly -- well, building a new house and rebuilding the adjacent cottage would have an impact on the environment and the scenic aura of the neighborhood which brought us to li".'e there. And the unmerging and building is in apposition to the Town of Southold's philosophy to preserve open space, and I think that's about it f,:;,r me. 4 5 6 ~ , ;j 9 10 11 12 13 Pat is here. I know she received a letter from you folks. Thanks for giving me some time to address you. . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Slr. Yes, ma'am. 15 MRS. SITLER: My name is Pat Sitler. I live at 2460 Mill Lane, which is directly across the street from the property in question. I live an Goldsmith's Inlet and I have sent a correspondence detailing all of my objections. I hope everyone has had the chance to review it. I also am very concerned and I feel very badly to have to oppose this to my neighbors. I feel very sad about this situation. When I bought this property many, many years ago, I got to see their tiny little cottage and they came to see my tiny little cottage. That's the character of the land that I thought was going to be preserved. And I won't go through all of the details of why this is so emotional to me because you have that information before you. However, when I saw a surveyor come out to m~r house and ask me where my well was and \"here my cesspool was, and I told that person I did not know what was going on; and he told me that people were intending to build a house across the street. Now, I was in shock because as far as I knew it 1+'5 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 47 1 2 was one large property. He said don't get too upset because they can't just do this. They're going to have a problem building this well. The way I look at it, they're going to have to go way down and they're going to have to merge t:he properties to do it. When I heard today that it was a total shock that these were not four separate lots, that's very difficult for me to understand. And I'm not looking to get the person wh·::J did the survey in trouble, but t:hey knew that day, the surveyor told me it's going to be a heck of a time to try to build any kind of well here, you're going to have to go way, way down; the lots are not in very good shape for it, and they're g·::Jing to have to do some property merglng. When I saw this hole in the ground, I immediately called the police because while I supervise my daughter very closely when I'm out there, and I happen t:o work for the county police department, while I supervise my daughter very closely, that's not always the case. It was complet:ely unsecured. I called the Building Department to find out why there was no permit, and he told me that they were going to have to do a test well, and that rarely lS it a very large period of time or a large area. Well, I knew it was going to be a large area because the man who had done the survey for them told me that it ',"asn't gOlng to go well. So why there's all t:his shock that huge amounts of equipment were going to have to be brought In. This is to me -- I don't want to call my neighbors liars because I don't do that, but to say that all this is happening after the fact and everybody was shocked that you have to bring In this equipment, I don't see how that can be. I can't cut a phragmites on my property without getting a permit. I've let everything grow up. I've let nature take its course. I respect what the Town Trustees have done to t:ry to preserve Goldsmith's Inlet. I have Peconic Trust parkland on one side of me. I have peconic Trust parkland on the other side of me, and now I have half of Miami Avenue, which has strewn down the road because of what was done. Nothing can make up for the fact that the private property t:hat was owned beside Miami Avenue has been devastated. Ivhen I bought my house, my broker, Lange, told me that property does not belong to you, that: e 3 4 5 " 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 2û 21 22 23 24 . ~" ¿~ October 21, 2004 48 1 2 propertj' belongs to Miami Avenue, and the minute I came in those people asked me, did I know that, and I said yes, and I respected that. Instead, what we have here, and sad as it is -- I thought when you came out and saw the devastation that was done that you would be shocked -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Please address the Board not the parties. MRS. SITLER: Excuse me, but they're 'Jery l"arely there now I and I understand that I I'm "fery l"arell' there, but instead more and more got done to the property. So I'm saying, what is the situation here. They did know -- in my opinion from what I was told by the surveyor -- that this is going to be a tremendous job. The survej'or told me he didn't think they would ever be able to get it done, and now because they've invested all of this money into it, they're asking for the variance to me after the fact, and I think that they're doing that and again, sad to saj', because had they asked for it up front, it wouldn't have happened. And I'd like to hear how did they find ·::,ut where my cesspool is when I don't know it. It's not on my survey. Has that been verified? Can I ask? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don't know that. That's not in our jurisdiction, that's with the County Board of Health. MRS. SITLER: Basically the information that's provided says that was either done by surveys or information from others. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Again, this hearing lS for a waiver of merger. It's not for the devastation on Miami .","venue, which I'm sympathetic to, or the trouble it's caused you, or what the surveyor said, that is not in our jurisdiction that's immaterial to us. Our only concern is a waiver of merger. MRS. SITLER: Except haven't they said thej' didn't know that they needed a merger? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Maybe I can shed some light on this. This is not a variance. It's a provision that the Town Board created called a IIwaiver of merger. II All of the lots in question have been merged since, if the title search is correct, which I'm sure it is, since 1955 and /63 through two separate purchases. So they have been merged for a long time, at least since 1983, when . 3 4 5 '0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 49 1 2 the Town code changed. What does that mean? That means it's all one lot. What they're here for is to separate those lots and create a new building lot, and the Town fathers instruct us to look at five factors, and the five factors we're supposed to look at is if in granting the waiver of merger it will create an increase in the density in the neighborhood, and have a negative impact on the neighborhood, that's one. The second one is whether it will avoid an economic hardship to the applicants, of course, that's another one. Another of the criteria is that in creating this lot there will not be any substantial filling or change in contours or any negati':le impacts to the environment, that is to the lot. So that's kind of a brief synopsis of why this is different from a variance. Those are the criteria that we are instructed to look at. That's why the Chairwoman keeps saying, yes, the Board is sympathetic to what has happened to the road, but that is not something that we can consider in our deliberations. MRS. SITLER: May I ask this: I'm not talking only about Miami Avenue, I'm talking about you are increasing the density, you're putting a house where a house doesn't need to be, where unless you agree to do this, there shall be no house. In addition, it isn't just this house, they're planning on making the other house larger, which, if they wanted to put on a little extra room, I would have no problem with that, but ý'ou're talking about doubling the density there in an extremely environmentally difficult area. We are talking about now instead of the trees being able to hold up all the dirt comes down there and goes into Goldsmith's Inlet that's going to go into my house and through to Goldsmith's Inlet. In addition to that, the only area that they haven't mowed down yet and you're talking about changing the contour to completelý' vegetated to where you couldn't see through, to nothing, lS the one strip on Mill Lane and that's where they're actually proposing to do their driveway. So now you're talking about the one small piece that's left that goes exactly into the hundred foot area, that is going to be mowed down too. It's hard for me to understand how this is not changing the character of the neighborhood, . 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 50 1 2 it's completely changing it. You have Goldsmith's Inlet, Peconic Land Trust is on this side of me. And there were phragmites on that property that's gone now. How can that not be endangering the neighborhood? So it's hard for me to understand how what we're proposing to you and saying is there anyone here from the neighborhood to even speak in favor of it? I don't think so. and you're rewarding, in my opinion, if you let them unmerge and then remerge, you are rewarding them for doing it the opposite way instead of ~oming before you and asking this and raising this question before they did all this damage. Thank you very much. MRS. O'MALLEY: What I told you before is really the truth, you don't go about and get a second piece of equipment until you find that j'OU go down as far as you can. I learned this as it was being done. We went down as far as we could with the equipment they used initially. Then they had to wait and find somebody else with another piece of equipment, then, from what I understand, the piece that finally got down -- and what the purpose is to provide a septic system that won't have an environmental impact. It/s a better septic system than anybody in that area's going to have. But it took a while to find the piece of equipment to go down there. And that's what we were sitting around -- not sitting around -- I live three hours away. My parents were there for part of the time, but it is absolutely the truth that it just took as long as it did, and the fact is that when we took the deeds in to post it in Riverhead, and they accepted the separate, there was talk about that, but when they accepted it, we said this is okay, what do we have to do, and there was some question back and forth about the 31 feet on this, and then they said, okay, separated is separated, and that's what we thought. It wasn't any us going behind anyone's back. It does look like a mess, but I will tell ~',-:JU that my parents and I saw the house that r·¡r. Higgins owns now and lives in was built 20 years ago, that's on Miami Avenue on Mill Lane right opposite us. It was Chicakowski that built it, I'm not sure of the exact name, he does landscape work here, and he built that house, and my father and I said, you know, that house it's e 3 4 5 '0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2Û04 51 1 2 just sitting there on a barren lot it looked ugly; within a year it was all landscaped beautiful. It's gOlng to look beautiful and it's going to look natural. We're not putting up a log home on a. barren lot. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, we're so behind. Is there anyone that would like comment who hasn't done so before? I'm sorry, yes, sir, if it's something that hasn't been said before. MR. O'MALLEY: I'm Jim O'Malley, my wife spoke before, and basically I have feeling for my neighbors, and when we visited the property after it was cleared, we had asked that there were four clogwoods that they try to avoid and they came down too. Anyone driving into the area, it looked like a bomb hit it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. O'Malley, we're \"ery sympathetic to all your problems and about ~'our neighbors problems, but our main concern, as Mrs. Tortora said, is the waiver of merger, that's it. The other things while we're sympathetic, we have no jurisdiction there. I'd like to see if aný" of the Board Members have any comments, but we really have to start moving along. Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. Thank you for coming. ¡See minutes for resolution.) . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 1~ " 17 18 ------------------------------------------------- 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing lS for Peter and Mary Jacobs on Gillette Drive in East Harian. 20 21 MRS. JACOBS: Good afternoon, I'm Mary Jacobs and this is my husband Peter. I'm still a little confused about if I do need an additional \'ariance today regarding the setbacks. I know I'm here today because of the lot coverage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's one thing and the other thing is when we scaled it out with the ruler, it lS 31 feet from the property line to your house, which is not what your notice of disapprO'.'al says. MRS. JACOBS: Right. 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 e e e 52 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's four feet for front yard or rear yard and you ha\'e to decide whether you want to go ahead with it on a front ý'ard reduct ion or -- MRS. JACOBS: Is there any way we can incorporate that into this hearing? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. We will have to readvertize it because it's a different setback. MRS. JACOBS: I just wanted to double check, my builder, Stacy Bishop, said maybe I could ask you. MS. KOWALSKI: feels about it. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: advertised with the hearing. discovered at a later time. advertised for lot coverage. MS. KOWALSKI: Four foot closer to the 3 4 5 G ~ 8 I don't know how the Board 9 Setback wasn't The setback was The hearing was 10 11 road. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: option of moving the house back location; is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. Because then they wouldn't meet the 35 feet in the back. They're going to need a variance no matter which way they do it. They have the to a cc.nforming 13 14 15 MS. KOWALSKI: Should they apply for a front yard or rear yard setback? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's their 16 option. 17 MS. KOWALSKI: You have to make that decision, the Board won't make that decision for ¡·ou, and 31 feet, I don't know if the Board has granted any at 31 feet from the road. MRS. JACOBS: I appreciate that. So most likely we'll move back and try again. The porch is the issue for both the setback and the lot coverage. If we got rid of the porch there would be no issue. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You could cut the porch, then it wouldn't leave you with much of a porch. You're talking essentially five feet, unless you wanted to apply for a variance, maybe you could redesign a little bit, it's up to you, really. MRS. JACOBS: As far as this variance __ BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That's why it's tough for us, because this is a brand new house 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 October 21, 2004 53 1 2 and the lot coverage is based on the footprint of chis house, and if you're going to change the house, the square footage may change, I can certainly see that we can hold this. MRS. JACOBS: I would appreciate thac. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Maybe on the calendar for next month at least take a look at it at the same time. MS. KOWALSKI: It would have to be December, there's no time. MRS. JACOBS: We would be hoping co keep it -- all our final plans we paid for, and we would probably be coming back because Linda had told . 3 4 5 6 ~ , .8 9 me -- I know you can't say anything now, but it would be more likely that we would get both variances if we set the house back and shortened our back yard. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Leave the house like it is, then? It's up to you. want us to consider this that's fine; if us to wait, that's fine too. MS. KOWALSKI: We need to have the map showing the new setback on the rear yard, so 2'OU can have your surveyor show that. We can help you 'Hi th the next step so we can get you on the calendar -- I don't know how fast you can get it from the surveyor, so that's why I would recommend a December 16th adjournment. ~IRS. JACOBS: So we're holding this variance for then? existing If you you want 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 1..8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: to address the 22 percent the 20 percent. MRS. JACOBS: Yes, we will still have lot coverage instead of 19 We'll on do that December 16th? 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MRS. JACOBS: Thank you "-'ery much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I need a motion to postpone this hearing until December 16th. (See minutes for resolution.) 21 22 ------------------------------------------------- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next one is for Yarosh and Furlong on East Gillette Drive in East Marion. MS. FURLONG: I am Sheila Furlong and this is my husband Fred Yarosh and our daughter Kim who is our architect for our proposed house. We own the property at 1945 East Gillette Drive in East 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 1 54 2 . 3 ~Iarion. We have owned it for about nine years. Our intent when we bought it was to use it as a summer house, weekend house until we retired. 11.,' husband has since retired, and I plan to be retiring in the next year or two, and we were planning to move out to it and have it as a permanent home. Since we have lived there in the last nine .....rears I we I ve come to realize that it was not a house that was built in a qualitj' way. The design was not the greatest, so we tried to determine what we could do, whether we could make some alterations, renovations, whatever. And we consulted a couple of architects and found that it would probably be just as economical or feasible to take it down to its foundation and have it the way that we would really want to have it designed. It would work out economically about the same. So we had a house designed that is basically the same size. It's all on the same footprint, same foundation. The increase in side is minimal, so we submitted these plans and Building Department, as you know, turned it down and here we are this morning. We sent out our letters. Out of the five we sent out, we received four back, and I called the one neighbor last night and they're In the midst of moving -- and we've spoken with them several times -- they received it, looked at it, they know all about it and they're fine with it, but they couldn't find the green card for some strange reason, that was all taken care of. And I do have to say thank you to Linda in really, really helping us getting all this organized. It's been unbelievable. We understand the problem with our property is that we have those three front yards again, and actually, one of the front yards is on one of those wonderful private roads that's closed and you don't know it/s a road. And one of the other front yards is only a half of a front yard is exposed to Cleave's Point Road and the rest is closed and is not used as a road. Then we also had a proposal as a shed in what we considered a rear yard or a side yard -- I'm so confused as to what yard it is. Anyway, so we did all of that and we're hoping it would go through, and then we did receive a letter from our neighbor behind us, Mr. George Siterakis, which I think you have a copy of that letter, and Linda was kind 4 5 " 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 1 " L . 3 4 5 6 "7 8 s 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 enough to fax it to us, to see that he did have concerns about his ability to be able to see the water, which we were unaware of, we did not know that he's had a water view in that sense. So my husband tried to contact him over the weekend I think three or four times, leaving a message with him both at this house and his home in Queens, and never received a response from him because our concern was in his letter he said something that it would diminish his property value because he would not have the view of the bay, and that he wanted our application to be denied or disapproved in its entirety. Anyway, as I said, we didn't receive a response from him. So we got a letter c)ff to let you know what we had done. And we've included that here you can see there are several different drawings as far as what we have done. We're thinking, we don't know for sure but that he was concerned that he didn't have a water view. He was concerned that he didn't have a water '/"iew. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? Does he have a scenic easement over your property? (Whereupon, Board Member Orlando left the hearing. i MS. FURLONG: Not that I'm aware of. Ivould we have a copy of that? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It would be in your deed. I can tell you, they're very rarely granted. MS. FURLONG: This is a letter we got off the other day. I'm just going to read it briefly for you. In response to George Siterakis' letter to the Board dated October 14th, we would like to share with you our concerns and suggestions for a remedy. After reviewing Mr. Siterakis' letter, we tried to reach him by phone in hopes of clarifying his objections to Our application for mUltiple variances. We called him twice at his East Marion address and twice at his Sunnyside, Queens address. We left messages explaining that we were calling to clarify and perhaps to meet in person. As of today, which was October 18th, we have not heard from him. In an attempt to identify what or which parts of our construction he felt was blocking his view of the bay, we visited the property on Sunday, October 17th. We realized for October 21, 2004 55 56 1 . 3 the first time that he does have a small view of the water from the southeastern portion of his property. Until this time, we did not know that he had any view of the water. And as 2'OU look at the pictures you can see that we didn't realize this because Cedar Lane, which is the road that's closed, lS all overgrown and quite high, ~specially in the summer. In an effort to understand his request for disapproval in its entirety, we staked out our property line, house boundaries and the new shed location with the assistance of our architect. It was determined that the shed in its proposed location would block his view. We did not see that any other part of the construction that this variance application pertains to would block his view. We have attached photographs that you have that illustrate this view through our property to the bay. It is not our intention to block Mr. Siterakis' view of the bay. We would therefore like to retract the proposed shed from this variance application. Since Mr. Siterakis did not specify what part of our variance application he objected to, our architect has prepared a drawing describing the site lines, as you can see, to the bay from his property across our property. The architect's drawing is included here for your review. That's what we're here for. We're here to address those awful three front yards and the shed and Mr. Siterakis' concern. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, not at the moment, but since I have to write this -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are withdrawing the application for the shed? MR. YAROSH: If that's what his problem 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l~ MS. KOWALSKI: 99 square feet for the 21 shed? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? Are you normally out on the weekends? MS. FURLONG: In the summer, yes. Fall, some of it, and some of it in the spring time but usually not in the winter, but we will be because \.11/12 I re going to be moving there in another year. MR. YAROSH: We will be retiring, that's why we're building. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to go 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 57 1 9 back there this weekend and see if I can understand the entire application, so I can reduce it to writing because that's the problem that I have. We do the findings and determinations for the Board, and it's done on an alphabetical determination, I just happen to be lucky on this one, and it has nothing to do with you, okay, but if I have any questions, I might have to call your daughter and ask her some specific questions, could I possibly have your office number, ma'am? MS. YAROSH: 631-871-2156. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia, any questions? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I just wanted to -- I was looking over the prlor on this one and it appears that the Board granted a rear yard setback on this in 1981 of 15 feet. So the rear yard setback that they're requesting is 14-6 lS what we're talking about, six inches from what was requested before, that's all. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir, then? MR. SITERAKIS: I'm George Siterakis, his next door neighbor. So I just got here, I feel 'iery uncomfortable to say, but as they CO'Jer everything, my problem is they block completely my view to the bay. I don't have any problem if the extension they're asking for to do on Cleave's Point Road is on the right side of the bay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your problem then lS the shed that will block the view? MR. SITERAKIS: The shed, the fence they propose to put over there, they're all on my side, so that's all the really space I have to see the bay. So they close it completely one hundred percent. Any other place, I ha'Je no problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have no objections to the rest of the house, just to the shed? MR. SITERAKIS: The shed plus the house it takes my view plus the fence. If they would be the other side, I have no problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, ma'am. MS. YAROSH: I'm Kim. I don't have anything to say except that we do suggest after visiting the site, and recognizing what his view was, which we took photographs of and drew the diagram, we felt that taking the shed out would .:completely open your view back up. ~ L. e 3 4 5 '0 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 58 1 e 3 MR. SITERAKIS: Not exactly, but it helps extending the house 11 feet. MS. YAROSH: No, we're not extending the house at all, in fact, the house is completely on the existing foundation. MR. SITERAKIS: Then I have no problem, I have the fence and the shed. MS. YAROSH: The fence, as I understand it, we don't need a variance f.::>r, but Wç would be perfectly willing to negotiate that with ~1r. si terakis. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine. You can have discussions with him then. So you will withdraw the application for the shed? MS. YAROSH: The shed, right. That's what we felt was the fair thing to do. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's what "lour letter says. MS. YAROSH: An X through the shed. I don't know where we're going to put all our junk. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else ha\'e anything to say? If not, I'll close the hearing and reserve decision until latçr. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 4 " ~ 'è 7 8 '} 10 11 12 13 e 14 ------------------------------------------------- 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Christopher Mohr. MR. MOHR: Good afternoon, my name is Christopher Mohr. I'm here just to request a ".'ariance for an accessory building for my ·=ommercial property up in Cutchogue. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, and that will be just five foot from the rÇar yard line instead of the required 70, but you are rather limited by the size of your lot. MR. MOHR: Yçs. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm a little confused. Is this the lot that the new (:::onstruction is being done on now? MR. MOHR: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: building an additional building CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. shed exactly? MR. MOHR: 40 by 60. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a big shed. MR. MOHR: I have a lot of equipment. r~s. KOWALSKI: It says 40 by 52 on the So we're to the rear? How big is that II] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 e 8 9 10 11 12 13 It 14 15 1, ~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -.. It's 52? MR. MOHR: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: difference. BOARD reason it has line? MR. MOHR: Where else? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It should be pulled away at least -- it's five and five now, it should be 10 and 10 in my Oplnlon. So it's a one story? 1 2 plans. 3 4 5 " 7 59 That's a big MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any to be so close to the rear property October 21, 2004 MR. MOHR: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And he still has room to get his trucks in to bring his open bins for the landscaping materials? MR. MOHR: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even if you moved it 10 behind 10? MR. MOHR: It should be. I have to go remeasure, but I don't think five feet's going to make that big a difference. I was just trying to keep it as close as Possible because I have a big tractor trailer that I use to bring the mulch in and out with. MS. KOWALSKI: There's the landfill property behind it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand it but by the same token, it's very tight back there. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no 'luestions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You don't think you will have any problems throwing that extra five? r·m. MOHR: I don't think so. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you can it would be good. MR. MOHR: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would anybody else like to Speak on this application? If not, I'll close the hearing and reserve decision until later, probably make it 10 and 10. (See minutes for resolution.) ------------------------------------------------- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would like to propose to the Board to do Goeller, Goggins and Mullens, then leave Orient Fire District for 1 ~ L . 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 last. If we could take 20 minutes. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken. I ---------------- --------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Jane Goeller, at Fisherman'S Beach. I believe ~Ir. Anderson here has all the information. MR. ANDERSON: We're here for an application on behalf of Jane Goeller to build an addition to her home. That addition consists of an expansion of an existing bedroom to make it large, it's quite cramped, and the construction of a family room, above. The expansion will take place over an existing footprint, which is 11 feet from the property line, will create no new non-conformity but does run afoul of the Walz interpretation, which is why I'm here. I have laid out all the arguments that are relevant, I believe, in this case. The essential facts are you're at Fisherman's Beach Road in Nassau Point in an area where all lots are non-conforming both with respect to area and road frontage, which makes them narrow. We have a neighbor by the name of Channing who lives next door, who is objecting on the basis upon loss of light, loss of view and creation of a crowded alley effect. What I need to draw your attention to is that the construction proposed here is further landward of the most seaward based wall of the house, so we're not pushing this thing out closer to the water than the house is, not even equal to the house. Second thing to understand is we run the gable parallel with the property line so that it slopes toward the property line, which lessens the impacts with respect to light and breezes and so forth. Both properties have unobstructed views of Cutchogue Harbor. They face southwest because they face Southwest. They run parallel with the direction of winds so no one's going to lose air. Because they face southwest, no one's going to be shaded. In my opinion, the objections raised are unwarranted. The other interesting thing, and it's all laid out here, and I doubt the Channings even realize this but the Channing lot was created by a variance granted by this Board. What happened is they got a permit to subdivide the lot to create two non-conforming lots, one of which is now Channing, this was his predecessor in title. The October 21, 2004 60 - 61 1 8 second interesting thing is about a year, year and a half after receiving that variance to create this non-conforming lot of Channing, a second ~ariance was granted to permit the house at seven and-a-half feet from what would be the common property line here. When the day is done, we're talking about a house here where we would be setback 11 feet from the property line. Channing is showing to be setback 10 feet, but our information that it ie probably more like seven and-a-half pursuant to that variance, and that it is my feeling that these tj'pes of variances should be granted because it's a lot easier. If the space needs can't be met here, we should work with the houses we have because clients are put in a position -- you don't want to encourage them to knock down houses and rebuild, the imposition on the neighborhood in that sort of approach would be much greater. The fact is that the house could be knocked down, it could be built in a conforming location, and that conforming location could put it as much as 100 feet in front, towards the water, of all the houses up and down that street. We FOIA'd every single property survey available to us to the Building Department for e'Jery zoning variance ever granted, goes all the \.¡ay back to '57 for this neighborhood. \^Ie find no '.'ar iance has ever been denied. We find every lot nonconforming and find most lots, almost every lot to be created by some sort of lot line modification, partial combinations of lots so that the existing development pattern here no longer agrees with the underlying filed map, which was filed in 1931. So there has always been this sort of movement of property lines back and forth. The Board understands this. Generally the Boards have been granting variances seven and-a-half feet seems to be a magic number up and down in this particular neighborhood. As I say, we're not going to create any new nonconformity with respect to a side lot boundary. But I think the memo lays out pretty clearly what this is about, and why these practical hardships exist due to a narrowness of the lots, which neither I nor you can control, and that what we're talking about here is the enlargement of a small bedroom and creation of a family room. Mrs. 2 e 3 4 5 6 ~ , 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 62 1 5 Goeller is elderly, she has kids and grand kids, they use it seasonally, and they simply need the space, that's what's driving the application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have comments? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why the applicant didn't propose this application to increase the size of the house right down the center of the house, I understand there's a gable end facing the water, which is probablj' a cathedral ceiling or vaulted ceiling? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. BDARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But we are faced with these types of applications in all waterfront settings, it appears, that are very low in elevation to the water, an example of which is Sound Beach Road in Mattituck. This new idea of building a second story addition on one side of the house, almost mirrors what is happening down in that area, which has a similar type of elevation except it is on the sound, not on the bay. I'm just curious to know why you wouldn't take a swath right out of the middle of the house, actually make the upstairs wider than it's proposed and having less effect upon either side line. 2 · 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 MR. ANDERSON: The architect, Mark Schwartz, who also lives in the area tells me that to put a second floor addition in the center of the house is problematic from a structural standpoint. He also says it's a heck of a lot more expensive to do it that way. We're trying to provide the living space in a manner that is really unobtrusive which I truly believe it is, and I think you will after going through the memo, and to do it in a way that's affordable because not everyone that lives on the water has a gazillion dollars. This is a general statement. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can buy that idea, this is a general statement, if we can only deal with steel, but today we have the microlans and all the other things that are in place of steel and I can't buy that from an architectural point of view because of the use of that. I think it can be done very easily. I'm saying that in ';:]eneral. And again, I'm not necessarily criticizing this application, because I'm telling 'lOll it's the same situation we're experiencing 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 63 1 . 3 down on the sound side, Mattituck. I do understand what he's saying it's easier, but from an archicectural point of view, it would look a lot better, it would offer much more room; and from an aesthetic point of view of the house, it would take away that cottage effect of the house and really make it look like a really neat story and-a-half house, being down the center. MR. ANDERSON: I can take that under advisement, but again, I checked up on that because that was something that Channing was suggesting. I said what about doing that and their floor plan considerations, structural considerations -- I'm not prepared, thac's not what I do. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is something that we're getting all the time now. MR. ANDERSON: What I take away from that is in the earlier stages, is that folks should be well-advised to put that concept to the test lS what I'm getting from you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What lS the existing length of the addition now? MR. ANDERSON: The existing is 26 feet 4 inches, and with the proposal that would increase that length by 10 foot 2 inches. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don't think I made my question clear. The existing right now, not with the addition of the second floor decks, just as-is, what is the total length of the addition, lS it 26 feet? MR. ANDERSON: 26 feet 4 inches. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And with the second story decks that you are proposing, what would the total length be? MR. ANDERSON: Including also the forward addition? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Correct, everything. MR. ANDERSON: The forward addition is 10 foot 2 inches and the deck is 8 by 10. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: On che survey it shows 36, is that 36 total to that 10 foot? MR. ANDERSON: No. The 36 would refer to the enclosed space, then the survey also shows the deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The second floor deck? 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1- L 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 64 1 2 5 MR. ANDERSON: Right. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So the total length then after the additions would be? MR. ANDERSON: Including the deck? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Everything. MR. ANDERSON: Including the deck the total would be approximately 44 feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The deck extends -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 42 feet. MR. ANDERSON: 42 feet. Then understand when you look at that survey that the seaward wall of this house would be 12 feet, the most seaward wall of the house would be 12 feet closer to the water than the most seaward wall of the proposed addition. That is to say, you're not building towards the water. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just a little unclear exactly what we were doing here until just now. The gray part on your survey that exists on the footprint? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, but it's extended to 10 feet toward the water yet still behind the forward wall of the house. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, the 26.4 lS a building lot? If I went there and looked at it, it's there? MR. ANDERSON: It's probably easier if you just refer to the architectural drawing. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You have 26 now, you're gOlng to 36, then you're adding on which would be a total of 42? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then you're going up? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. And we're running the gables parallel to the lot lines so it slopes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the distance between the height from the grade to that -- say where the gutters will be? MR. ANDERSON: That will be approximately 14 feet high. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is it now? MR. ANDERSON: I don't know, I would have to =¡et back to you on that. I'd be happy to come by with that information. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What will it be to the ridge? MR. ANDERSON: 25 feet to the very top of e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 65 1 2 5 the ridge, which is measured at 22 and-a-half feet for purposes of zoning and building and that sort of thing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In any case, it's well within the 35 height? MR. ANDERSON: Substantially and lower than the house next door, substantially. We photographed both houses from both directions, we have provided you with mapping data to see how they set up relative to the land. We've taken that mapping and actually placed the footprint on, and I think it will become very clear how it setback up. I don't think this is a problem application. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have to write it. I just want the proper information. MR. ANDERSON: Plus, it's fun reading. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bruce, let me see if there's anybody in the audience who wishes to speak on this application? Hearing none, then I'll close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e ------------------------------------------------- 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Bill Goggins. MR. GOGGINS: Good afternoon, my name is William Goggins. I'm here to support my application. We're asking for a waterside deck that's 24 foot wide, six foot deep as well as approval of what the Building Department determined to be a third story. Give a little background of what happened at my house, we had gotten a building permit to replace the roof, put up reverse gables and increase the space in the attic area. When we started working, the builder saw there was something wrong with the structure, or he thought there was something wrong with the structure. So we brought in an engineer, and the engineer said, I'm not sure either. You're going to have to remove the ceilings and the walls from the second floor so we could see what's going on. So my wife, my five children had to remove all our belongings, toys, dressers, beds, everything from the second floor, throw them out to the garage, and we were all sleeping on the first floor. We took down the walls and ceilings, and we found out 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 66 1 2 that the building was bowing out from the hip of the roof on the south side of the building and also the north side, there was structural damage. So the engineer stayed on the job. He started amending plans because we knew we would have to submit an amended permit eventually. And he stayed on the job, which was permissible from the Building Department. We were just going to jump frame and go up, then it turned out that the walls on the first floor couldn't sustain the structure ,:m the second floor and the new roof. So we had to move out of the first floor too. It turned into a pretty big renovation, something that we did not intend to happen. It went from not too much money for renovation to a huge cost. So, the Building Department came down. The next day we submitted our amended plans. They were reviewed. The Building Department said we needed a variance for the deck, and also we needed a variance because they interpreted our attic to be a third story. I want to make it clear we don't have a problem with the height of the building, it's just the interpretation of what the attic space l~ They interpret it to be a third floor, so this lS why we're here for that variance because this town only permits two and-a-half story buildings. Although they're permitted in New York State this town has a restriction of two and-a-half stories. This is our application for a variance. What we intend to do is if the variance it granted for the third floor, what we would like to do is put In a sprinkler system, which is required by New York State law if you have a third story wooden residential building, and we will do that and this is not something that we intended to do, but that's the third story. It's not going to change the character of the neighborhood because the building lS pretty much the same height as the other buildings in the area. It's permissible in the Town code. The only thing that's not permissible is the use inside the building. It's not going to change what we couldn't have. It's a permissible use as far as that's concerned. Again, it's not substantial because the outside of the building is not going to change. It's how we're dealing with the third floor or the . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 67 1 . 3 attic space. There's not going to be any adverse impact on the neighborhood. The Trustees approved the permit 5-0 to do the construction and the renovation as well as the deck. So there will be no environmental impact by this Board granting r.his variance. It's a unique circumstance. It's not something we ever intended to happen. \~e just thought we were renovating the building. I hired an engineer to do these plans, and he didn't know that the attic would be interpreted to be a third floor and I certainly didn't know. It's not something I planned on and it's not expected, in fact, I was shocked we had to go through all this process. And meanwhile, we're still not li'-,ing in a house. We're living in the garage suffering through it as a whole family. Approval of this is not going to decrease property values in the area. It's not going to be a detriment to the nearby properties, and we ask that the variance be granted. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You're living in a garage right now? MR. GOGGINS: Yes. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: "Jcrk order? MR. GOGGINS: Yes. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Ma'am, Chair, I have no objections to this and would urge the Board to act expediently on this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: take longer than it needs to, .:¡bjection. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Unfortunately, I need to take longer, but I need to ask one question. In the original, you came before us with an application to redo some decks on the front of the house, was that not the situation? MR. GOGGINS: On the north side, yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then subsequently you attempted to work on those. Then 2'OU started working on the house renovating it. I have to tell you, I've been in that house when the prior owner was in the Lion's Club, I was in the Is there a stop 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 For fear that I may I have no 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 68 1 2 . 3 house when Richie Goodale owned it. I found uneven floors, some sagging and bowing in certain locations. When you started renovating the house, it was at that particular time that that scenario that you just gave us occurred; is that correct? MR. GOGGINS: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. MR. GOGGINS: Yes, when we bought the house, the person that did the inspection for us told us that the settling had stopped, that there was some settling and that the main joist was petrified wood and wouldn't be moving. And what happened was, the owner prior to my ownership had done some renovations and removed some structural members and then hid it with sheetrock and paint so you couldn't see what was done. So over the course of us owning the house for almost three years, things started sagging and the roof was starting to move a little bit, and we started going through this renovation process. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Goggins, for the record, how much did you paj' for this house? MR. GOGGINS: We purchased it for $900,000. That's why -- I don't make that much money and my expectation was not to spend another two to 400,000, I thought this house was going to be mO'Je-in condition, and we wouldn't have to do anj'thing to it. I'm not a weal thy person, so it's a real difficulty for us. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I went through the house on Sunday morning. I went all the way up to the second story, which I guess is the issue now the third story. The construction at present is phenomenal. The house is over constructed. Which I guess is probably to your benefit since j'ou're going to live there. I feel badly about your problem, I really do. It's a serious problem coming into the winter months as it presentlj exists for the record. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would the Board be willing to grant him the variance at this time? First, is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to address this application? Yes, ma'am? MS. SIMON: Shannon Simon, I li~e on Second Street and I walk the beaches regularly. I'm grateful to Mr. Goggins for taking down the fence so we can walk the beaches. But I am concerned about the fact -- I watched this house 4 5 ~ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 69 1 . 3 become in need of really severe help. I watched the day that I saw the roof buckled, and I could see it and started around the house to tell the Goggins that there was a problem when I realized that they were already solving that problem. That was back, I believe at the beginning of May, perhaps at the end of April. We asked at the time whether a building permit had been acquired and people around the neighborhood seemed to think there was one, but nobody approached the house, which was perfectly logical, we didn't want to get in the way of the builders. On September 1st after the house had all come down and the framing had gone back up, or toward the end of August, we found out that there was no building permit at all, even though the house was up to the fourth floor. It's a ground floor, which, I guess, is a half floor, then there's a first floor, a second floor and a completed third floor. At that time, a number of us were very concerned that a building was being built without a permit. The house was supposed to have been stopped, the work was supposed to have been stopped on September 1st, we were of the impression it was supposed to be stopped. But it continued all through September, sometimes even on Sundays and Saturdays. It continued up through the beginning of October probably, I'm not exactlj' sure which date in October, but it did stop then, and I took two pictures. We were told, by the way, from the Building Department that the building was supposed to be secured. It was supposed to be secured against children getting into it and perhaps causing mischief, which we all know is a possibility, and hurricanes which, of course, were rampant at that point in Florida. So these two pictures, I didn't even realize it until we developed them how dramatic they are. This one was taken on September 14th, this was supposedly, the building was supposed to have been stopped but you can see the fourth floor in this one, and this one was taken on September 24th. 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I ask you a question, Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MS. SIMON: My concern is not with . 25 October 21, 2004 70 1 . 3 Mr. Goggins, my concern is though we called the Building Department and asked for some help with getting this to stop, the Building Department told us that it was there for security reasons. At this point, here we are in October, the basement or that bottom floor is completely open, there's a door open into the building. There are those tarpaulins that are there on the first floor, which would be the first complete floor, are now pulled back and anybody could climb with a good leap from the fence into the building, if they didn't have to walk through the basement. Not that they would, but if securing the property was really and truly what was going to happen, when was that supposed to have happened? And why did it take over a month after the stop order for the work to stop? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My question to ý'ou is, can I just ask this question? You keep on referring to this building as a four floor building -- ~1S. SIMON: beach there are four BOARD MEMBER If you look floors. GOEHRINGER: at it from the L 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e There's an 14 aLtic? 15 MS. SIMON: It's got a deck on it. Look at the pictures, sir. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's an attic. I am telling you it's an attic. There is no supporting situation here of a fourth story that this Board has ever dealt with. If I am incorrect on that, I need to be corrected on that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The basement level is because of FEMA and the house had to be raised. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that, I'm saying that the top story I don't believe that's a third story at this particular time. I think it's a three story house. There's no stairwell getting to that that I could see. MS. SIMON: There's a deck on that top floor. I don't know what else it would be for except that it apparently appears to be with that big open window area, it looks like it's another floor. Maybe there's no stairwell right now, but I suspect there will be one. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goggins, could you tell us what the height is to the top of the house? ItS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 71 1 2 e 3 MR. GOGGINS: I don't know what the exact height is, but I know the building inspector did re'7iew the height, and it does conform with the height restrictions of the Town code because if it didn't we'd be here for a variance for that. So the height conforms with the Town code, I guess it's 35 feet in some calculation they make. MS. KOWALSKI: We need something for the file to put in the findings when the Board rules. MR. GOGGINS: I can have the engineer submit a statement to you. Like I said, though, that's not really before the Board, what's before the Board is the interpretation of whether it's a third floor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have agreed to put sprinklers in? MR. GOGGINS: Absolutelj'. And 2'OU know, things changed on the house, to answer !'Irs. Simon, because it would rain, we'd pull the tarps down. We'd get the shop vacs, we would try and get the water out of the building to keep it from damaging the wood. So we were there almost every weekend during the fall because it was raining and causing damage. So yes, there was stuff going cn. ~¡e wanted to put windows in to secure it, but so many people were complaining that we were doing work there that they wouldn't let us put the windows in. We have been suffering with that. Ever,. night I've been worrying that my house is getting damage some more because of the water. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else that wishes to comment on this? Mr. Bressler? MR. BRESSLER: Eric J. Bressler, Wickham, Bressler, Gordon and Geasa. I am here on behalf of the neighbor, Patsy Rogers. This is a most interesting application that's come before you. Notwithstanding the comments of some Members of the Board before this presentation, I think that there are certain aspects of this application that need to be explored. It's not quite so simple as it appears. There are legal issues involved here and I think that the way that I can best summarize this application is to say it's too much. This is a classic example of a boot strap. This is a situation where something apparently occurred and rather than come for permits, the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 72 1 2 work was done. This work implicates several provisions of the Town code, none of which, I have really heard addressed here. The first issue lS that during the course of the construction, the entire structure got larger, the roof is higher, this structure is larger. And one of the bases of the Building Department's disapproval was that that ran afoul of the rules established by this Board in Walz and I've heard no discussion about that. Nor have I heard any justification for why this Board should approve that sort of expansion. What I have heard is that we went in there to make some permitted changes and the next thing we knew, there was a problem so instead of coming back to the regulators and getting whatever permits they needed, they bootstrapped their way, and they live in a garage, and I'm sorry about that, but it was a garage that had no CO, and, in fact, they were specifically told you can't live in that garage. But that's another issue that's being dealt with elsewhere. So the construction went on, and when there was a problem with the second floor, did they get permits? No. When there was a problem with the first floor, did they get permits? No. So what you have here is a structure that is larger overall and is much more nonconforming than what was there. This Board is well aware that the purpose of the code is to gradually faze out nonconforming uses. This Board's ruling in \^lalz amplified that and made it clear that the Board was going to retain jurisdiction over those issues and define the issue in such a way that things became limited. Now, it seems that that's to be completely disregarded because a problem occurred on construction. You have also heard that there's a problem with a number of stories and the reason that there was a problem with the number of stories is that the applicant, an attorney well versed before this Board, and his builder, didn't know what a story was. That's the reason there's a problem with that. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Again, if you look at the application that was put before this Board and you look at the reasons that are put forth for the variances and you listen to the testimony, there is no basis whatsoever for the granting of those types of . 25 October 21, 2004 73 1 2 e 3 ,ariances. If this Board wants to approve what was there, that's one thing, but for this Board to go beyond that is totally, totally unjustified particularly where the applicant acced at his own risk. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What area are :.'ou referring to Mr. Bressler? MR. BRESSLER: The reasons for a variances. A variance is needed due to ceiling height of attic area. That tells you absolutely nothing. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be approved by some other method. The scructure was built with the belief thac it conformed to the code. That doesn't address a third story, and it doesn't address an increase in che nonconformance. The simple fact of the matter is that the applicant has come before you telling you of his misfortunes, which I have no reason to doubt. My problem is that reading this application, and I'm not going to burden the record with reading the rest of it, which is equally unenlightening, and it is before the Board, my problem, my client's problem with this is that it's too much, and the Board cannot or should not at this juncture sanction what was done there and grant these ~ariances because someone chose to proceed in the absence of permits and claim complete 19norance of the legal requirements. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm still __ maybe it's because I'm not a smart person or something -- but I'm still mystified on where the third story is. Are you referring to the atcic area as the third story? Or are you taking the existing basement and saying that's living area, :.'c.u're taking the first floor plan, which I rH'le In front of me, which is basically the first floor plan; then you have the second floor plan. When I went up to the building, I saw a ladder going into the attic area. There is no provision for a staircase into that attic area that I can see. Now, that, of course, can be altered, Gf course, che young lady in the back said the same thing. Are you referring co the height of the roof fn:;m che top of the second story to the top of che 4 5 6 7 8 9 lû 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 1" 2û 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 20û4 74 1 5 gable end; is that what you're referring to? MR. BRESSLER: What I'm referring to is the fact that the roof was raised. During the Trustees' hearing, the applicant conceded that the roof was raised by five to seven feet. My client advises me it was raised 12 feet. In answer to your question as to where the third story is, I would defer to the notice of disapproval from the building inspector, and I would suggest to you that with respect to that so-called attic area, that we are dealing with a fiction, somewhat like the garage, which was supposed to be space, dead storage space. When you build an attic and you build off a deck, you're not talking about an attic and dead storage space. So it seems to me, and, in fact, if you listen to the applicant, you know when we were constructing it, we didn't know what a third story is, that's what I think we're talking about, but I could stand corrected by the building inspector, but I will say it was two and-a-half stories before, and it's more than that now, and I haven't heard any reason why that should be, none except that it happened and I want it. And I don't see any reason why the building should be bigger. I don't see any reason why the Walz rule as enunciated by this Board doesn't apply to the larger mass of this building. I'm not opposed to Mr. Goggins, and my clients are not opposed to him going in there when he has a problem, e".'en though he may run afoul of the reconstruction rule, if he had a problem, he had to fix it, but it does not entitle him to do more. I'm sorry, Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As I testified before, a deceased member of the Lion's Club c,riginally owned this house. I' ".'e been in the house several times. The walls were up in the house. I was in the house at the time that Mr. Goodale owned the house, those walls were taken out. I looked into the attic area of the house. I honestly didn't go into the attic area of the house at that time, and yes, the roof line oan be a little bit higher than that. Okay, you f "TJe got some severe gable ends here on this I which, there's no question, okay, that's the case, but my point in question is, if this Board is approving the basement, the first floor and the ~ L · 3 4 6 7 .8 9 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 1 2 second floor, which is quote/unquote, three stories, I don't know why the attic is an issue at this time when the plans say unfinished attic storage, because we're not appro\ring that, we're approving -- unless I'm incorrect -- the basement, which is a separate area, the first floor and the second floor. MR. BRESSLER: If that be the case, Mr. Goehringer, then whence come the difference between two and-a-half and the three that existed before? Maybe the Building Department can enlighten us in that regard since there seems to lJe a question. MR. GOGGINS: I can answer that question '.'ery simply. We have a basement that is more than 50 percent below grade kitchen, which is deemed to be a basement. Now we have a first floor where we have a kitchen and a living room, it's always been that way. We have a second floor that is bedrooms; then we had an attic space, which is the top area of the building. Now, the Building Department can either say that's an attic space, a half story or a third story. They determined it to be a third story. What I found was the definition of a half story is if the attic space has a ceiling height of 50 percent of which is 7'6" in height. The rest of it can be as high as you want as long as 50 percent of it is less than 7'6". So the Building Department could have merely said amend your plans, make half 50 percent of the ceiling 7'6" and we don't care about the rest, but they didn't do that. They said this is a third floor. So we're asking for a variance to say, okay, it's a third floor, we're going to let ,'ou keep the third on the condition that you put a sprinkler system in. This doesn't adversely affect the neighborhood. You know, when we have these applications, you know, you're doing a balancing test: The benefit to the applicant as opposed to the detriment to the neighborhood. There is no detriment to the neighborhood because the height of the building isn't going to change. That's a permitted use. What Mr. Bressler's doing -- I don't know what he's doing. He did this in front of the Trustees. Smoke and mirrors try to convince them that they had to do something that they didn't. The attorne", for the Board got so upset because Mr. Bressler was misquoting the . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 tit 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 75 76 1 2 e 3 law, that he slammed the book down and he said, Mr. Bressler, read the statute. He's doing the same thing here. He's trying to make it appear that I haven't met the requirements to get a variance. And I have met the requirements I submit. And Mr. Bressler also misquoted, I testified that from the original structure to as it is now, it's about four or five feet higher than it was now, when I had submitted the original application, which I did get a permit for, it was about where it is now, because we took a roof, I ,:::an't remember what the pitch was, but it wasn't much of a pitch, and we repitched it higher and we put reverse gables, so that was increasing the height of the building right there. And we had a permit for it. The only difference is now when we went to renovate it, either the Building Department looked at it more closely or whatever, but they decided it was a third floor, that's why we're here. So for Mr. Bressler to say that I haven't met the requirements is ridiculous, and to say that the Board is just stuck looking at what I put in the application is also ridiculous too. This merely gets us to the ZBA, and the hearing is to amplify the reasons that we request the variance for. I don't know what his point is. I don't know what my neighbors want out of me, but I'm merely asking for a variance that the existing building be called a three storj' building, and I get approval for the variance because a three story building isn't permitted. I didn't go outside the footprint other than the deck we're requesting. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Goggins, when I looked at the house I noticed, of course, you have a CO for more than a one-familj' dwelling, which was a pre existing CO. MR. GOGGINS: Correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I notice in the basement, which encompasses the entire basement, is some sort of small apartment, which I think a family member is going to live there? MR. GOGGINS: We have a CO for a two-family residence plus a third seasonal apartment. When I took it over, I got rid of the seasonal apartment and kept the two family. My parents live in one portion, which contains the 4 5 6 7 8 3 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 77 1 e 3 basement area, and we have the second portion which is the first and second floor. That's how we have been using it ever since. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question is, if you don't have a basement it would assume to me if I was living in the house, that the attic was used for storage area purposes; is that correct? MR. GOGGINS: That was the intent, but now the building inspector said it's a third floor, and now we're here for a variance for a third floor. If it's granted, then we'll be using it as a third floor. If the Building Department said 2'OU have to have a two and-a-half story, we'll use it as a two and-a-half story. It's not the use, it's the variance to have a third floor. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, how can we get away from that aspect? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, can we adjourn this hearing so we can move on until the next Board meeting, Zoning Board meeting on -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I think there's two issues here, Ruth, and I ha\'e to tell 2'OU that I personally agree with the lady that spoke in the back. What we have is an unsafe structure because Mr. Goggins -- please, this has nothing to do, this is straight down the middle __ this man's got to be able to put windows in this building because he's going to lose this building if he doesn't do it. Somewhere along the line somebody has to speak to the Building Department, or we have to determine an interim decision to at least allow him to put the windows in this building, winter is coming. I'm talking about mainly the windows that are exposed to the waterfront area of this house. MR. GOGGINS: I won't speak any more, unless Mr. Bressler has more. I'll rest on what I've said. I would like this to end today. This Board has granted interim decisions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This Board in a unique circumstance has granted interim decisions. I think we have to allow him to put the windows In the front of the house. MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Goehringer, I would just like to say about the use issue, It this thing is not to be held open and that is I refer to Mr. Goggins' letter of September 21, 2004. It is our position that he does not have a legal 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 78 1 2 . 3 two-family dwelling. There was a pre OJ for a two-family dwelling; it was subsequently converted into a bed and breakfast. There was a decision permitting that. He's then gave up the bed and breakfast, and now espouses the interesting legal argument that somehow there's a relationship back having given up that two-familj', that there's some sort of relation back after the bed and breakfast is discontinued to a two family, and that is something that is just not true. And I need to disabuse the Board of that notion. MR. GOGGINS: That's irrelevant, we're asking for variance for a deck and a third story, that's irrelevant. 4 5 6 7 8 9 CHAIRWOMAN motion closing the until later. (See minutes for resolution.) OLIVA: hearing I'd like to make a reserving decision 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Mullen Motors have a multitude of variances. Hr. Lark? MR. LARK: Good afternoon, Richard Lark, Main Road Cutchogue for the applicant. The petitioner's application or applications before you are somewhat unnecessarily complicated by the Building Department's view of the zoning ordinance. As an o'.'erview, I thought the best way to proceed is to go through the Building Department's notice of disapproval. The last of which is October 7, 2004. And I belie'fe prior to that there's since March 25th, there's about five additional disapprovals all on the same application. The application has never changed since the beginning. It's been exactly the same. So I'm going to deal with the last amended notice ,~f disapproval in my comments because I think it is Board has to get a feel for just what's being asked for here. Basically it's a lot line application change and an amended site plan application change, which, of course, is before the Planning Board, which it is, but the Planning Board cannot act until there's clearance by the Zoning Board of Appeals on various issues, primarily variances. The Planning Board wrote you a letter on 10/19/04 stating they have no objection to the application as presented with them, of course, 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~ 0 ¿J 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 79 1 e 3 they're going to work on the site plan. Thej' understand full well what's before you because they have conferred with the Building Department ~s to just what variances would have to be required for this application to proceed on the lot line because it was the Planning Board originally, and you have to understand, that wanted the lot line application to be what it is so that there would not be an impact on the Main Road. They recognize the problem Mullen -- we'll discuss that in a moment -- was faced with and so they decided to widen it on the r1ain Road about 30, 40 feet and carry it back on the angle to allow only one curb cut entrance in and out from the Main Road. It was from there that we got going on the thing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me interrupt. You're talking about the curb cut between Mullen Motors and Claude and Claude? MR. LARK: Yes. That's going to remain the same. So there would be no increase in curb ,:cut traffic. And I believe it's important for you to note that if you would take, if we had an overhead aerial photograph just directly overhead of what's there today and then take another one of when the project is completed, I submit to you you'd see "'ery little if any change. The change in the overall footprint is insignificant as to what's there today with the jumble of various accessory buildings there that they're tearing down and replacing and then filling in the spaces. From the ground level there will be absolutely no change in the use of the property. It's going to be exactly the same as it is there today. So the varian:ce and special applications before you are fairly detailed. I have included pictures, building layouts and what's intended to be accomplished. So you really ha'.'e a complete o\'erview on what's going on on the property today as well as what is being proposed. I won't burden you and dwell on that, a lot of things speak for themselves. However, I will answer any questions, and I have Richard [,.'Iullen I who is here I and he can answer an~l questions because this was foisted on him by Daimler Chrysler and when it's all said and done, expense notwithstanding, it will be a benefit to 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 80 1 5 both he and the community. This wasn't something he wished. It was put upon him because they absolutely insist if he's going to keep his dealership, he has to modernize, bring it up to speed, comply with every rule and regulation that they set up as to what a car dealership, especially now, when you consider everything with the black box and the warranties and everything else, they want the shop the way they want it and the showrooms the way they want it. It's important to note, I wanL to get back to the Building Department, and it's interesting because I sat here this morning, and I listened to the very same thing over again that they're married to the notion, meaning the Building Department, that if you have a designated 10L on a tax map, that that's an individual lot. What you can't get through the Building Department's head, doesn't understand in Suffolk County, the map tax designation is only for assessment purposes only, period. It has no other legal significance. The county legislature never adopted the Suffolk County tax map. That's not true In Nassau, Westchester and the City of New York, ",here they have adopted the tax map, and it has legal si'gnificance, the lot on the tax map, but out here In Suffolk it doesn't. It doesn't effect zoning. The Health Department completely ignores it, but ý"et our Building Department - - :¡Ou, you've heard it from people, I get a separate Lax bill, it's an individual lot, I have a right to use it as an individual lot. It/s not true. But that's why, when I was faced with the application, you have to understand, there's four tax lots here, so I had the sur;;reyor coordinate, and you'll see on the legend, it's a reduced version of what ý'ou have which we sent to all the neighbors, and it's a lot easier to handle. I had the surveyor coordinate the tax lots with what he called parcels because the tax lot will be changed when, if this is approved and it's all done with Lhe Planning Board, and that's done with the stroke of a pen with the assessor's office once the lines are delineated as to what you want or what's to be. So on the lower left-hand side of that map, as well as the big map, and for all the applications whether the site plan, the lot line changes, special exception or the variances, I had him do 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2û04 81 1 e 3 the same map, so we wouldn't have that old problem of inconsistency. So when you, the Board are looking at it, if you look at che one map, you're looking for all applications, and I think that's important because otherwise it got really confusing because originally they were looking at all different maps. But in the left-hand portion of that, he does the tax lot coverage issue, which the Building Department had trouble with, then he converts it to the parcel issue, which of course will be the legal lot when we're all done. I think that's important for the Board, when they're reviewing it, that they get the notion out because you can play all sorts of games when you are using the tax lot, and that was driven home to me when I was preparing this and reviewing this application to get it ready for the variances when I read the Town Board when they changed the zone in '99 on the parcels on the Locust Avenue, they made it all business. They just cut through all this tax lot stuff. They used it, but they said, okay, if we're going to change the zone here, that's all well and good, but look, the back lot, which is the 24.1, that's going to be for parking. We're ,iictating the drainage, chat goes with the Mullen Motors, what they call Colonial Corners, that can stay the same, but if you make any change on Locust Avenue, you got to keep the buffer going up on the west side of Locust Avenue just the waj' we're dictating you're required to put it down chere on the southerly side. And if you make any change to Colonial Corners, it has to be in concert with the automobile dealership, which is Mullen Motors here in this case. Which, of c'ourse I is being done here because the property that we're taking away from tax Lot 22.1, which is che 8,551 square feet, that is being added o~er, which will be incorporated in Parcell, and in fact, it's being added to tax Lot 20 and to tax Lot 15, and I'll use those terms interchangeably otherwise they'll make no sense to you because the Building Department in its disapproval, when we go through it, always refers to tax lots. So the point of it is that the Town Board didn't pay any attention to tax lots is what I'm trying to say. So if you're going to do something with this property, it has to be done this way. Simply put, Parcell on your map will 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~., ~J 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 82 1 5 incorporate all of 19 and 20 and 8,551 square feet of 22.1, so it will have a total of 44,152 square feet. The result of that is that Parcel 2, which is the remainder of 22.1 on paper today will then become 21,355 square feet, Parcel 3 will remain the same at 24,595 -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Lark, you are correct when you said the notice of disapproval was confusing, and the reason I'm going to stop you there is I'm trying to follow you with what 2'ou're saying. On the notice of disapproval we're okay on the 44,152 for Lot 1, for area one, but what we'll call area one? MR. LARK: Parcell, okay. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Lot 2, will become less nonconforming in size from 21 to 29, and I can't find where the corresponding 29 lS. MR. LARK: It's an absolute error, it's going to become more nonconforming. Because under a business zone which all the parcels have is 30,000 square feet per lot. So by going from the 29,000-odd what it is now to the 21, it becomes more nonconforming. Which is going to require a variance, which is one of the applications before you. 2 · 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In the notice of disapproval, the second sentence, Lot 2 will become less nonconforming in size from 21 to 29, that's incorrect? ItS MR. LARK: It's correct that it's not 17 correct. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 21,355? MR. LARK: That's correct. Right. That's shown on the schedule. The interesting thing is they've had this schedule since the date of it in July. 19 2D BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Madam Chairman, can I please ask that the Building Department please correct this? When I'm reading through this I said either you're wrong, the Building Department's wrong or somebody's wrong. MR. LARK: I'll give you a history on that. When that occurred originally, I had the surveyor, John Metzgar go over and talk to them. He explained everything to them and it just generated a bunch of nickel-dime changes that never addressed the thing he went over there to talk to him about to begin with. He gave up. 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 83 1 8 Okay, now, when you do that, that's what the parcels will look like when they're done, 44,152 and the other 21,355, and the other one 24,595. What happens there is that when you refer then to the notice of disapproval, as I said all the property zoned B, general business district, that requires 30,000 square feet. So Parcell exceeds the 30,000 square feet when this application, if it's finally approved, would exceed it. That lot coverage of 30 percent then we're dealing with 30 percent of what would be there, which is the 44,000 and that is on your schedule, and that is going to, with the building addition, will have a 32.2 percent, so the area coverage variance for Parcel 1 request is really reduced down to its simplest terms of 2.2 percent, because it's 30 and we're going to 32.2. They have all agreed on the square footages of that because the plan for the addition got a little confusing because you're tearing down buildings and you're adding space around it and filling in. But after coordination with the surveyor and Building Department, they all came to agree on the numbers there. So that's what they would be. That's one of the first parts of the application for the variance is to allow the construction, which would be a 2.2 percent increase, that's what the variance is because 30 percent of the 44,000 is 13,245 square foot of building, that's without any variances at all, and we're proposing the 14,227, which is the difference which produces that two percent. The interesting thing of that, this lS where the Building Department had some difficult1" with it also, if you just grant the lot line change and leave the buildings exactly the way they are, don't touch a thing, what happens is that you have 10,900 square feet of building or a 25 percent lot coverage for Parcell, the 44,000 parcel. So he can't get it through his head that it's really a 7.2 percent increase from what's there today, if we leave the buildings there today, which still doesn't change the variance request of 2.2 percent. There wasn/t fancy math or fuzzy math. The surveyor went berserk trying to explain it to him. Rich Mullen was trying to explain it to him that we're not increasing the footprint that much, but he couldn't get it 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 84 1 9 through his head. So we just let it go and we applied, and you have it now before you and I think that schedule on the left-hand side pretty much explains it all. Where does the increase come from, the 324 square foot? It comes from when you tear down those bad, decrepit buildings in the back. Right now they have spaces between them two, three foot walk spaces, in one case four. When you take those, fill them in then on the east side of the proposed addition, there's a little more of a perimeter because the old beauty salon and barber shop, that building is being torn down and there's a little increase around there, and that explains the difference of the 3,00 where it came from. That was difficult for them to understand, but that's neither here nor there. One of the applications in the verbiage of the thing, in Parcel 2, as someone pointed Gut before, is being reduced down to 21,355 square feet, that has a lot coverage of only 21 percent. The lot coverage is not the issue, it's the size of the lot because all the buildings will be the eame. That kind of got lost in the notice of disapproval but it's there. The front yard requests, it's got three front yards when you consider the totality of the application. You have Locust, you have Main Road and you have Cottage Place, and Locust fortunately is not involved because nothing's being changed on Locust. Main Road is basically not affected at all, and the reason for that is that tax Lot 20 has an average setback of 20 feet, that's that bowed out portion where the showroom is. When you take the average setback of the two buildings fronting on Main Road, we'll call Colonial Corners for ease of things, that's got an average setback of 23 feet. So we're not affecting that at all because the proposal for the addition, and it's shown on there, starts at 78 feet off the Main Road, and it increases as it moves furtller east to I think 102. The point being, this is where the Planning Board got into that staggered back concept. So there would be no impact as you look at it from the front. But the Building Department took the whole thing, that's where that scenario area that's part of the notice of disapproval because part of the addition is behind what the ~ L . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 85 1 9 accountant's office is, and you can't have it both ways. You can't have a building in front of it and still be in the front yard in that sense. So we did increase the length of the existing, what we call, the Mullen Motors property, and it did increase over, but there is absolutely no impact on the Main Road due to the setback. And as you know, the zoning ordinance allows where you have the average existing setbacks and it's not substantial, you can go along with that. So, I just wanted to point that out. That's all due to the staging back. Cottage Place, there's going to be no real change, it's got 12.9 now. It's had 12.9 far how many years. There's absolutely no change. What is the interesting situation there is that the two buildings there today that front on that total 161.2 feet. We're filling in the 4'9" gap so it will have 167 feet. That's the only change on Cottage Place. There's no change with the setbacks, everything is exactly the same. The side yards have been a real -- not a bone of contention with the applicant, and not a bone of contention with the Planning Board, but the Building Department, pick a side yard, pick a rear yard. They told me they were picking the Main Road as the front yard and the southerly portion as the rear yard, but he then changed it when he writes his disapproval and he created the southerly portion as the side yard. Today, if you use the tax lots, not the parcels, but the tax lots, it is two feet off the tax lot. So then he writes his disapproval that it's plus or minus two feet, the side yard requirement, but it would only apply to the five feet on the easterly side where it adjoins the easterly property, which is the parking lot, which is dedicated to Mullen Motors. So it's a technical side yard, and I referred to that. I didn't beat him up too bad on that because really the side yard variance being requested if you grant the lot line is 15.5 feet, which is the difference between where the building sits on its easterly side and the proposed property 1 ine due to the setback, the lot 1 ine change. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see you ha'Je 15.5. MR. LARK: Right. That's what I would consider the side yard there. 2 . 3 4 " ~ 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 86 1 " The next part of the disapproval of the building inspector on Page 2, Mrs. Tortora, since you're trying to follow that is most interesting because the Building Department has determined that the Mullen Motors use of the property is nonconforming, and, therefore, a special exception is required. Well, when I researched the record, I found out, and you have them before you in the special exception application, there's been five special expectations and five variances granted on this property ranging from 1960 to 1991. Granted, in the early days of our zoning ordinan,ce the special exceptions in this case had a lot to do with signs and things like that, you ha,e it all there, and I recognize that. But everyone of the applications that I read, both variance and special exception, all recognize the Mullen Motors car dealership and service center or public garage as it's referred to in the zoning ordinance. And one of the most specific, Chairman Gillespie, who was the original chairman for many years, noted that the Flying A Gasoline sign was a separate business on the property, and wasn't going to discuss it as part of that application. However, 'dhen 2'OU read Appeal 3674, which is 1987, the application for addition that showroom bulging out in the front there, one of the findings by the Board was that the subject premises impro,ed with a principal one-story building used for car sales and repairs. Then there's all the other decisions. All repairs must be done inside, you can't do them outside. So it is really bizarre that they found that this is a nonconforming use, which it is not because of the special exceptions. I viewed it when I looked at it and thought about it, as courts will say, the error or the non-recognition by the Building Department lS reall~' harmless in this case because -- and I filed for the special exception deliberately mainly for the reason that because of the lot line change of taking that Colonial Corners piece, that 8,500 square feet and adding it to it, technically, there's no special exception ever been granted because they usually dealt with Tax Lot 20, you follow me, so by taking a portion of 22.1 and adding it, I said, okay, there's ne~Ter a question, if the Board is going to grant the special exception under the zoning ordinance for 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 3 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 87 I 1 9 this, then we should include this so it should be ~ll of Parcell, which is the two tax lots and that little add piece, which is part of the lot line change. So I said, let it go, we'll apply for it and we'll be done with it. As I said before, when the Town Board dealt with it, they required the covenant to change with the zone. If you did anything in 22.1, it's got to be in conjunction with the dealership. So I said let's not leave an open question, let's take care of it and close the door. It is conforming, but I point out to you under 100-242 a variance on the coverage issue still exists. So I said, go for the variance on that, go for the special exception on that, it's a hand in glove type of thing. Now, you've got everything in there that I can possibly do. I just tried to explain today the nuances of the confusion of this, the notice of disapproval, which, of course, is our entry to get here anyway, and after seven of them give me .~ne, I'll go. But in summary, I set out in the zoning ordinance in 100-263 and 264 I believe the ~pplication, not because of preexisting use necessarily but on its own merits today with the lot line change, does fit the criteria that are set forth in the statute, which you must consider and enumerate one by one if you ever write a decision on it, you have to consider all of those items, as you know and I do think it fits so I won't belabor it. And under the balancing test, which is required by 267 of the Town law, when you area requests, which is basicall~{ area ".rariances that we talked about, and you look at just briefly the benefit to the applicant versus any downside to the community, I can't conceive of a downside to the community. In fact, I can get up here for an hour and say what an upside it will be, but the main thing is, it should eliminate traffic on Cottage Place. It should all be on the inside. When the car goes in, it stays in. It doesn't go in and out as it does now for various repairs. There's no other method, if you're going to ·grant tile lot line, if the Planning Board is, than to get a variance, and I don't belie~e the~T're substantial in what you see there today because I don't think there's any change significantly since everything is remaining the same. I don't believe there/s any adverse effect on the envirc.nment. 2 . 3 4 5 'J 7 8 10 11 12 13 e H 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 88 1 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Did our packets the five variances and exceptions? MR. LARK: Yes. It's in the special exception one, there's ten, five variances -- a lot of them had to do with parking, had to do with increasing of the building and so on and so forth as well as signs, signs were a big issue back in the early days if you will remember. Is there any questions because I do have Rich here? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: you include special in ~ L e 3 4 6 7 Jerry, do you have any 9 questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was curious to know why the lot line between Parcel 2 and 3 goes through the building? MR. LARK: That's got to be a technical issue. Mr. Sidor addresses that issue in the letter you got yesterday. It was something I brought up and Tom McCarthy who is doing a lot of the building coordinating between the Daimler people and the actual getting the steel building here because it will be primarily steel, said that it's a nonissue in one sense, but in the other sense, it is an issue because the Health Department, they have to go through the Health Department to get -- they're not doing anything, there's public water there, but they ha'le to get approval for the cesspools, and whether or not they're require more cesspools or not depends not only the area of the lot, he's better versed on that than I am, there's some weird regulations on that, but because that's a separate lot even though it's dedicated in the zoning to Mullen Motors thing, that picks up in inherent amount of square footage for the cesspool requirements, whatever they are. I'm not well-versed on that because it didn't make any sense to me. He said it doesn't make sense but that's the way they view things. They just ignore tax lots, they just ignore things we're used to. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That piece of property was generic to the Cottage Place property but has since been used by the dealership for merely the storage of cars; is that correct? MR. LARK: Yes, that back piece, that's dedicated. 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . c, ¿~ BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was a fallow October 21, 2004 89 1 . 3 piece, which they made through the Planning Board a useable piece of property. MR. LARK: Planning Board and Town 2 Board. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MR. LARK: Right. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right? 4 That piece lS also -- :) MR. LARK: The requirement was ý'ou have the covenant that was required and amended because that's the one that created how many spaces were dedicated to Mullen Motors for the site plan. What type of buffering? And it was interesting, they wanted originally islands in there, then they changed and said that's no good, but we'll eliminate the islands, but that 1,000 square feet 2'OU got to put the landscaping buffering someplace else, so they went across the street on Cottage, that's why you see that landscape buffering. It got to be part of the overall site plan dictated by the Town Board. [VIS. KOWALSKI: merged with Parcel 2? MR. LARK: Today, no. MS. KOWALSKI: Why doesn't with one of the other two parcels; reason for keeping it separate? MR. LARK: The Town Board kept it separate, and we were told to keep it separate for this purpose solely until the Health Department Mr. Mullen couldn't care less, but even though he's not increasing his toilet facilities there, the Health Department because l'ou' re increasing some of the roof space, could come up with more cesspools, so I have to get you credit someplace so you don't have to do that. MS. KOWALSKI: I want to be sure. ~1R. LARK: That's not before you right now. Ultimately when the Health Department issue gets squared away, and the Planning Board says we want those merged, but we recognize that you're going to have the back part leased exclusively to Hullen Motors, then fine, they don't care. It could be two parcels, it doesn't matter at that point. But right now it's been kept out and until they can get this Health Department squared away. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I am just lost I was wondering is Parcel 3 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 Parcel do you 3 merge have a 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 90 1 5 in this nonconforming permitted by special exception, I'm going to look at that a little. MR. LARK: They deemed it nonconforming and I don't understand why when we had special exception from the get-go and some of it preceded zoning, the early days. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: MR. LARK: Sure. Tax The use? Lot 20, 2 . 3 4 9 absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean where Mullen Motors is now. Yes, they purposely made it B in '89 because you were there. I was there. MR. LARK: That's exactly right. CHAIRI^!OMAN OLIVA: Thej' made it B because they had to, he was business. What are they going to do, make him nonconforming use? They made him c:onforming. MR. LARK: That's why I gave up, and there were special exceptions, which the code now, and did then too, did it for certain things like public garages and used cars and regular sales you have to have a special exception. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: None of the ~ariances dealt with the use, though? HR. LARK: They all discussed it, but they were for parking, signs and area. But there's five special exceptions there. Two or three were signs, but the last one I read was to expand the building in '88 or '87. There's a quote in there this is what it's used for. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I ha':e none. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anj'body in the audience who would like to speak on this application? Then I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserving decision until later. ¡See minutes for resolution.) 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 1, " 17 18 19 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Shelle~r 24 Scoggin. Shelley? MS. SCOGGIN: My roof is leaking. My children live in a bedroom shaped like ehis ¡indicating). So we decided to replace the roof, then decided once the roof was off, the thing to do was give them a little extra space and put a couple little dormers out. Here I am because we li'.'e ·:on narrow lots on Pine Tree Road. I am the Just about the smallest house on the street. I 22 23 . 25 October 21, 2004 1 91 2 will remain just about the smallest house on the street. Eugene Berger's doing the work, if ý'ou see his stuff, it's beautiful. What's going out is smaller than the footprint of the existing house. ¡^Ie just happen to be on the dirt road, Bittersweet is right out my bedroom window, I can't help that, but the dormer's not going out that far, but we need a decision because m'/ roof lS leaking. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't ha'.'e anj' ,e>bj ections. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you ha"'Ie any e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ()bjections? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Neither do I. Make a motion to close the hearing. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to approve this variance for Scoggins 5622 for a small dormer. ¡See minutes for resolution.} 10 11 12 13 ------------------------------------------------- e 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for an AT&T Wireless Omnipoint for the Orient Fire District in Orient. Would the applicants please step to the mike? Mr. Boyd? MR. BOYD: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, ¡'¡embers of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Edward Boyd, I represent the Orient Fire District. Orient Fire District is the principal applicant in this matter. ¡'Ie stand before you today because we have a very serious problem with the communications on the east end of Southold town. We have a problem that impacts the fire department communications, ambulance and Southold Town police. We have tried to address this problem in numerous ways over the past several years, and to date all of our ~ttempts have been unsuccessful. We still have ~reat difficulty in alerting the firemen that there is a fire. We have great difficulty in the communications between fire officers and fire fighters, between the bay station and the fire trucks. We have difficulties with the ambulance communicating with the base station, with medical control at Stony Brook Hospital, and the police department has their own litany of difficulties 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 OctobeL 21, 2004 92 1 . 3 with dead spots, failed communications impossible cc.mmunications. All of which pose a very serious threat to the health and safety of the people who live on the east end of Southold town. I'm talking not only orient but also the East Marion area. ¿ 4 9 Due to the topography of the land on the east end, we have found through consultlng with many experts, some of whom will be here today, the solution seems to be switching to a new radio frequency for the fire department communications, to a 450 megahertz channel. I'm not going to go into the technical details of that, we'll leave that to the experts. Suffice it to say that in order for the 450 band to work, we must get the antenna up in the air, and I'm talking seriously up In the air, 120 feet. I think there's been a misunderstanding among some people, I'd like to address that from the beginning. The idea that our application is being driven by commercial interests and that the fire department is just acting as a vehicle for these commercial interests, nothing could be further from the truth. Our experts will demonstrate beyond a doubt that we must have this 120 base for our antenna in order for our ·~ommunications to be effective. What happens below that 120 foot level, with the exception of the other public service antennas which are going to be located at the 90 foot level, really is of no concern other than it will supply a source of revenue for the tower to be built at no cost of the taxpayers of the Orient Fire District, and will supply a continuing source of income for the fire district, which will reduce the taxes for the -- excuse me, which will result in reduced need for taxes in the foreseeable future. As this tower is being built for the fire district and for fire district use, we believe that it is entitled a total exemption of the zoning ordinances of Southold town. As you are well aware since 1988 when the Court of hppeals decided the case the County of f10nroe vcorsus the City of Rochester, the test that we must apply in any of those matters is a balancing of the public interest. This is an analytical approach and is based upon nine points that are set forth in that ,:ase. Just to refresh, I'll run over these points 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e lei 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . ~" ¿~ October 21, 2004 93 1 9 very, 'fery quickly. ¡^Ie must consider the nature and the scope of the instrumentality which is seeking the immunity; in this case it's the Orient Fire District. We have to look at the encroaching government's legislative grant of authority, the kind of function or land use that is involved; the effect of the land use regulation would have upon the enterprise or the project that is concerned. The impact on legitimate local interests, alternative methods of providing the proposed impro'¡ements, the extent of the public interest to be served by the improvements, and finally the intergovernmental participation and the opportunity to be heard. Orient Fire District has tried very hard to keep the public aware at all stages of the proceeding as to what they're doing. The plans have changed several times during the course of this process, and those plans have changed because the district is trying so very hard to come up ',vith the best possible communication system to take care of present and future needs for themselves, for the police department and, of course, for the number of people who used cellular telephones. This project is not being considered primarily for the cellular telephone users, but I hasten to add that cellular telephones number one are no longer a luxury carried by only a few people who are able to afford them, but are a way of daily life. Because they are a way of daily life they have become vital to the communications in the public safety area as well. Most of your 'lolunteer fire fighters and ambulance people use them. We know that the ambulance uses the cellular telephone on a regular basis to contact medical control in Stony Brook Hospital. We have to use the cellular telephones to contact Eastern Long Island Hospital from the ambulance. Cellular telephones are an important way of our life and by building this tower, primarily for our fire department use, and secondaril~r for the impro'¡ement of the Southold Town Police Department communications I we will also pro'fide a method in improving cellular communication on the east end of the island for each and every person who uses it. I am confident that when we finish the 2 e 3 4 5 G 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 94 1 3 testimony in this case, when that's been heard and you have tested that testimony using the mandated balancing of public interest approach, ý'ml will conclude that the Orient Fire District is indeed exempt from the zoning requirements, the operation .e.f the Town zoning code, and it will be able to go ahead and build this much needed tower to improve ,~ur communications. I have a number of witnesses and I'd like to, unless there are any questions at this point, simply start with those witnesses and see how much ûf this we can get through today. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Sir, is the balancing test you're referring under the Telecom µ~ct ? 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 16 MR. BOYD: No. It's a decision of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York that had to do with the construction of an airport, a dispute between the City of Rochester and the County of Monroe. This particular case has been amplified several times since then. Most notably and this is a case that involves fire departments directly, in Nanuet Fire Companv No. 1 '.'ersus }\mpster as the Chairman of the Town of Clarkstown Zoning Boards of Appeals, I will be happj' to provide you with the citations, indeed to provide you with those cases so you can read them on your o',m. Those are the matters that take precedence here. lü 11 12 13 . H 15 24 If there's nothing further, I would like to proceed right with the beginning of our approach, and the first person I'm going to call to speak will be Martin Trent, who is the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the Orient Fire District. MR. TRENT: I have prepared a statement I can provide you with copies. Thank you ,.handing). My name is Martin Trent, I am Chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Orient Fire District, and the past Chief of the Orient Fire Department. I have been a volunteer fire fighter in Orient for the last 25 years. A fire commissioner has two basic responsibilities in serving his or her community. One, to insure that the department has the equipment and resources needed to protect life and property; and two, to accomplish thlS in a fiscally prudent manner that controls the fire 17 18 19 2ü 21 22 23 . 25 October 21, 2Û04 95 1 9 district portion of our property tax levy. The Orient Fire District is seeking your approval to improve the fire, emergency and police communications for our community in order to better protect life and property, our number one priority. It is an unfortunate fact that there are currently areas within our fire district where radio communications are lacking. To us, this is an issue of protecting our cwn lives as well as those of the public. We don't want to see one life lost, one fire fighter, one police officer or one person injured or one home or business destroyed because we couldn't contact the firehouse, the police department or each other in times of an emergency. The communications antenna will provide for increased public safety by improving our broadcast and receiving abilities to cover the entire geographical area of the fire district. The communications antenna is not a cure-all, but the experts advise us that it lS a necessary first step in order improve our emergenc~r service communications. There are other actions that are necessary. We have already received our FCC license to allow us to move to high band frequency as many fire districts are now doing, and we always need to update our hardware communications equipment. We are all aware that we live in a post 0.'11 world now. The Animal Disease Laboratory at Plum Island has been taken O'ler by Homeland Security. Like it or not the volunteer members of the Orient Fire Department and the officers of the Southold Police Department have been thrust into the role of frontline responders in case of an emergency on the island. It is imperative that we ha\'e a communications system that works as well at C'rient Point as it does on the Causeway. To address our second major priority, fire commissioners are responsible for the property tax warrant associated with operating the fire district. While the financial aspects of the ,:::c.mmunications antenna are not strictly a concern of this Board, they are important to us. The antenna pole will be constructed at no cost to the taxpayer by Beacon Wireless [,·1anagement. Beacon has already recei ·'v'ed commitments from three major wireless 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 96 1 9 communication companies, T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon to locate antennas inside the pole. The annual rent to the fire district for housing their wireless carriers will be $45,ûOO a 1'ear. If a fourth carrier signs on, the income to the fire district will increase to more than $70,000 annually. This is a substantial amount of ·=·ur total fire district tax levy of approximatelj' $354,000 annually. As a fire commissioner, I would be remiss in my duties to ignore a re'Jenue source that can be utilized to stabilize or reduce future fire district property taxes. The fire district hosted a well-attended public information meeting at the firehouse last year as part of a community outreach effort. Most speakers at the session supported the communications antenna on the public safety grounds, two speakers even cited instances of 911 emergency cell calls they made from Orient that "roamed" to Connecticut, thus costing valuable response time. In addition to the Orient Fire District, it is noteworthy that the Southold Town Police Department and Southold Town PBA have supported installation of the communications antenna. We understand some members of our ,-::ommunity will object to the antenna pole on the grounds of aesthetics, saying it's too taIlor saying additional studies should be conducted in order to delay the project. It's not a perfect plan, but we intend to do the best we can. The antenna will be installed in the rear of the firehouse grounds, away from both the Main Road and Tabor Road. It will be an appropriately colored flagpole-type structure, and the base will be landscaped. The experts ad'iise us that the height is necessary in order to obtain the needed geographic coverage to enhance public safety ,,:ommunications. In conclusion, please be aware that the Orient Fire Department is an all volunteer organization. No one is paid, not the fire commissioners, not the fire chiefs, not the fire fighters, nor our emergency medical personnel. The volunteers are not in this for personal financial gain. The dedicated people in our small department put thousands of hours of training and in response to emergencies of all types e'rer-=..' ~{ear 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 lû 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2ûû4 97 1 5 for our community. We ask that you put their safety, the lives of the fire fighters, police officers, and emergency medical responders first, and give them one of the tools they need to do the job. I respectfully request your approval of this application to help protect the lives of our volunteers, and the lives and property of all the people in our community. Thank you for your time. 2 · 3 4 6 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Marty. MR. BOYD: The next witness I would like to call is Fred Terry, he's the First Assistant Chief of the Orient Fire Department. MR. TERRY: Members of the Board, Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Fred Terry. I'm First Assistant Chief of the Orient Fire Department. I'm here on behalf of myself and Mike Rose, our chief, who could not make it here today. I' ~.Te been a fire fighter for 42 years, and I've been an emergency medical technician for 26 years. I can recall numerous calls when I was the only EMT in the district, and I was on the phone and due to lack of communication because my pager didn't activate, other members of the fire department had to come out to the field and find me so we could respond to the call; this happened numerous times and you know valuable minutes mean a lot when :,'ou're trying to save a life. I have a letter I'd like to read from our chief. He couldn't be here. "On February 6th, the Orient Fire Department responded to a possible structure fire in Green Acres. Upon arriving on the scene, I realized there was a working fire on the second floor and tried to call for assistance. With no response from either the Southold Town Police or the Suffolk County Fire Rescue One, I returned to the chief's truck and again tried to call fer help. At this time Southold Town Police responded and tried to callout a second alarm that was not received by our members. When one of th~ ex-chiefs showed up on the scene, I ordered him to return to our firehouse and dispatch the call for assistance a third time, this one finally getting out to all members but not until a lot of critical time was lost. If this fire had not been contained by a closed door, the loss would have 7 8 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 2û 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 98 1 9 been much worse. Time in the fire service is a critical factor, and when seconds can make a difference, 10 to 15 minutes is consequences I hope ne'ler to face again due to poor or inadequate communications. The proposed OFD cell tower will correct this problem. Chief Mike Rose." I just want to say that as all of us are concerned with, my biggest concern is life, quick response and when I'm chief, I just want to be able to communicate with my fellow fire fighters so nobody will be lost in active duty. Like I say, my only concern is helping people, and I think most people in this room, if they think about it, good communication is critical. Thank you for your time. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MR. BOYD: As I'm sure the Board is well aware at having looked at the drawings submitted so far, the antenna that we proposed puts the 450 megahertz for the fire department at the top. At the 90 foot level there will be two cross arms one of those will provide for communications on the fire department low band, which is a 46-46 frequency, that is the band that is used for paging. By putting the antenna at the 90 foot level should eliminate the problems that Chief Terry was talking about not being able to be reached by pager in his field when he's out there. The other cross arm will have an antenna on it. It will be utilized by the Southold Town Police. And to explain the present difficulties the SGuthold Town Police are having in that area, we've asked Lieutenant Sawicki of the police department to be here today, and for him to explain the difficulties and some of the steps that they have attempted to try to cure those problems out on the east end of Long Island. I'll turn it over to him. Lieutenant Sawicki. LT. SAWICKI: Good afternoon, my name is Lieutenant Sawicki with the Southold Town Police Department. I've been with the police department for 23 years, in charge of the communications division six, seven years. During my term in charge of the communications division we have several problems with dead spots out in Orient. When the officers are on portables we can't copy them. When vehicle traffic stops, we c~n't cop~r them. It seems on the causeway and east of now 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 .g 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 99 1 9 River Road, that's where all the problems are. We have several occasions when officers were on domestic disputes and they were inside the house and we couldn't copy them because there was no service. We tried putting in a new receiver and raising the antenna at the Orient Firehouse, that didn't work. We just recently completed and moved the antenna from the cable site in West Land and moved it to the cable site in Greenport Village and that still didn't work. I've spoken to my radio plan and they said the only reason how we can solve this problem is to have an antenna out in Orient 90 feet high. So the police department supports the tower and the 90 foot so we can have officer safety, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MR. BOYD: To amplify on what Lieutenant Sawicki has put forth, we're going to call the first of our technical experts, that's Bill Scheibel. He can explain better than any of us exactly what this antenna will mean to all of us and what sort of coverage we can expect from the new antenna placement. MR. SCHEIBEL: I own and operate a company called Eastern Long Island Electronics. I maintain systems you may be familiar with, like when you pick up the phone and dial 911, that's Motorola operated system, I'm the guy who runs the company who's responsible for that contract. So the guys work for me and my company, e\'ery time ý'ou pick up the phone and dial 911, you use the system that we maintain. So I maintain the 911 system for the east end of Suffolk County. I also maintain ,communications systems, fire departments, police departments and several other concerns on the east end. Back in the beginning of the year, Orient Fire Department got a hold of me and in the course of doing business, it was discussed what could we do to improve communications for the Orient Fire Department. So I embarked upon a study to fi9ure out exactly what the problems were and what "le would have to do to solve them, and that's the information I brought with me today. The whole idea was we had to improve the overall communications for the fire department, Lhere were many facets to that. One, of course, is paging and there has been progress in that area 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 1- ~ 17 18 19 20 21 ~ ~. ¿¿ 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 100 1 9 as Sergeant Sawicki mentioned and one of the chiefs, that we have done some rearranging of the antennas, gotten a little higher, there's a new base station; that does get paging to be better, but it doesn't resolve the issue in terms of dispatch and a fire chief being able to talk to his firemen, and you know, muster resources to act upon a particular scene. It doesn't help us in resolving that at all. That also involves managing the scene of a fire, what actually has to be done and how to communicate to the people at this fire what needs to be done and have the most success at that scene. There's also the issue of fireman safety. There are systems in place today that utilize technology and enable you to know when a fireman's ill trouble. The existing communications systems today and used in Orient are not capable of that. In other words, those new systems that other fire departments implemented across the island, the current Orient system is incapable of using that tý'pe of technology. In terms of fire ground, that's where basic fire operations occur. The existing radio communication facilities do not allow for effective fire ground communications. A simple example of that would be when there's a man ·::In a h"'drant and you need more or less water, it's 'Jery important that that be an effective communication. And today that very simple fact is not there, that level of communication is extremely poor right now in Orient. Additionally, the issue of mutual aid, that's when there's multiple fire departments required to go to a scene, and one place to get them to communicate effectively, so you can make the best use of your resources that you have. In all these aspects the current communication s~rstem for Orient Fire Department fell short of where technology is today and even other departments are doing that service in my company. What does this really mean? Some of it has already been stated. It's a matter of missed calls you may have a number of firemen available, we have other jobs, they're volunteer firemen, but if they don't get the initial page, you can't muster those people to the scene and missed calls means you don't have the resources you need to be 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 101 1 5 as effective as you can be. Firemen safety issues, if a fireman is in trouble and you don't have a mechanism to alert others to his possible problem, you don't have an effective communication system. Poor fire ground ·=ommunications gets back to the issue c·f: I need more water, but I can't get it. I need more men, but I can't get the message back to the chief. And long range communications, when it comes to mutual aid, talking back from Orient to fire control to get another dispatch done, to get another department involved, that's a very important communication, and time is of the essence. If you have to repeat that call two or chree times, those are minutes lost. The biggest issue we have is that the platform that Orient currently uses there's really no room for improvement at all. We've done everything we can in terms of the antenna system we have to work with, the systems we have to work with, and we can't really get it to work any better than it currently works. That's really just an outpouring of what happens with technology today. We all have personal computers and microwave o\'ens, but low band communication system that fire craditionally uses is the most susceptible to interference from those other consumer devices. So the logical thing to do is to move out of that space and move toward a better form of communication, that's where the use of che 450 megahertz channel comes in. As far as the equipment, upgrading the equipment is something that has to be done, but more importantly, you have to have facility to make use of the better equipment that you would obtain, and without a tower system and antenna system to utilize that new equipment, you really ha\'en't accomplished anything, and that's as simple as you need height. Height is might in the radio world. That's why you don't see T.V. antennas mounted on lûO foot buildings. We mount them on things like the Empire State Building or on huge towers out in the fields of New Jersey. Because the farther you need a signal to travel and the clearer you want that signal to be, the higher you have to put che antenna. It's a simple matter of physics. Radio waives can't travel through a lot of things. You 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~o LJ 24 . 25 October 21, 20û4 102 1 9 probably notice that on your broadcast radio In your car and you drive through a tunnel, you can't hear anything on the radio. The same thing affects radio communications for firemen. It's even more important because something can get in the way of your ability to communicate and the ,:;ther person you need to communicate to, something as simple as trees, foliage, the composition of buildings, whether it's a wood frame building, concrete building it all drastically affects radio ccmmunication. The way to fix that is to use height. The higher you put the central transmitting and receiving antenna, the more likely it is that a remote receiver in the field can transmit and receive effectively. It's a law of radio. Interference is a necessary evil. Once again, the higher you put the antenna, the more effective the antenna is and the more likely it is 2'OU can mitigate the potential problems, the interference, that's why you want the antenna ',,¡here you do. In this world of computers, we have cc',mputer programs that allow me to simulate how a particular radio system is going to behave given certain variables. I tried to show what level of coverage a fireman with a hand-held radio would have with a high band system on the tower at the 120 feet that we asked for. Basically, to put this in the simplest form I can, is that a fireman with a hand-held radio would have effective radio coverage every place there's green or light blue. Today the coverage that a fireman has from radio to radio isn't chartable. I can't chart it because it's that bad. For the simple reason that there's no center stage mechanism for communications. All we've got is can this radio talk to this other radio. Once you install a high band receiver system and have dedicated high band channel, you now have the ability to talk through that central antenna. It amplifies the signal many times and sends it out to the other hand-held radio. That's the whole premise upon which the 450 megahertz channel will be built. That's how you can insure or the computer can insure that you will have this level of coverage. In summation, these are the benefits I see with the new system: One, you would abs'::Jlutely 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 3 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 103 1 9 have district wide coverage with a hand-held radio. So the issue of one fireman being able to talk to another fireman would no longer be an issue; that level of coverage would be guaranteed through the placement of the new antenna and new system. No more lost pages, in two ways, one, because we fixed the low band antenna by raising the antenna, so it's more likely that the small hand held, small pager the fireman has on his belt will be heard, but also through better dispatch capability and that chief being able to be on scene and reliably reach another fireman and another chief back to dispatch, gives him much better control and notification of his resources. The other things, fireman safety issues, Things like man down that we can't implement with the existing system are now easily put in place. The radio has a button on it, when I'm a fireman and I'm in trouble, I had hit the orange button, Everyone else on the system knows I/m in trouble by radio. The other problem is the interference <¡.¡e talked about on low band, we move to high band, somewhat mitigated, we don't have to worry about it anymore. That low band interference is not going to get any better. The proliferation of other things that make interference is going to go on. Once you move to high band, you no longer ha'le to worry about it, and that's the extent of mý' presentation. Questions? MR. BOYD: Next witness we're going to call on will be Mike Walker. He's going to explain the layout of the site, why we ha'.'e to do what we're doing. He'll explain his credentials and his reasons for being here. MR. WALKER: Good afternoon, Members of the Board and observers. My name is Michael Walker, I'm a registered architect in the State of New York. I have been working in the telecommunications business since the mid '90s. I've been involved with site development here on Long Island since the mid '90s for mostly Sprint and T-Mobile. I have here a picture which I'm sure everyone has seen, but I will quickly describe the features of this proposed site for the record. This is Main Street and Tabor Road. This is the existing firehouse and the paved driveways around it. The extra storage building in the 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 2ü 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 104 1 7 back, we have located the tower so that it meets the various setback requirements behind this building and planted a visual buffer strip all the way around the compounds. The setbacks from the east property line is 179 feet. The setback from Tabor Road is approximately 330 feet, and the setback from Main Road is about 150 feet. It's 45 feet behind this existing building, and I think that's everyone, the south setback is 139 feet. The tower is a simple straightforward pole with three antennas. The high band antenna that ¡'1r. Scheibel talked about at the 'Iery tip, then the Sauthold Police antenna then the Orient Fire District antenna. There are no other antennas that are visible on the pole. This other drawing that I have simply shows the layout of the compound. The pole stands in the middle of the compound, has a fence around it, and the landscape screen and the three carriers that are currently committed are (Jmnipoint, Verizon and AT&T, and all their equipment will all be located inside of an enclosed building. This site is an unmanned site. The equipment shelters are locked. They're visited by a technician perhaps once a month. There is no sewage effluent or anything like that. It's a silent piece of equipment that sits there by itself. I'll stop talking because everybody's pretty familiar with the physical layout here. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER: How many feet did yau say it was from the Main Road, the antenna? MR. WALKER: From Main Road I'm not sure, but from the rear property line from the adjacent property it's 150 feet back to the tower. MR. WERNAKOWSKI: I'm Henry Wernakowski, I'm one of the adjacent property owners. He stated 150 feet from the tower to the Main Road, it's not, it's 150 feet from my property. MR. BOYD: It was a little confusing, I think Mr. Walker's testimony was it was 150 feet from the adjacent property line, not from the Main FGad. Everyone is concerned about the appearance ~f this tower when it is constructed, and in order to allay some of the misconceptions that have gotten around and some of the fears, we have had 2 · 3 4 5 6 2. 9 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 l.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 105 1 9 photo simulations prepared of exactly what this tower will look like when constructed. In order to present those to photo simulations, I'm going to call upon Donna Marie Stipo, who has done the work and can explain her credentials in the area and what she has done and show you the actual appearance of the tower when it is completed. MS. STIPO: Good afternoon, Donna Marie Stipo, I am a planner, standing member of the American Planning Association. I am a member of the APA Chapter, Wagner University, Wagner School, NYU, and I'm a graduate of Boston University with a Bachelor of Science. We were retained to take a look at the surrounding area and prepare photo simulations. The word "photo simulation" means that photographs were taken with a 50 millimeter lens from surrounding areas and points. A 50 millimeter lens will replicate the human eye through the camera lens, for those that are familiar with photography, and essentially the structure is then built in a program called MIA. It is one of the top programs in the industry -- some may be familiar with 3-D Studio Viz, it's very similar -- and what that program does is essentially build the structure and then place it and scale it into the photograph, giving you the word "photo simulation." It simulates what you would see should the structure be built. And what is provided on that board is what we would call a before and after, essentially it's the existing condition, then the proposed condition that would be rendered. What we do in taking the photographs, we took a look at the entire surrounding area. We took a look at the sensitivity with respect to the historic nature and architectural details within Orient. We worked for a year tirelessly with SHIPO and received a letter of no effect from the Senior Historic Restoration Coordinator, Mr. Jule Adams. We took a look at the sensitivit~r of the site with respect to the entire area as well as the residential and the causeway. Those photographs are presented to you for your re"~riew. There's nine of them there. The structure itself is stealth with respect to mitigation. It would be an enclosed structure or a cylinder structure, and the 2 . 3 4 5 'J 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 106 1 9 antennas that would be from the providers would be in the interior, so they would essentially have no visibility. The whip antennas that are presented by the police and fire are essentially thin antennas at 90 and 120 feet, and would therefore lose visibility to most of the residents in the surrounding area. We also noted that there would be limited to no impact within the historic district and the homes located in that area. In order to actually give you a proper rendering and to put the structure exactly where it should be so residents would have an opportunity to see it, we performed what is called a crane test, and we took a crane, a physical crane, to the property, measured out from the drawings that were provided where the structure would be. We had the crane set up in the center of the compound or area of equipment, and the boom was raised to the proper height. Therefore, we had a physical visible structure. Of the photographs we provided SHIPO with, 22 photographs, it showed them the actual crane setting as well as simulations, and that was as per their requirements. The structure itself is mitigated from the surrounding area and SHIPO found that it would not have any impact or change the current aesthetic or architectural areas and would not have an impact with respect to the historic area. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is SHIPO? MS. STIPO: State Historic Preservation ~ L . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 IJfficer. 18 e 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MS. STIPO: You're welcome. We also took a look at the tower and what would visibility be from the scenic byway, which is the corridor that goes across the water, and we found that the tower or the crane itself was barely visible, what is visible is the peak of the church, and that photograph is presented to you and at 50 millimeter. I also have an 80 millimeter, which I had to use in order to see it through the lens of the camera that I can provide Lhe Board with. Do you have any questicns? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you have 'inything to do with the design of the antenna? MS. STIPO: No, I don't design the pole or any of the structures. 19 20 21 22 23 24 October 21, 2004 107 1 . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd? HR. BOYD: So far the testimony that you ha'Je heard has centered on the f ire department and police department communications. Though the ,::ellular application will have no visual impact, we feel it is important that we present all of the applicants at the same time so that a decision may be made on the entire package. In order to do that, I'm going to turn this part of the presentation over to Lawrence Ray, Esquire who will present the witnesses having to do with the cellular co-tenants that will appear on this tower. 2 4 5 6 ~ , 8 9 I reiterate, and I'm sure that everyone else will say pretty much the same thing, that aside from the buildings that are scattered around the base of the antenna structure, you won't be able to tell whether there's a cellular antenna there or not. This structure that we're putting up is for the fire department use. It's to get our antenna up to that required 120 foot level. Hr. Ray. MR. RAY: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Lawrence Ray, 36 North New York Avenue, Huntington. As Mr. Boyd had indicated, I'll be addressing the AT&T Wireless and Omnipoint aspect of the application. They are co-applicants both in this matter. Both, AT&T and Omnipoint are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to construct, maintain and operate personal wireless service systems here in Suffolk County, and, in fact, throughout much of the U.S. Mr. Boyd briefly outlined how important wireless communications have become to our society. Most people use wireless communications em a daily basis, business people, residents. At times of national or local or even personal ernergenciesr wireless communicat ions ha"';,re become an important part of the safety net of the community. In fact, in the last calendar year approximately 50 percent of all calls made to 911 were made from mobile telephones. So this is an integral part of the application in a sense that it will complete the public safety for the -Jrient community, it will assist police department, the fire district and private individuals at times of èmergency. 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 108 1 9 As you all know, also the wireless providers have been increasing their scope of service to their customers and can now provide internet access, email access and data as well as the traditional voice information that comes over on telephones. I have appeared before this Board on a number of occasions, and I am well aware of the Town code as it relates to wireless carriers, and the Board and the Town to its benefit has encouraged the applicants for the providers of wireless services to collocate their antennas wherever possible, and I was here before the Board in an application for AT&T Wireless to enclose antennas in a church steeple on Fisher's Island, and I was here on another application for Sprint to enclose antennas in the church in Orient, and I have represented carriers throughout Long Island in applications to collocate antennas in church steeples and on fire district towers throughout Long Island. And the list is rather lengthy and of fire districts that have invited wireless carriers to collocate. It makes sense. If there's going to be a structure for communications for a fire department, you might as well utilize that structure for collocation, and the list is lengthy. I'll give you a couple of the highlights: The Southampton Police Department, Ridge Fire Department, Rocky Point Fire Gepartment, Hagerman, Lake Ronkonkoma, Flanders, Eastport, West Sayville, North I'~assepequa, North Patchogue, it's a lengthy list. In each case we have gone out of our way to try to collocate on fire department or police department towers so that we don't have to erect another structure in addition to the structure that's already providing service for the public safety agency in question. This is a special application because not only would we be collocating on a tower that is needed by the fire department, but we would be collocating in such a way that you won't even see the antenna that are providing the service for _""T&T and Omnipoint. They will be completely enclosed. I think it's a win-win situation, we're collocating and we're invisible. So we're able to provide service to the residents of Orient, to the people who travel through Orient, to people who are faced with an emergency, and to the Orient 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 1;; 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 109 1 9 community at times of national emergency. There have been questions as to why, for example, the carriers can't all collocate in the Orient church steeple. When I was here before j'OU for that application we presented an elevation and it showed where the antennas of Sprint were to be located in that steeple. There's room for perhaps one antenna array at the bottom of the steeple, but it would be below the tree line and our radio frequency engineers have indicated that that would be useless for their purposes and it would only be one carrier, and there are four carriers that serve the area in addition to Sprint. AT&T Wireless and Omnipoint are co-applicants this afternoon. Verizon has expressed a very strong interest in collocating inside this pole also, and Uextel, the last of the carriers, has also expressed some interest in collocating. By doing this and by approving the fire district's pole that it needs for its communications, you would also be allowing all of the remaining carriers to provide service to the Orient community without having any visual impact whatsoever on the Orient community. The site will operate at a very low power le'lel, and I'll be presenting an expert in that field to address that field in just a few minutes. But before doing so, I'm going to briefly ask each of the radio frequency engineers for each of the companles, there will be two witnesses, to address the area that would be covered by this site should this application be approved. Omnipoint's antennas would be enclosed near the top of this pole inside this pole. Nicholas Balzano is a radio frequency engineer for Omnipoint. He has prepared a map that shows where the area of coverage exists now and the area that would be served should this application be granted. And I'd like to hand up Mr. Balzano's curriculum \'itae. 2 e 3 4 " ~ 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . lei 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Mr. Balzano, please state your name and address for the record. MR. BALZANO: Nicholas Balzano, 3500 Sunrise Highway, Great River, New York. MR. RAY: Mr. Balzano, you are a radio frequency engineer for Omnipoint? MR. BALZANO: Yes, I am. MR. RAY: And you're fully familiar with 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 110 1 5 Omnipoint's network in this area? MR. BALZANO: Yes, I am. MR. RAY: At our request did you prepare a map that shows the area of existing coverage and then the area that would be covered with reliable service if the application were granted and Omnipoint were to install its antennas inside this pole? MR. BALZANO: Yes, I did. MR. RAY: Could you describe the map to the Board, please? MR. BALZANO: Yes. Here we have the map of Orient and so we can see Route 25. The existing site Omnipoint has in the area. Then here we have the location. The first overlay basically the coverage that we have in the area. The green represents basically reliable coverage. What this means is that within this area a customer would be able to make or receive phone calls, it will not experience drop calls. The clear area that represents unreliable coverage. What it means is that within this area a customer will experience a dropped call and will not be able to receive or make a call. Specifically in Orient the gap is about 5.2 miles along Route 25 and plus or minus three within the business district of Orient as in Orient Point. Now, the blue basically represents what would be the coverage offered by the subject site at 120 feet. As you can see the site will cover an o':erlap basically with the cO'Jerage that we ha'.'e towards the west along Route 25 and will leave us still a gap of 1.2 miles on the east towards Orient Point. What this means within this area basically a customer traveling on Route 25 or in the area towards Orient Point will not be able to make and receive phone calls. MR. RAY: Thank you, Mr. Balzano. I have smaller maps for each of the Board members. Do any of the Board Members have any questions of Hr. Balzano? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Now your radio communications have nothing to do with the police communications that will reach to Plum Island shall we say? MR. RAY: Correct. Natalie Noelle is Mr. Balzano's counterpart for AT&T Wireless. MS. NOELLE: My name is Natalie Noelle for :2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 111 1 5 AT&T Wireless, I'm at One Huntington Quadrangle in ¡"Ielville, New York. MR. RAY: Miss Noelle, AT&T Wireless' system works in a similar manner as that described bv Omnipoint by Mr. Balzano? MS. NOELLE: That's correct. MR. RAY: You have also prepared propagation maps that show the existing reliable service and the service that would be enhanced if this application were to be approved? MS. NOELLE: That's correct. MR. RAY: Would you briefly describe your maps to the Board? MS. NOELLE: Certainly. The map is actually similar to Mr. Balzano's in that the green areas represent areas of reliability coverage and, as he said, it's an area that in the green areas you are likely to be able to complete your phone calls, you have good quality calls, voice service is well. You have good data calls. In the white areas represented on this map, it shows that you will most likely have unreliable coverage, which means you may experience dropped calls, missed calls, you may not get your pages, that you have messages waiting. Various problems that we're all familiar with in areas of weak 2 e 3 4 6 7 ,g 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 coverage. 16 r1R. RAY: If you turn the overleaf and you could show the Board Members what the enhancement would look like. MS. NOELLE: AT&T is operating at a similar frequency in the 1900 megahertz bands. this location we are 10 feet lower, we're proposing to be 10 feet lower on this structure than T-Mobile's or Omnipoint, and we will provide a large area of coverage that eliminates the coverage deficiency that's immediately surrounding the Orient Fire District station or the location. But the extent of it is about radius, it's about one and a half to two the extent of it along Route 25. MR. RAY: Thank you, Miss Noelle. Unless the Board has questions regarding the propagation issues, I would also like to call Mr. Petersen who will address the compliance with FCC. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, I think, has a At 17 18 19 20 21 a mile miles, 22 23 24 e 25 question. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On your diagram, October 21, 2004 112 1 5 this is with the antenna installed in Orient what we're looking at right now, right? MS. NOELLE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You see parkview Drive, that green spot, that big green spot, that says North Sea on my map anyway. Tell me the reason why there's white in between that in that big green, why would there be white there? MS. NOELLE: Here? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. What would be the reason why you couldn't get reception there? MS. NOELLE: This map takes into consideration any of the terrain properties if the area either dips off suddenly or it comes up. The area is mainly flat but just because of the distance that we're working with here, this area I believe is just beach-type area, you're prett.y flat, you're very close to the water, you'll be able to get the coverage right in there because of that. You're close to the water and also water helps to propagate the signal. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about Northview Drive, which is that long white strip. Right along that is that strip at the top, why would you have no reception there? MS. NOELLE: Actually there's a change In the terrain right there. It's referred to as Brown's Hills and the coverage stops right along that area. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's high there and where the white is it goes down? MS. NOELLE: That's correct. As Mr. Scheibel mentioned all our propagation is affected by terrain as well as foliage. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. MR. RAY: Mr. Petersen? MR. PETERSEN: Ronald Petersen, I live at 170 Fairview Drive, Bedminster, New Jersey. My background, is an electrical engineer and electro physics. I have a Bachelor of Science and a Master's of Science from Brooklyn Poly tech. I '.,JQrked for Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill a little over 40 years. I retired over three years ago, and now I'm doing consulting as an independent consultant. The last 30 years at Bell Labs I managed the wireless and optical technology safety department, which had corporate responsibility for all safety issues involving 2 · 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 "0 ¿~ 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 113 1 5 radio frequency, emitting devices both ours and others. I also chair a number of international commit:tees, one of which develops the safety guidelines upon which the FCC guidelines are based in part. Also, a number of committees that develop standards for the assessment of human exposure of radio waves from antennas and other devices such as this. MR. RAY: I'm going to hand out Mr. Petersen's resume. Mr. Petersen, you testified before this Board on prior applications; isn't that right? MR. PETERSEN: I'm not sure if before this Board. I've testified before a number of Boards out here, including Southampton and Shelter Island and Riverhead. Most of the Boards out here. I may have, but if I have it's been a while. MR. RAY: Mr. Petersen, I requested that you study the proposed antenna facility, the power output and make a determination as to whether the combined cumulative output would meet FCC standards? MR. PETERSEN: Yes, we did. MR. RAY: Could you describe hew you conducted your study and what the results were? HR. PETERSEN: Yes. We were provided with all the antenna and transmitter information that we needed to calculate what the signal strength would be at the antennas at their respective elevations. We use a model that we have been using over the years that actually presents a worst case estimate, it over estimates what the signal strength is. It's a safety analysis. We just assume everything adds up in one direction and maximizes the signal strength. We have done this for this particular site, including the police and fire department antennas, the AT&T Wireless antennas and the T-Mobile, Omnipoint antennas, and looking at this, what we find that the maximum signal strength anywhere in the vicinity of the site normally accessible to the public will be less than three percent of the FCC guidelines. Now, we found in the past that this reall", is an uJerestimate. When we actually go out and make measurements to compare our predicted '.'alues ,'Ii th the measured values, typically the measured '.'alues are anywhere from three to 10 times lower 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 2D 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 114 1 5 than what we predict. In this case it will probably be even lower yet because, for example, we assume that the police and fire department transmitters are on continually the two-way radios can't be on continually because you press to talk then you don't transmit while you're listening and so forth, so that alone will reduce the level by about fifty percent, but nonetheless, even under worst-case conditions, reflections, maximum power on all the time, the maximum signal strength would still be less than three percent of the FCC (juidelines. MR. RAY: Mr. Petersen's report is submitted to the Board. As the Board is aware the Telecommunications Act of 1996 actually preempts local government from regulatin(j the placement of wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions so long as the emissions are within the FCC limit. And as Mr. Petersen said, not only will we comply but we'll only be three percent of the limit at most. We believe that from our 'lantage point, AT&T Wireless and Omnipoint, that this is a superb application in the sense that we are abiding by all of the requests of requisites of the Town code. We are collocating, which is a very strong public policy of this town, and we have completely mitigated our visual impacts by enclosing our antennas inside the poles. If the Board were to, for example, deny an application such as this, I would submit that that would be tantamount to a prohibition of provision of wireless services in the town. We have gone out of our way over and over again before this Board to try to come up with the least obtrusive means to provide service in the town, and so long as the police and fire department need this tower for their own services, we believe that this is a very wise and excellent sice from a planning standpoint and from an engineering standpoint. Unless the Board has any other questions of the witnesses I have presented or Mr. Boyd's witnesses that will conclude our presentation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Do we have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I do. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim. 2 · 3 4 6 ~ , 8 9 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 115 1 2 · 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: us because you want to build a feet. You are here before tower that's 120 9 MR. RAY: Are you addressing me or r'!r. Boyd? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MR. RAY: I am a co-applicant. I am representing the interests of some of the applicants, and as I pointed out during my presentation we are here because we need to provide service, as we are required by our license, to the Orient community. The fire department needs to build a tower. It needs to be 120 feet tall, and we are aware that the Town requires us to collocate if there's going to be a site in a particular area, so we are co-applicants. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If we were to lower the tower, what effect would that have on your communications, the cellular part of it? MR. RAY: The cellular part, if for instance the fire department tower were to be lower, and we had to enclose the antennas within the pole at a lower height, it would diminish these maps, diminish the footprint of the propagation area so we would have to build additional sites in the area. As you can see now, we're not reaching the point so we need to build .some kind of structure out by the ferry in addition to this at some time. If the height of this pole were to be lower, we would probably have to build an intermediary pole between the ferry and the fire district to provide service for that in between area and perhaps also going to the west somewhere. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the height at which you will be? The highest cellular antenna. 4 " ~ 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 l'IR. RAY: Omnipoint antennas will occupy the internal point of the pole between 110 feet and 120 feet and AT&T Wireless will be below that. 22 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In 10 fo::>t increments, so 110 to 100? MR. RAY: Roughly. And there would be ample room for the other two carriers that I mentioned, Verizon and Nextel, should they enter into a lease agreement to include their antennas 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 116 1 e 3 in the pole below theirs, ele'lation that Mr. Walker little while ago. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you're saying that, say there was only one cellular company going on, they could operate at the 80 foot level? MR. RAY: Each carrier has a different grid and some operate at different frequencies so that some of the carriers actually can transmit a little further than others. But the two who are before you this afternoon, at the heights that are proposed, the propagation maps show the extent of the coverage that we can provide. What Verizon's propagation footprint or Nextel's propagation footprint will be at a lower height, I don't have that information. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: number three? MR. RAY: Presumably. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: as shown in the had presented just a 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 So Verizon would be 11 We have one and two 12 ~nd three, and four? MR. RAY: Would be Verizon BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But going to be less. MR. RAY: Not necessarily. I'm not an expert but Verizon operates at a different frequency, and I think they're able to transmit a little farther than can Omnipoint and AT&T Wireless. and Nexte 1. the cO'lerage is 13 e 14 15 16 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So it might be equal to, something like that. But in any case, you're still not covering all of Orient? [VIR. RAY: No. As I say, we don't reach the point. And so we would have to utilize some kind of a structure near the point to get the far eastern end of the town. 18 19 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: more question. ~1R. RAY: But have to have multiple ~cross this area. I just ha'-'e one 21 without this site we would sites to carry the coverage 22 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just have one more question, but I think it's Mr. Boyd or maybe the radio guy. At 120 foot level, is that the minimum that you could have to get good coverage out there? MR. BOYD: We are advised that 120 feet is the absolute minimum for us for the 450 megahertzs 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 117 1 . 3 radio that we wish to install, yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This coverage lS going to get you out to Plum Island? MR. BOYD: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. MR. BOYD: For the 450 it will. And there are other things that have to go into that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That I understand. I think first and foremost we're building a tower so that the fire department can c>:::Jmmunicate. MR. BOYD: That is the primary. We are allowing at no cost, Southold Town Police to put their communications antenna on our tower. There are two prongs, if you will, to the fire department communications, number one lS the 450 megahertzs bands. The antenna will be located at the very top of the tower. At the 90 foot level, there will be the two cross arms, there will be two antennas there, one will be for the fire department, low bands 46-46 frequency; the other antenna will be for the police department, which runs around 155, 156 depending whether A channel, B channel, so forth. This will take care of the public safety communication. As you discussed a few minutes ago, you had one cellular tenant at the 110 to 120 foot level, there's another one at 100 to 110 feet. There will be no cellular tenant at the 90 to 100 feet because that must be kept separate and apart for the two public service antennas that will be on the outlying supports. The problems with separation of antennas, horizontal separation as \\Tell as vertical separation, and we had to do a lot of jiggling around to make sure we're not going to in any way jeopardize the optimum use of that 90 foot level by trying to put a cellular a cellular tenant In there, that's reserved, agaln, for public safety. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you one more question, does the fire department own ani other land other than the land that the firehouse sits on? 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 1.5 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. BOYD: Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know Orient has a lot of questions they wish to have answered, is there someone that can kind of put together all these things, a couple people so we just don't go and e 25 October 21, 2004 118 1 2 . 3 repeat ourselves? Mr. Reale, are you here representing someone? MR. REALE: Ed Reale on behalf of the Fireman's Association, but I think there are a number of people in town who wish to be heard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like everybody to try to not to repeat themselves. Freddie. MS. WAXBERGER: Freddie Waxberger, I'm ex-president of the Orient Association and ex-president of the Oyster Pond Historical Society. I remember sitting with some of you for a long hot summer, three of you at least, helping the code committee to develop the Southold Town Wireless Communications legislation. I know we're all dedicated to protecting the quality of life and the property values in residential areas, and I think we're all very proud of the code that the ,:ommittee produced, which was based on research anj very sound precedents and principles. I believe that code is threatened by any precedent that could be set by the approval of this tower. I woulj like first to address this issue and then the need for improved communications for the fire department. I would like to remind the Board that the proposal by Bell Atlantic in 1997 for a cell tower on residential property in Orient, that was the immediate reason for enacting the moratorium. That tower would have been just one block farther east than this one. And at about the same setback from the Main Road. In his analysis prepared for the Planning Board on April 22, 1997 Charles Voorhees of Nelson, Pope and Voorhees, the Town consultants expressed strongly his concerns about the potential for land use conflict and the ëisual impacts that would result particularly on the agricultural vistas on Route 25 and Flagg Road. I'm going to quote three quotes from that document: 'IMaintenance of these vistas is important and protecting the rural nature of the hamlet and thus the visual impacts of the proposed project should be considered significant. The location of the large communications structure In the area will result in an inherent land use conflict and this impact is expected to be significant. In addition to these site-specific 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 119 1 5 impacts, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project must be considered. Approval of the proposed project will set a precedent for approval of other tower sites within the town. Without proper planning, this would result in a significant intrusion of the rural nature of the community." Luckily that planning was done and we have legislation to protect the town. The Planning Board designated the project a Type 1 action under SEQRA. As you know, the proposal was ultimately withdrawn. Subsequently the stretch of Main Road between Greenport and Orient Point, the town achieved New York State Scenic Byways designation for its historic and rural ~istas. This tower would have made it impossible to achieve that. It should be noted that the tower proposed by Beacon Wireless for the fire department property is 125 feet, 25 feet higher than the Bell Atlantic proposal is, and the property is only one block from the national historic district of Village Lane and its environment, a lot closer than Bell Atlantic's was. Southold Town did not ha'Je legislation which would clearly be a Type 1 action, but thanks to the work, Southold does have legislation and that lengthy and expensive step c'an be avoided. The tower in this proposal exceeds by 65 feet the height for which the ZBA may give an ~xception under the law. It's more than double the height, and it's projected to occupy the property which is smaller than the required five acres. I believe it's also closer than the 300 fe~t allowed for the nearest structure, dom~stic structure. This application must be denied. All the residents of Orient are concerned that the fire department have access to adequate communication, there is no question that the facility must be upgraded. I am convinced that this can be achieved in a way that would satisfy both the fire department and the community. The Orient community has historically supported the department's needs, within the last 20 years financing a bond to build the new firehouse to purchase the property on which it sits and the property on which this tower is projected, and financing a pension plan. Because of this 2 . 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 120 1 2 history, I feel confident that the community will work with the department to expedite the identification and financing of necessary equipment to insure adequate communication as quickly as possible. It is in the best interest of the entire community to do so. The 125 foot Beacon tower and its accompanying buildings, however, which would impose the appearance of an industrial plant on the rural and historic center of Orient, must be denied. In 1990, the commissioners of the Orient Fire District voted to cancel a contract for a cell tower on the property because as chairman Pete Lewis was quoted in the Traveler Watchman: The Board felt they didn't have the backing of the community residents,' Lewis said, indicating that the fire district should not be involved in a commercial enterprise, and we thought ic was in che best interest of the community to cerminate the contract. Orient is a small community. ¡-Ie have about 800 mail boxes. We don't need si}: wireless carriers. I am convinced that the reception of transmission problems of the fire department, which have now been brought to the attention of the community, can be solved expeditiously by the community working together to find a soluticn which is right for Orient. This tower would be wrong for Orient even if there were not a law which prohibited it. Thanks. MR. MCLINSKEY: M'l name is John ¡VJcLinskey, 1"11' wife and I, Kathleen, live on Orchard Street In Orient. The proposed tower would be directly across from the front of my house. I wish to state my opposition to the pcssible erection of a cell tower at Orient Fire Department site simply because it is in the wrong place. If you wish to erect a communications antenna, you ought to place it at the highest possible elevation, referring to nautical Chart 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 which is a national governmental nautical chart. The elevation of the Orient Fire Department house is approximately 20 feet above sea level. Immediately to the northeast, north of che Main Road, within a one mile radius of the firehouse, the elevation rises approximately 100 feet as can be seen from the contours on the chart cited above. That's 100 feet above sea level. If . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 121 1 e 3 the tower could be built in a wooded area in which, for example, the tree height was 50 feet and an additional height of 10 to 20 feet would clear the foliage of the trees, placing the tower at an elevation of 50 feet, plus the tower height of 70 feet would yield an effective height of 120 feet above sea level, which is close to the height requested by the cell tower. So by simply changing location and going to this higher elevation, we will have achieved the desired 120 feet, which is being requested. The advantages are immediately clear, the lower portion of the tower would be hidden by the wooded areas foliage leaving only a 10 to 20 foot portion visible to the eye. Because it is placed high on the terrain, the antenna can see both sides of the high dune, thus eliminating many dead spots or weak signal areas about which the department has serious concerns. This, therefore, has a technical advantage over a 12 story vertical edifice directly adjacent to the Village Lane, immediately in the heart of the community, which would disfigure the village by its quasi industrial appearance. This village is a little gem, surrounded as it is north, south, east and west by the bodies of the water, the sound and inland sea, Hallocks Pond, Orient Harbor, and the not so distant Gardener's Bay. This is a village not of the rich or the extremely rich but of the hard working, middle class people of which I am one. The country store, the post office, surrounding the streets with their modest homes, a bit modest, but we like it that way. The cell tower is completely out of character. Now I wish to speak of the heart of the community. What do I mean by the heart of the community? We know that the members of the fire department perform a wonderful service to this community, often at personal sacrifice and sacrifice to their families. We know that many members of the fire department have been members for generations and members of the oldest families that have settled in this area in former times and naturally must take great pride in that heritage. In a great sense, this is their place, the fire department not being simply a service but an important part of their social life. This is 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 122 1 e 3 their familial place. The place where they were born, where they were raised, the place of their boyhood traumas. We all have the familial place, the place where we call home, the place we return home to see our friends. The Memorial Day parade is a magnificent sight. One can see all the members of the department and their families participating in their rite, the laying of the wreaths in each of the monuments. The members of the fire department and their families are indeed the heart of the village. They have our highest approbation. The heart of this village is in some sense the heart of America. I wish to address the matter of the radio frequency radiation from the proposed cell tower. C~er the years the Federal Communication Commission and many other interested parties including the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, have attempted to arrive at a standard for radio frequency and electromagnetic field safety. Just as the sun's radiation affects our skin, so too radio frequency radiation has physiological effects. And measurement of the magnitude of the radiation is made as an electric and magnetic field intensity that is most often ':¡iven in the measurement given the paradensity, which is the parape unit area measured in watts per square meter. That is the engineer passes through a surface area. It can also be given in milliwatt per square centimeter, the standard use is called a Maximal Permissible Exposure or MPE. In the application made by the Orient Fire Department, Affordable Housing Associates, Beacon Wireless Management and others in the asset informity assessment Paragraph 4 they state: "With respect to the FCC limits for public exposure comparisons of the weighted and combined analytical results indicate that the maximum level associated with proposed base station antennas, the summation, the maximum values for each service is at least 33 times below the MPE; that is to say, approximately three percent of the MPE. Admittedly, the scientific evidence is in their favor, quite obviously, this amount of radiation lS small. I do not mean to be contentious, but if we make an error, it is a moral imperative to err on the side of caution. We do this every da)r in L,ur 1 i ves; we must always err on the side of 2 4 5 " 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 123 1 5 caution. Remember each student will be exposed to this radiation through all the school day and from kindergarten through the sixth grade for a period of seven years. It is our children who will suffer the cumulative effects of this radiation. It therefore behooves us to act prudently and providently for our children. Our children are our treasure. The owner of the cell tower in all probability stands to make millions of dollars for which he will give the fire department some thousands of dollars a ::ear. But no amount of money should cause us to possibly endanger the welfare of our children. We therefore request an independent on-site assessment of the possible deleterious effects of the cell tower radiation. This assessment should not be a computer simulation but a field measurement made in the vicinity of the Oyster Pond School. Is it not prudent to choose a site away from the school? Why choose a site so close to the school when it is not necessary? As argued abo'le, not the most effective site for antenna communications, it is simply in the wrong place. In summary, by locating the fire district antenna at a higher elevation preferably on the high dune, you would first solve the aesthetics problem, secondly, largely insure against weak signal areas; and third, essentially eliminate the possible cumulative, longer term deleterious health effects on the Oyster Pond School population. The life of the contract made with Beacon Wireless is 30 years. Do the parents of this community really wish to have their children exposed to this radiation for 30 years? We ask the Zoning Board to deny this application. It is ~n antenna in the wrong place. Now I wish to also mention with respect to alternate possibilities of the position of the antenna the Federal Communication Commission has what is called an antenna structure registration. On the net I searched the Greenport area, and there are four structures which are in the Greenport area. The first one is registered 1039820 and has a height of 160.7 feet; the second is a structure, its registration is 1003627, and its height is 360 feet. I will give these papers to you because they give the latitude and longitude so you can actually see it on the chart. 2 · 3 4 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 124 1 5 The third is registered 1033042. Its height is 377 feet, and it is owned by the Village of Greenport. The last is 446 feet, its registration number is 1041889. So we wish to offer these as alternative venues. The position in the village is simply the incorrect place, the wrong place to place this antenna. Thank you "'\lery much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd, I think Mrs. Tortora would like to ask you a question. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In relation to what he said, how long is the lease for? MR. BOYD: I think it could be renewed as much as for 30 years. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the initial 2 · 3 4 6 7 8 9 terms? 10 MR. CANNUSCIO: The initial term is fi'le ý'ears for options for five additional five year terms. 11 · 14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Could we have a copy of the lease agreement, please? MR. BOYD: I'll be happy to pro'lide you with a copy of the lease agreement. I was just curious when he said the length of the lease. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Has the fire department ever thought that the idea of putting that antenna on Brown's Hills, putting the antenna there? 12 13 15 16 HR. BOYD: First off, we don't own any land up there in Brown's Hills. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you know of any land up there, a five acre parcel that would be large enough? MR. BOYD: I certainly don't know of any five acre parcel that would be, if available, affordable. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are there houses up there in Brown's Hills; there are residences up there? 17 18 19 20 21 MR. BOYD: Yes, certainly. It's not virgin land. We have looked into a lot of possibilities. I note that we're talking about some tall tower in Greenport and such, I'm sure we could have our expert address that because the distance, the horizontal distance from the area we wish to serve precludes that. ¡'IS. HOPKINS: My name is Ann Hopkins. I live in Orient on Platt Road, and I am currently President of the Orient Association, which is a 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 125 1 5 civic association of approximately 200 residents and property owners of Orient. I have a prepared statement, but I'm not going to read it all because I know time is late, but I was very glad that finally a name that I think has been quite carefully kept out of all this discussion, namely vincent Cannuscio, has been raised because in all of this talk in the fire department and police department needs and of the cellular tower companies that we have not mentioned the fact that the fire department's lease is with vincent Cannuscio of Affordable Housing doing business as Beacon Wireless Management. And I feel that it is ':ery important that we keep in mind that he is a real estate developer; that he's under whatever name he uses, his company, is not a public utility. Although he says he intends to sublease space on the tower to a wireless communications company, that does not give him the right to special treatment as a public utility. We don't know for all this talk and all the maps, whether all of these companies will still be in existence by the time any tower gets built, the way things are changing. I have my own cell phone with AT&T Wireless, and I have the impression that it might be sold to somebody else. So I don't think we should count on that. The Orient Association has received many inquiries in recent weeks from residents concerned about this proposal. We have heard from native Orienters and newcomers, and they are all united in believing that there must be a way to meet the real communication needs of the fire department without this tower in this place. We are convinced that they are correct. This proposal means that this tower as currently proposed would be 40 feet taller than the steeple of the Orient Congregational Church across the road which has been the highest structure in our hamlet since it was first erected in 1843. The fact that at that height this tower might have to be lighted just makes it worse, as does the industrial complex that would accompany this structure. One new homeowner of a house behind Village Lane was cited to enhance its view of the steeple is appalled to learn that he might ha','e this monster in his sight as well. I myself am equally appalled that I would see it across the field from my house on Platt Road hundreds of 2 · J 4 6 7 8 9 lû 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2û04 126 1 9 yards away. But all residents of Orient as well as those who merely stop by to visit would be adversely affected by a monstrosity of this size immediately adjacent to the historic district. It is important to note that the five fire commissioners are elected by Orient tax payers and thus have an obligation like all elected officials to listen to and respect the views of those they represent, something they have largely declined to do. Many members of the fire department are among those opposing the decision to allow Mr. Cannuscio to lease fire district property. The lease does not require Mr. Cannuscio to install new or upgrade existing fire department equipment; in fact, the lease prohibits the fire department from installing equipment that might interfere with his own installation. One member of the fire department is reported to have asked Mr. Cannuscio why do we need you; why indeed? One possible answer, of course, is that the commissioners are tempted by the prospect of the income the fire district would receive. But in the two years the lease has been in effect, the department has received no income and has been determined by several court cases any future income would be offset by loss of the district's tax exempt status. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 Orient residents have always been willing to support our fire department. We would rather pay for whatever facilities the department needs ourselves without entangling ourselves with Mr. Cannuscio. A group of Orient residents have joined together as a committee of the Orient Association, one of whom members is John McLinskey to explore alternative solutions to the fire department's genuine need to improve its communications equipment. If there is a demonstrable need for additional antennas in the Orient area besides the one in the steeple of the congregational church, something that has not yet been proven, and I don't believe it has just because of these impressive demonstrations, because anyone who is having trouble with reception in our area can switch to a carrier that can accommodate them, but if there is a genuine need, the members of this ,~ommittee are ready to help telecommunications companies locate appropriate sites. Together they 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 127 1 7 can provide a wide range of technical expertise and experience, and they have made it clear that they are eager to assist the fire department in meeting its telecommunications need without destroying the historic beauty of our hamlet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask Mrs. Hopkins some questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We just heard testimony for a couple hours from experts that say that the fire department needs to have an antenna that's 120 feet tall in order to provide adequate service for the fire fighters. Now, you're speaking to a person who lost two friends In a fire In Greenport. So, I understand the need for communication because if they had had communication such as we have today that these men could rely on, they would be alive today, I am wondering, I heard three people speak, I'm assuming they're all members of the Orient Association? MS. HOPKINS: Don't assume that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Two of you, you and this gentleman, and this gentleman here? MS. HOPKINS: Three, yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If In fact you're aware that the fire department has a problem and you have been aware of that for I would sa,; onwards of about five years and you come here, three people say to us, well, we can work with ~'ou, what have you done; what can you propose at this hearing to solve the problem? Which lS 120 feet for an antenna, what is it that you would like to propose for ue? MS. HOPKINS: Let me say that I am not at all an expert, that's one reason we ha,'e the committee. John lS ready to say things and there are other people who have said them. But we don't know, yes, they have said, yes, they need 120 feet. John has suggested you can have the 120 feet elsewhere and we just believe that nobodj' has the force behind this project now, initially the fire department had it except that the fire department likes the idea of the income from the tower. They have the force behind it, it has been Mr. Cannuscio. If you were to eliminate that factor and sit down with the fire department and figure out, do you really have to have 120 feet 2 e 3 4 ~ ~ 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 128 1 9 there or can you do it -- we know that one report indicated that a great deal of the problem had to do with 25 year old equipment that they had. I'm not going to get into that because I truly am not informed on that. AUDIENCE MEMBER: May I address that? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Sir, I'm going to tell you right off the bat, I worked in the cable industry for 20 years. I held at one time a FCC Class 1 license of a microwave attachment, so I heard what you read before and honestly I wouldn't hand that in as evidence. What I would really like for you to do, I would really love to hear because I understand, you guys live in a beautiful place, I love going down there. I always say to my wife I got to get my passport out so I can go down to Orient. Believe me, I've grown up with a tower in my front yard, back yard all my life, the highest one you mentioned, that's the one I looked at all my life. It's not pretty. It's visible but it's not pretty. And I want to hear a solution. I heard three people say to me, we want to work with you, but this is going on for fi\'e ,,'ears. Now, what happens tomorrow when one of these guys get caught in a house, and they go to press that on button and it doesn't work? That's what we need to address. MR. MCLINSKEY: Sir, may I say this to ý-ou? I agree with you completely. When firemen lose their lives it is the greatest concern to us, after all, this is our fire department. Not yours, ours. In answer to your previous question, I had mentioned to you that YOLl can get the height that you specified of 120 feet by simply going to a higher elevation. You can go to the right on the nautical chart where you can see the contours, you see it goes up to 100 feet. You can easily take and place a tower up on that high dune and you will easily get 120 feet or more. This will definitely cover the dead spots about which the fire department has concern. So this can be done by the fire department. It is not a cellular Cower solution. It is a solution for y~ur problem as firemen and as policemen. This is where you get height by going to high elevation, and if you do so you will sharply reduce the loss of signal and most certainly reduce the possibility of having weak signals. ~ L e 3 4 5 G 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 2û 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 129 1 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You yourself said that the emission from these towers will be dangerous? MR. MCLINSKEY: You wish me to repeat the testimony? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, I would like to hear what some other people have to say. MR. MCLINSKEY: It is not dangerous, I'm saying it's the cumulative effect on our children at the local school. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All you're doing then is moving the problem. MR. MCLINSKEY: I'm not moving the problem. I'm simply saying if you go tG a higher elevation, you will have 120 feet, and jOU will remove the problem of eradiating the children because it will be a mile away. 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: away from you. It will be a mile 17 MR. MCLINSKEY: Away from the school. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So it's just the school 2'ou're concerned about? MR. MCLINSKEY: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: question, the cellular people, tower be built if the cellular inside that tower? MR. MCLINSKEY: I am not concerned with the cellular tower itself. If a cellular tower can be placed in such place where it does not harm the aesthetics of the community, that's fine. I have no objection to the work. I'm simply saying this cellular tower should not be placed at almost sea level, 20 feet above sea level, which is the location where it is now. I have one more would you let this phone were not 12 13 · 14 15 16 18 19 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: no alternative. I>1R. MCLINSKEY: The al ternati '1e is to go to a higher elevation about one mile away. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But do you own land I agree, but I see 21 22 there? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd really like to hear what other people have to say. MS. MACARTHUR: My name is Frances MacArthur, we are building a house within 200 feet Gr maybe 300 feet of that tower. There was a rumor, and I/m not sure it/s true, that the ferry landing offered not only to allow a high tower to 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 130 1 9 be built on their property, but also to cede the income to the fire department. If it is possible to continue to pursue something like that it might solve the problem of destroying the agricultural nature of the property. We and other people who li'le in the immediate region of the fire department bought our property to enjoy. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Gillooly, did you have a question? MR. GILLOOLY: I'm Richard Gillooly. I'm not a very good public speaker, so please excuse me. We have had a lot of experts testify here I'm sure at great expense. I think a lot of what has been said here is the feelings of both sides of the community. I think if you took a hand count, chere isn't anybody who doesn't want the fire department to have what they need. In fact, we want them to have better than what other people have because they deserve it for all the reasons stated before. I think there's another way to do this. I think that these experts that -- and I hire experts in my own business. The experts trý' to find reasons to support the people, the person that hired them, not the alternatives. Your point is well taken about alternatives, and I don't know why there hasn't been other alternatives developed; it's a very valid point, and something we need to address right away for the fire department, and I fully support that not only with my opinion but with my checkbook, and let's come to an answer, but I think this tower idea, the contract is flawed. We don't need the guy who's putting it together to have a five year lease and chen walk away from it if he doesn't want to do it anymore. He has a right of assignment of the contract; we don't know who we'll be dealing with then. Half the income is going to him personally. Why don't we do it if all that revenue can be erected for $100,000 tower? We can do it ourselves. We don't need to hire somebody else to do what we need for our community. And I think we can figure out how to do what we need for the fire department without bothering you guys who work for nothing or all of these people who are here who work for nothing. It's sort of inartfully put but -- 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 · 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Reale? October 21, 2004 131 1 9 MR. REALE: It's getting late, and I know 2'ou've had a long day here. This could go on for a long time, but I'd like to make a few points. First is you've heard a lot of technical information today from the proponents of the tower. Probably none of this was in the file before today, so we would like to ask the Board if the file could be kept open at the end of today for whatever period deemed necessary so comments could be made and further information would be supplied in response to this, and also to that which we may not get to today because of the hour. So we would ask for a couple of weeks to submit and leave the record open. Secondly, I think we need to bring this back to what this Board's role is in this entire application. This Board is charged with the review of the special exception permit for a cellular tower. The Town code, the Town Board has enacted a law sets forth specific standards. The laws on a special exception use says, if you can prove that you meet those standards, you've got to give it to them; if they don't, they don't get it. That's what a special exception is. My understanding of the zoning law is it's not your power to vary the Town Board's standards for special exception. There's been no testimony here with respect to the specific standards of the special exception use today. There's been nothing about the standards for variance of which you're all very familiar with, I don't have to enumerate them, we don't have time. Not e"ven any testimony offered on why variances are needed or the standards for variances. So taking that from right at this point, I don't think this particular tower can be approved by this Board given the testimony thus far and what we've heard today. Another separate and unrelated point and In part addressing what Mr. Dinizio said earlier, the Orient Association in communicating with me has been very concerned, they're the people who are ser"Tled by the emergency ser~~Tices f 'Iery concerned about not being opposed to whatever is best for the emergency service. One point that we made to the fire district back in last December, when we were looking into what issues were presented by this application, particularly the private intermediary Beacon Wireless Affordable 2 . 3 4 5 I; 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 132 1 8 Housing Associates is that the fire district loses its potential for its tax exemption. Right now the property's tax exempt and it should be. There are numerous case decisions by the state controller and the attorney general where when a private use is imposed on a tax exempt piece of property, the entire property loses its tax exempt status. We didn't leave that for today to leave it as a surprise. I wrote a letter to Mr. Boyd December 3rd of last year, giving him the decisions and telling him we're concerned about that. It's a concern that residents of the fire district are going to have to pay the taxes if they lose the exemption, then the assessments are going to be even higher. So whatever profits are generated by this tower by the developer of the tower, may In fact be negated or at least reduced by the loss of the tax exemption. I do want to submit this letter just so it's clear the Association's trying to work with them on this. We never did get an answer and I think you should look at that lease. That question that was raised about the lease is important. There's nothing in the file to indicate who all these applicants are. If you look through the file you'll see there are five or six notices of disapproval going back to a year and a half or so, different cast of characters, the only one being consistent is the district. We have now AT&T and Omnipoint on board, I think T-Mobile was on board at some point. There's nothing in the record to indicate what that relationship is other than maybe speculation that if you get the tower then we'll come. There is a lease between the Affordable Housing Associates, Beacon Wireless and the fire district which really should be in the file as well, and I think it should be reviewed by the Town to see the impact that has to possibly the tax assessment on this. And again, it's one of the reasons to go back to what Mr. Dinizio was saying why there's concern about this private invol 'Jement . Another separate point that I would like to address on paper later is Mr. Boyd opened today saying we're exempt, we're the fire district, we're exempt. In fact, he didn't mean exempt, he said there's a balancing test and he enumerated the standards for 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 133 1 . 3 the balancing test. you still have this thing. But even if that private component lS the case, to this 2 9 Mr. Ray said it's a superb application as a lawyer, it's magnificent, it's masterful. We have the fire district, we have Mr. Cannuscio's company and all these other things coming in at once. We don't know whether we're dealing with the fire department, the fire district, a private entity, a public utility, it's all mixed together, which makes your decision a little more difficult but also blurs the lines about what are the standards. You still have the special exception permit, you still have the variance standards, they have to be dealt with, even if the fire department gets the balancing test treatment, the other applicants don't and Beacon Wireless is not a utility. Assuming that there is a real contract with AT&T and Omnipoint, its very applicants say it's superb, it's brilliant, but that doesn't mean that we just have to turn our eye because there halle been tragedies, there have been safety issues. 4 5 c· 7 8 10 11 12 13 17 Just to address Mr. Dinizio, one last thing, it's the applicant's burden to demonstrate to this Board that they have tried other things, that they have looked into other means of addressing the communication problem, whether it's repeaters or greater height or lesser height, those are issues beyond me. But there hasn't been any demonstration of that either. There's been this conclusory statement that we need 120 feet period. There was a report floating around back in December that was done for the district that was done by an expert, his name was Weyherter, W-E-Y-H-R-E-T-E-R, who is some sort of electrical engineer, who said they needed 90 foot tower to address their needs and that was dated February 23, 2003. So, no one's opposed to trying to get the best emergency services, no one that I have spoken to in the entire Orient area, but that hasn't been demonstrated that that is the least that we can do, and it hasn't been demonstrated that that meets the code. I will reserve other submissions for papers. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MR. DROSKOSKI: My name is Stanley Droskoski. I live in Orient. I have been a e 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 134 1 9 life-long resident of Orient. I have served the Town of Southold as a police officer for 32 years the later portion of it as chief of police. I wrote a letter not too long ago and I'll submit it to the Board but there's no sense reading it again. But I have listened to some of the testimony of the people here today. I'm not qualified to question the legal aspects or the intricacies of the tower itself, but I listened to this gentleman orate here for quite some period of time and he said it all in the first tWG sentences: lilt's across the street from my house." He could have sat down after that. heard say that they're concerned about the children in the school but presently there's a tower in the church right next to the school, and if that isn't bothering the children, I don't know why this one would. We're talking about aesthetics, it all boils down to aesthetics. We're not talking about need to how it looks. When you talk about a tower that's 120 feet tall, and you say you put it on Brown's Hill so you only have 50 foot showing, but it's still up there 120 feet because it's from sea level, I imagine that's how something like this is measured. Someone said that Mr. Cannuscio is benefiting, perhaps he is but I think we reached out to him; he didn't reach out to us. Am I wrong? I thought we reached out to him. My wife and I are here today to stand up and be counted to tell you that we are in favor of this tower. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Ma'am? MS. DUFF: Hi, my name is it Sue Duff, I'm from Orient Point, I'll be brief. I have one question for the last gentleman here. He said that the fire department would lose their tax exemption; did the church? My next question live in Orient Point. I lose electricity, I m',' phones, I lose my water and I have a cell that doesn't work. I would like that to be remedied. MS. DEMEREST: My name is Frances Demerest, and I was born and brought up in Orient Point. ~1y husband was better than a 55 year member of the fire department. I am a 50 years charter member of our ladies auxiliary. When the fire department needed a new building, the Orient I ' ~~Te ¿ . 3 4 " ~ 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 is I lose phone ~~ LL 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 135 1 9 Association bucked. The building was redrawn much smaller, which we have a kitchen that if you put four females in it you're almost bumpin9 each other's butt. Because there was not enough storage space or anything else, they had to put the metal annex building up for other supplies. I think this was very unfair to the community. If I remember right the firehouse originally cost a million dollars, and what they did there to have enough space is much more than a million dollars, and I hope that your committee will approve what we want in Orient. Also, I am a member of the Orient Association. MS. MCNEELEY: Hello, mj' name is Ellen McNeeley. I'm a resident of Orient. I have been for 17 years and I'm the cochair of the subcommittee of the Orient Association that did a lot of work in review on the issue of the tower when it first came up. I wanted to address something that you said, Mr. Dinizio, this committee has repeatedly and in writing asked both che chief, Michael Rose and the Chairman, Martin Trent to meet and sit down with members of the fire department in order to discuss what cheir needs really were and what their problems really were. We have stories about being up on Green Acres and not being able to communicate, but we don't know. We have never been able to get them co define for us which equipment, under which circumstances, in which locations and what the complete congeries of the problems are because it can be any number of them, not the least of which would be the 25 year old equipment that they have been working with which we don't have any kind of records necessarily of maintenance in order to know. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 2ü 22 The only thing they did was to hold an informational meeting at one point this past fall, ',.¡loich was much more of a presentation b,' Beacon similar to what you have seen here today, rather than an actual addressing of the technical issues that we have repeatedly called for. I have some comments on the amendment of che application from John Turner, who is the Ph.D. in physics and electrical engineering and a military communications specialist, who is teaching at NYU, otherwise he would be here today. He has said that they have requested a 25 21 23 24 e 25 October 21, 20ü4 136 1 9 foot flag pole along to host a new UHV emergency communications antenna along with the fire district's present low band antenna in the Southold Police's high band antenna. Further, the ~pplication states that this approach is the only method available to provide adequate communications throughout the district. This statement, he alleges, is incorrect based upon technical information. It's been difficult, however, for us on this last go-round to examine the technical information because of the late filings with the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to technical information that has never been supplied to us for our technical people to review. Part of the issue in anj' kind of a public situation like this is that both sides must ha'ie ample time to review and to make judgments on what the technical issues are for presentation for final 'lot.e. Until the time the OFD shares with the community the specifics of the difficulties they are having in emergency communications, there's no way for the community to have confidence that any proposed remedy, in this case a large antenna and an upgrade to UHF, will solve the problems they are having. In addition, we understand that if they upgrade to a higher power, which the proposal claims requires a higher tower, the department will face two problems: It may not be able to communicate with other departments, including East r-larion and Greenport unless they also upgrade, which is evidently a problem that has already confronted other districts. We don't have anything in the budget or know of anything in the budgets for those other communities that would indicate that they are upgrading, and, therefore, would be able to communicate with the new high band communications that Orient is seeking. There will also be considerable additional expense involved to upgrade the equipment on trucks and bases, not simply the antenna and whatever, and we have very much agreed that we "'ant very much to help them to acquire whate-Jer equipment that they need in order to meet the safety requirements of the town, but we need more cooperation from them in terms of the technical information and review, and we need some further demonstration that this 125 foot tower lS, in 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 12. 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 137 1 7 fact, technically required. The lease itself is rather tricky because among other things -- I won't go into great detail -- but the Orient Fire District is required to pay for insurance to protect the district and Beacon. The OFD is required to indemnify Beacon for the fire department's actions and any environmental problems caused by the OFD or anybody else. Their payment obligations of the fire department that ()ccur in the absence of any re~lenue of the tower. As is noted by the Orient Association previously, it's not clear where we would obtain any funds to pay for these amounts except from the community by raising taxes. And there is a lot of contingent liability risks that are inherent in that lease that have not been addressed properly by the fire district at this point, and we want to get together with them to resolve all of these issues without too much further time being lost. MR. BURDEN: My name is Howard Burden, I live at Middleton Road, Greenport. The Cablevision tower in Greenport is right in my backyard, and it doesn't bother me in the least. I was born on Village Lane in Orient, 1700 Village Lane in Orient, and in 1965 we moved out to Orient Point, 38200 Main Road in Orient, and Miss Waxberger, when I was at my dad's -- I'm taking care of my 80 year old father who lives in Orient now back at the old homestead -- and last week when I got this card I looked at it, and prior to that a week ago or 10 days ago, Orient Point was without telephone service for basically a week, ga'Je my father my cell phone said, Here, if you need me call me. Well, forget that because cell phones don't work. The fire department uses cell phones as well as they're a great source of back-up communication, and I heard todaý' Miss Waxberger said all the comment was for being against the construction of the tower. I see spots on that map that still have dead spots out In Orient Point, maybe we need a 200, 250 foot tower to cover all of Orient. So that you have people that do have back-up communications and the fire department is taken care of. Orient's very dear to me. I certainly don't want to see it destroyed, but it's also disturbing when I ride to Orient and I see the flashing yellow lights that introduce you to the school area, but if that's L. e 3 4 5 ó 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 October 21, 2004 138 1 9 what's necessary to keep one child from being injured, then we have to have it; it's that simple. And the fire department needs the ::ommunication capacity now, not in two lrears, not in five years because a life could be lost tonight because they don't have the communication. So the foot-dragging by the Orient Association has got to step. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia, do you have something? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Actually, just some housekeeping so that perhaps we can clear up some =¡ray areas, maybe not. Going through the code requirements required to be submitted, I would ask that you review thoroughly 100, 163, Items A through E inclusively, with particular attention to documentation including notarized statement by the applicant as to whether construction of the wireless communication facility will accommodate collocation of additional antennas for future uses. I need seven copies of the deed or lease agreement establishing applicant's right to use; nine search ring affidavits prepared, signed sealed qualified radio, et cetera. MR. BOYD: I believe we submitted all 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 .s 10 11 12 13 · 14 that. 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don't think we have seen collocation to the extent which would explain -- MR. BOYD: I believe that's all been submitted some time ago. We have submitted affidavits. We have submitted affidavits from radio frequency engineers, propagation map, search ring affidavits, the affidavit ef collocation, each and every requirement in the code was submitted and then supplemented recently with some supplemental material. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I didn't in my packet, maybe it's an oversight. asking to review that. MS. KOWALSKI: If you can refer to those items and tell us where it is within the documentation because there have been so many changes. MR. BOYD: index where it is. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: get that I'm just 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 We will go over all that and · 25 We don't have the lease agreement. October 21, 2004 139 1 7 MR. BOYD: I'm not sure what the lease agreement has to do with the decision of this Board, but we'll be happy to provide that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd, we're missing two members who haven't heard a lot of this. Also it does state in the code we are not experts in this whole field, that we can hire an engineer of our own choosing, which you will have to pay for, to give us some legal and expert testimony because ~~u're talking to -- except for Jim who knows a bit about it -- but we're really unaware of the technicalities, and we think this is such an important issue, that we want to make sure that we make the right determination because, first and foremost, we are all interested in the safety of the people of Orient and East Marion. So we will have our meeting two weeks from today, because we have to discuss among ourselves how we want to proceed with this. So I want to adjourn this hearing and keep it open. MR. BOYD: With the indulgence of the Board, I would like to provide Mr. Scheibel a few minutes to discuss some of these points that have been raised about the alternate locations for a tower and so forth. He is the expert on this matter, and I think it would be enlightening if he could speak. I also want to make sure that we don't get off the track on this thing. It seems that a lot of objection has centered around the fact that there will be cellular collocation on this tower, and I want to remind members of this Board that this tower is being built for the fire department and public safety communications use of the Southold Town Police Department. The fact that there will be cellular tenants collocated on that tower is not the driving force at all. It is the fire communications that are required, and with that I would like to give it to Mr. Scheibel to talk. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's a dual application that you have. MR. BOYD: It is a dual application because we wanted to tr~r and avoid the necessity for the co-tenants to have to come back and make additional applications and to further burden the Board applications they would have to make to collocate on that tower. We'd like to do it all at once, but the primary thing that's driving this 2 . 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 October 21, 2004 140 1 9 is the fire district's need for communications. Bill ? MR. SCHEIBEL: I just need to clarify something, please. I was hired by the fire department. The fire department, who I have been maintaining for years, I have not been paid, I am here right now because I am here. I can tell you, I drove part of this. I have said to the fire department, you do have a bunch of old stuff there, and it's not going to get the job done for 2'OU. But as I stated earlier, to upgrade what's there without a whole scale upgrade of the communications capability is not in keeping with the mechanisms of the fire departments today. You have to give fire departments the best tools available and a wholesale upgrading of the equipment out there now is like half baking a cake. And I'm trying, I tried really hard In putting together everything I did in trying to show based on the parameters the fire department gave me, which was including Plum Island, give us the best coverage you can, do what other fire departments are doing, and that's what I came up with. To address individual issues like moving the tower to another site, there's always the possibility of moving the tower to another site, but the FCC only lets you apply for your license to put you in a specific place. The norm for that, the standard in the industry is to put that at the firehouse for the simple reason you need to control that transmitter locally. You don't want to try and remotely control that transmitter because there's other variables that now you have to deal with like can my dispatcher override someone who's trying to control a locally remoted transmitter, you don't do that. You can use mlcrowave, that's a great answer. Do you have any idea what it costs to put that system in or what kind of tower you need? You need to hang a microwave dish on. Way bigger than what you need to hang the antenna at 120 feet on. Look, I don't make this stuff up. This is what I do for a living. I've been a radio hobbit since I was five years old. This is what I do. I love doing this, and I'm not going to try and steer anyone of my targets wrong. I do this for every department east of Exit 62, and I just try to do the best job I can do for the fire 2 · 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 141 1 7 department. And relative to specific issues about putting it in a different place, yeah, we could put it in a different place, but there are other issues and you just stated one of them. Sure, put In microwave, but that's a bigger tower and bigger piece of hardware. Now you have to have a dish that's three feet in diameter, that's higher than everything around it directly aimed at the other site; it has to be higher than anything that's around it. Does anybody want to look at that any more than they want to look at the 120 foot flag pole? I don't know. I'm just trying to do a job. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. I think we would like to caucus for a few minutes, please. IWhereupon, a short recess was taken.) (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Back on the record. We have decided that the two applications must be separated. The cellular tower should be one, and the communications tower, the variances the other. What we will need is a height variance on that. We will hear the height variance on some sort of structure to improve the communications of the fire department and the police department on November 18th at 1:00 p.m. Thank you all for coming. 2 · 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 · 14 15 19 MR. RAY: Ma'am Chairman, what about the second application for collocation? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You'll have to apply separately for that. MR. RAY: And our application, you want us to resubmit all the documentation that we have already submitted? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's up to you. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Clarification here and I think this is what the synopsis of what we agreed to, the Orient Fire Department, if it wishes to create a 125 foot tower for its own use, does not require a special exception as a special district from this Board. That is what we are in essence ruling on at this juncture. In reviewing the code we all unanimously agree that that lS the case. That does not extend to public utilities. However, you will require a height variance. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I'll make a motion. May I have a second? (See minutes for resolution.) 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 · 25 October 21, 2004 142 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 21st day of October, 2004. I -/,!- I ) /l' ./)f~Þ. IV~ U Florence V. Wiles October 21, 2004