Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/30/2006 Hearing 1 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 '"'J\~\)'\ : '.1 ~ :J ,_I) T Ll.- c' ~Ay ,i c,tt;- " ,<,-+" ,;, '': (J [ \, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------x TOW N o F SOU THO L D Z 0 N I N G BOA R D APPEALS o F --------------------------------------------x Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York November 30, 2006 9:30 a,m, Board Members Present RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman GERARD p, GOEHRINGER, Board Member LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney , ORIGINAL' COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is our regularly scheduled Board meeting of November 30, 2006. I'd like a motion saying all our following applications have no effect on the environment. (See minutes for resolution.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing lS for Mr. Frank Mele; is there someone here to speak on this? Good morning. MR. MELE: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Tell us what you want 2 e 3 4 6 7 to do. 9 MR. MELE: We're proposing to install a swimming pool in my side rear yard of my residence located at 305 Gardiners Lane in Southold. Propose to install an oval pool, kidney-shaped to be less than 16 by 32 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that pool then, you say it's kidney-shaped, that differs then from the indication you have on the survey which you submitted, which is the rectangular shape that is 16' by 32'? MR. MELE: Right. I was advised by the building department to submit plans for a rectangular shape that is 16' by 32', I will keep it kidney-shaped within that square. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's fine. MR. MELE: I have seven copies of the 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 plans. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: your problem is it's part part In the front yard? MR. MELE: Yes, over by that corner. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, we were all there. I don't have any problem with it, but, Jerry, any problem? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. The day I was there, Shamrock was taking a huge tree down. No objections. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I can see that's the only possible place to locate. You have a shed and a gravel drive on the other side of your property next to your neighbor. MR. MELE: The way my yard lS situated with my patio and sliding door, it all faces that side of the yard. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. heavily treed already. Okay, thank you. So in the side yard and 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 It's November 30, 2006 3 1 8 MR. MELE: And I will continue the arborvitaes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Along Gardiners? MR. MELE: Along Gardiners. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. I have no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You say you have a deck and the rest of your house is kind of skewed towards that side; lS that the living quarters? MR. MELE: Yes, exactly. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And your other side yard's kind of between the car and the boat over there? MR. MELE: And cesspools are located right there, and exactly behind my residence in that narrow portion of my rear yard, there's no room. I have a septic tank and one cesspool there. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there any reason why it can't go any closer to the house? MR. MELE: Right now the plan shows about 20 feet off the house, anything closer to that I think also will fence it within itself and anything close to the house by the time you put pavers around it -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's nothing that impedes you from putting it closer to the house other than what? MR. MELE: That I don't want it that close to the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's a good reason. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand it is a corner lot with technically two front yards, but if you had wanted to put the pool on the other side of the house it would still be in the side yard because the lot is not deep enough to allow a swimming pool behind the house, right? MR. MELE: Right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the issue isn't so much that it's on the Custer Avenue side but there's no other place. I don't recall, are there trees between where the pool will be and Custer Avenue? 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. MELE: There's trees there now. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's a screen of arborvitaes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But no big trees. e 25 November 30, 2006 4 1 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don't have a problem. This is a case where the requirement to put the pool behind the house is strained, makes it very difficult, in fact, the property isn't deep enough for that. And this is an exception not because it's a corner lot but simply because the lot is wider than it is deep. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're going to keep the pool open, you're not going to try and roof it in? 2 e 3 4 5 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We can put in all the normal stuff, it's not going to be covered, just putting pavers, no deck CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about dry 7 8 wells? e 14 MR. MELE: I already installed one, I have for my two gutters, I have a half inch one for the backwash. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where are you going to keep the mechanicals? MR. MELE: Right alongside the house. I put new pavers down right alongside the house where the swimming pool, the pump and filter will 00. 10 11 12 13 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? (See minutes for resolution.) 16 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for the Reinertsens on Arrowhead Lane in Peconic. They wish to build a new home. Hi, would you like to tell us what you want to do? MR. REINERTSEN: We want to build a new house on the lot we have and the lot is very long and not that deep. We would like to get some relief on the front and rear yards. We also would like to have a swimming pool In a side yard rather than the rear yard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Most of the lots by you are fairly squared off because I rode down there. MR. REINERTSEN: They're all fairly long and narrow, and they were originally subdivided In half acres and then in '63, an associate wanted everybody to build on an acre by two lot -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e 25 November 30, 2006 5 1 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, go ahead, Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What lS the nature of the cabana; what will it have In it; what will it be designed to do? MR. REINERTSEN: It's not going to be designed for living, one thing. It's just gOlng to be a bathroom so the kids can go in and throw their towels and change their wet suits and maybe we'll have an outside shower and inside shower to facilitate the pool so everybody doesn't run through our house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Outside shower would be better. Outside shower is what we would require. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We usually require the bathroom door to be open to the outside of the building. MR. REINERTSEN: It's just a place -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it's fine with you if we put that into our decision? MR. REINERTSEN: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any heat at all? MR. REINERTSEN: In the cabana? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. REINERTSEN: But I don't want to have to drain the water in the fall. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: My only question lS how you would feel about the possibility of simply setting it back a little bit further from the road. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 24 MR. REINERTSEN: Rear yard? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes. MR. REINERTSEN: I have no problem with that at all. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because you don't have much of a rear yard, you're not gOlng to be able to put anything back there? MR. REINERTSEN: We have no problem with that at all. The only reason we sited it where it is sited is because some of our neighbors were concerned about having the pool and the noise and what have you, and we had the house sited by the architect, and the house is designed to have the living spaces that way, the pool facilities, the living spaces, and when we clear trees to put the pool in, we're also looking to have solar photo panes on the roof for electricity and that would 18 19 20 21 22 23 e 25 November 30, 2006 6 1 9 also be part of it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You would be hard-pressed to get enough sun for those. I hope you have central heat on top of that, that's "ncillary. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie, how far would you want them to move back? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you have nothing but bramble back there. You have a fence, like a split-rail. MR. REINERTSEN: Farm back there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Nice view for you, but you're going to have to clear those brambles [or construction. I want to thank you for one thing, [or having it so carefully staked out, it was very clear. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Pathways were fairly easy to access. Sometimes when you go onto a virgin site it's very difficult to figure out how to relate a plan to what you're see1ng on the actual ground. MR. REINERTSEN: We didn't realize how bad it was and my surveyor came back and said I can't even hack my way into it. Take a chainsaw and take down a few of the older trees that are going to fall down anyway. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So how far back, 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 Leslie? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just make a 17 comment? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Jimmy wants to 18 comment. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The reason is it goes to that. Because when I looked at it, I was wondering if you couldn't just take the cabana and put it on the other side of the pool on the 45 foot side? MR. REINERTSEN: On the short side? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Behind it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just take the cabana and it looks like an accessory structure and just take it and move it to the other side, exactly the same just flip it; 1S that a possibility? MR. REINERTSEN: I don't have a problem, the only thing I thought of was a blind issue. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In fact, there 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 7 1 9 would be less impact on the street if the pool was in front. You can screen it with landscaping, things like that, and it won't look like there's another structure there. MR. REINERTSEN: We also were constrained, by the way, the surveyor made this house sort of to the center to the left, which makes us closer to our neighbors. We did not particularly want to skew our house to the left and what have you, but Celt that we were staying within that 35 foot envelope. If the Board doesn't have a problem, we would be happy to slide our whole thing to the right, to center it more and to give more relief to our neighbors and maybe more of a sound block as well. But I don't know what you allow within the envelope. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would be a little skeptical of that, you may have to reapply. MR. REINERTSEN: I don't want to get into 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 (chat. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You wouldn't have to if you just took the cabana and put it on the other side. We're looking to minimize the amount of relief we're going to grant. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And also minimize the cost and time for you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then you might have to have a separate dry well for the backwash and pool. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can tell you Crom experience, after they take in all the roof, the Slze of the dry wells, what it turns out to be, it's huge, so they shouldn't have too much trouble with sharing it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They will have plenty of room. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My concern lS consistent with the other ones that are raised. ^s the cabana, for example, is situated right now, it's not much farther from the street than the main house. So not only is it In the side yard, it's practically right up against the front yard and if both the pool and the cabana could be moved closer to the rear, or if the cabana could be put on the other side of the pool, then there would be less of a feeling that we've got two buildings facing the road which are about the same distance, 12 13 e 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 8 1 2 maybe a cabana on one side, as Jim said, another accessory building. So I certainly would not like to see the cabana stay exactly where it is. You seem to express a great deal of flexibility on this and I'm sure we can work something out. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There also has to be some sort of idea of a landscaping plan that you intend to put in front of the pool, at that point it would have been in front of the cabana but now in front of the pool, that would have shielded this pool from the road anyway. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And from your neighbors. MR. REINERTSEN: We were thinking about an arbovitae buffer. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As long as it's maintained so it doesn't die. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We'll put all that in. Is there anyone else in this audience that wishes to comment on this application? Yes, sir. MR. MCNAB: Hello, I'm Glen McNab. I'm the resident directly across the street from this property and my wife Yvonne and I are here to support this application. We have a similar situation, and you folks were gracious enough to grant us a varlance several years ago with the depth concerns, because as you mentioned, as you go south on Arrowhead Lane, the properties do get -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Shorter. MR. MCNAB: -- shorter in road frontage and deeper in depth. And people at the north end like myself, the properties starts out at 110 feet and then 400 feet and only goes to about 130. So three or four years ago, we were before this Board and you folks, as I mentioned, granted us a variance for front and rear setback relief and also a side yard pool, so I hope that would be extended to these folks as well. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anyone e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 else? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. MR. MURPHY: We're the Murphys, Jim Murphy, and this lS my wife Linda. We have the plot, the house directly south of the Reinertsens. We object to the pool, the location of the pool. I don't have any objections to the 35 feet instead of 50 feet on the back, we think that's a fair 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 9 1 2 request on their part, and other people got that, so we have no concern about that. We're concerned about the location of the pool. There is something on the books here that you can't have a side yard pool without getting a variance, so we're here to express our concern about that, and I did give to John in a phone call last week, that we're concerned about the noise. As it's set up now it will be 50 feet from our property line and there 1S no -- there could be pool parties at 2:00 1n the morning, we can't control that. MR. MURPHY: We're not saY1ng they're going to have it at 2:00 in the morning, but all our bedrooms are located on the side closest to their pool, the north side. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How far are you from the line? MR. MURPHY: I don't know. MRS. MURPHY: I'm sorry, we don't know that, but we bought the property originally for peace and quiet. We back onto a vineyard. All our bedrooms are located on that side of the house, so we did request 1n speaking to the Reinertsens that maybe they could flip it and put the pool on the other side and the cabana on the other side because that's a vacant lot on that side, and my husband right now is under treatment and he needs to have peace and quiet. We're worried about the pool. We're very worried about the noise factor, the factor of a pump. MR. MURPHY: I expressed to John that would he reconsider the location of the pool, and that's how basically we left our phone conversation. I did draw up a letter for the Board and also a copy for the Reinertsens, and we're also worried that with the pool there there 1S a risk factor, and we're worried about resale value and marketability of our house, obviously some day -- hopefully not so soon -- we'll be looking to sell our house, and I think people who come and see a pool next door may be turned off. I don't know how many people, 10 percent, 40 percent, I don't know. I don't have statistics, but people with a lot of children, oh, there's a pool, I'm not interested, let's find something else. And of course there's the noise and the risk. We'll have grandchildren some day, and I just am frightened by where are the kids. I'm e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 10 1 2 sure there will be fences. MRS. MURPHY: Yes, but children, kids climb fences, children do climb fences. And with the McNabs, they have it between their two structures. They do not have it on a side, near a neighbor. Ours, it will be on our side, and my main concern is we always go out there to relax, to sleep late, so do our sons, our relatives and friends, and we're worried about the noise factor, and I just wanted to show you this (handing). MR. MURPHY: We're looking for an alternative to putting the pool near our property, it's in violation of the code. Would you have any objections to putting it on the north side? John and Angela don't have a deep property, I understand that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say something? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you that in my experience on this Board, and I certainly accept your concerns, but we are usually dealing with 10 or 15 feet, not 50 feet. That was specifically why I asked these applicants for a specific landscaping plan, and I think that may be an issue that you may want to come up with. Secondly, there may be a consideration that you may want to consider running this pool the opposite way as opposed to across the frontage, maybe the opposite way, putting it a little bit closer to the house, putting the cabana exactly where it is and actually holding the entire landscaping plan all the way back the way back to the vineyard piece in the back, and I assure you that if you do that you probably would mitigate 50 percent of the noise to anybody. I don't care if it's the very nice people across the street or these very nice people, but, you know you are monopolizing the major portion of an "ntire side yard by the nature of that pool. And of course, we know that the pavers have to go around it so that's three feet more or more depending upon what you do, and then the fence around that, and so on and so forth, yes, the pool itself 1S within 50 feet, that may be another consideration that I would suggest to you. MR. REINERTSEN: Putting the cabana on the other side it's not a problem on for us but as far e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 11 1 8 as noise, I just want to say to the Murphys what I said before, we live in the city, we are very cognizant of noise, we live within shaking~hand distance of neighbors to us, and all our homes are very close. Pools don't make noise, people do, and as far as we're concerned, even whether we have a pool or didn't, we would have our patio on that side. It's the way our house is sited and barbeques, people, parties, dogs, volleyball, there's always something. We're interested in being good neighbors not bad neighbors. You are not acrimonious about this, we just have an opinion, and I think the Board gave us good suggestions and if that makes it better for him ~~ 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It puts it at 70 feet then? MR. REINERTSEN: Yes. And as far as Jim goes, I know he doesn't know exactly where his house is, but I paced it and it's not exactly but it's probably about 100 feet from the property line. 11 12 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There would be a landscaping buffer and moreover there is one way a pool makes noise and that's with pumping equipment. One thing we can suggest is that the noise that that equipment makes will be abated by two things, one is the most distant location feasible from your property and the other thing lS to make sure it's housed in a sound proof case, both of those things will insure that the birds are heard and the pool is not. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And all those things, all those recommendations in fact, they will be very specific. In our decision we might even ask to come and inspect when it's been completed. MR. REINERTSEN: If we turn the pool 90 degrees, will we move closer to the back fence? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're going to e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 have to. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, it will be closer to the back fence. MR. MURPHY: Are the applicants able to move it to within 10 feet of the back? I don't want to be ridiculous asking these questions. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, if you leave the thing at the exact same location that it's in and the cabana in the area where it is 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 12 1 2 now, it's 20 feet into that, so it's 25 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's going to be a ~5 foot rear yard setback. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're going to take another -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 20 off. MR. MURPHY: More than 50 feet from our e 3 4 5 6 property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MR. MURPHY: 70. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: exceptionally far from a side pools as accessory structures the edge of the structure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I make a 70 feet. 7 By the way, that lS yard boundary. Most are far closer to 8 9 comment? 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you attach the pool to the house, you wouldn't even need a variance for that. If you enclose the pool to the house, you wouldn't need a varlance. And you should know that, that they can go within 25 feet of their property. MRS. MURPHY: I'm sorry, we don't know 10 11 13 e 14 that. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. MRS. MURPHY: Could you say that again? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What I'm saYlng to you is, they're asking for an accessory structure In the side yard. If they make it a principal structure, if they cover it up with a house, they incorporate it into the house, they don't even need a variance for the pool. MRS. MURPHY: It would still be an outdoor structure? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. It could be covered and still be considered principal. What I'm sayings to you is, you're getting a lot from your neighbor through us at 50 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 70 feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If they didn't have the cabana -- MRS. MURPHY: The Town rule is you're not supposed to have a pool in the side yard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They can come to us Eor relief, that's the rule. The rule is you can't, by right, build an accessory structure in the side yard unless you have some hardship, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 13 1 8 that's the rule. It's not illegal to do it. We're not granting them the legality, we're just saYlng, look, here's your lot, narrow, although it's long, the house should be commensurate with the size of the lot. They could build a bungalow if they wanted to. They could take the pool and put it within 10 feet of your side yard, if they so choose and still be perfectly legal without even getting a variance if they lessened their back yard of the house; all of that comes into consideration for us. So, I mean, I just want to point out to you that you're gaining a lot from your neighbor's consideration because he could be creative -- and we've seen creativity on this Board to the point where neighbors never talk to each other again. So I hear what you're saying. MRS. MURPHY: I think the reason why lS because the structure's not built yet, whereas the other man came for his pool and his structure's already built, that's our thought. None of these have been built yet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you're 170 feet away from a pool, unless the wind is blowing In the right direction and if they're fairly quiet, you're not going to hear much of anything, I can just tell you from our own experience. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, I would take the 50 feet and if you just walk around and put the cabana -- if you just swapped it around and put the cabana between his yard and your pool, you created yourself a nice little zone there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't have any problem with leaving the pool the way it is, but if they want to rotate it that's fine too. MR. MURPHY: I'm worried about noise at 2:00 in the morning, jack hammers going, while they're building. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It will be nOlSY for a while, I know that, I work in the industry. MRS. MURPHY: We're just saying is there a way, let's say they happen to rent their house or friends or whatever, that is our concern. Their children will be growing and that was our concern. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All that could still happen, you know you could do that too. I just kind of want to point out to you that he's being a really great neighbor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you for your 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 14 1 2 comment. I think someone else has something to say. Thank you very much, we appreciate it. Yes, . ? SlY. e 3 9 MR. WALDMAN: Howard Waldman, I live at 4760 Indian Neck Lane, soon to be at 95 Arrowhead thanks to the Board. Anyway, I'd like to say I hope you grant to these kind folks what you did for me, the setbacks and all that. As far as the pool's concerned, I lived in Southold before, in Lhe Hamlet of Laurel, we had a pool within 50 foot of our neighbors, and there is a noise ordinance in the Town of Southold, I think it's either 10:00 or 11:00. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, we don't have that. I wish we did, unfortunately -- but if there's too much noise, you just call the police and report a disturbance and they do come and ask the people to quiet down. MR. WALDMAN: But like I said, I've lived in areas with pools before and we never had a problem in the Town of Southold. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.). 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 8erit Lalli on Narrow River Road. What would you like to tell us? MS. LALLI: I have a house on River Road that was our summer house 25 years ago, so what I'm asking for is an addition porch and sunroom. The porch is only 18 feet wide, and I would like to widen and I would like to add another 14 to make it more of a room. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So in other words, Mrs. Lalli, you want to build over the existing deck, but widen the deck and make another story? MS. LALLI: Exactly. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not another story, but at least another addition to the room that is already there. MS. LALLI: I want to enclose the bottom deck, move it out. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Will you be redoing -- isn't there a side entry there? MS. LALLI: Yes, I have a back entry and 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 15 1 9 I'm going to use that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you're eliminating that side entry so you're going to enclose it and make it a little bit bigger, so you have enough room to put some furniture in it. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a couple of questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Michael. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The rear part of the house, farthest from the road is only one story; is that being used for living space? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. That back end of your house isn't being used as living space, just by your deck? MS. LALLI: I have a bedroom in the back 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 t,here. 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, because my understanding was at the time that was built it was probably before you were there -- that was built with the condition that it not be living space, so the house has in effect expanded to the rear. 10 12 21 MS. LALLI: No. It was the garage that they said could not be used as living space and it is a garage. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the part of your house where the bedroom is was always living '"pace? MS. LALLI: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The one problem is looking at the road, River Road, the house is already, the front of the house is already nonconforming and is in fact closer to the road than the surrounding houses and you want to expand another four feet towards the road with your new deck. That is perhaps the main issue before us. Do you have another alternative as to how you could increase your living space? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That lot lS so misshapen. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a trapezoid. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a very difficult lot to build anything on. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You would still have a 24 foot setback"from Narrow River Road. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have to grant some sort of alternative relief. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a reasonable 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 16 1 8 place to locate an addition as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't have any additional visual impact on anything that I can see. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a lot across the street. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And next door. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And next door. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What will the setbacks be to the side lot? It's drawn but it noesn't say what the setbacks. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which lot? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The lot from the corner from the proposed addition to the side yard to the property line to the right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If it's 16 to the garage, this looks a little bit longer. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The way this is drawn you can't tell. If this was in scale -- it looks like it might be 18 feet. You know, it's going to be close to 16 feet, probably more like 18 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you know I kind of like to look at it as the house is existing there, and if they could move the house and make it so you could actually build this and not need a variance, it would be very costly. So I think that's your hardship, but that's only me. So, if all we're talking about lS an addition of [our feet on a piece of property that already exists, and the setbacks already exists, I have no problem whatsoever. Would there be any way, are you gOlng to extend the deck also above this; lS that going to be an additional four feet? MR. LALLI: I think I would expand it to [our feet but that doesn't make any difference. I don't know how it would look. I think it's more aesthetic if you extend the deck. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So it's going to be 12 feet on top and 12 feet underneath. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not going to be buried in the house, you're going to see this deck, which you're going to see already, you're just going to extend it four feet. I have no objection to that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no further questions or objections. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 17 1 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the audience wish to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 e 3 4 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Mr. Melnick on Private Road #3 in Southold, who wishes to make another story above. Good morning, Mr. Melnick. MR. MELNICK: Do you want me to address the envelopes? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, go ahead. MR. MELNICK: One of my neighbors is deceased and that's still the name that's on the tax rolls, however, her daughter lives in the other adjacent property which we did, and I believe has also inherited that property, and we :3ent a mailing to the daughter as well, which she responded. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Thank you for doing 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e Ichat. 14 MR. MELNICK: You mentioned the second story. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's a one and-a-half story to a full story? MR. MELNICK: Right. And this line of my house is about a wall, so the use of the floor space is very limited on the existing second floor, so we're looking to raise the walls. We're not looking to build out on the second story, we're using the existing, that's what we're looking to do. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're also looking to do a one-story addition on that; is that the east :3ide or the north side? MR. MELNICK: On the east side of the house we're looking for a 9 by 12 addition, and I think I did get a letter from you that you have amended the need for a variance on November 9th to eliminate the need for a rear yard setback, but just to explain, the existing house now the setback is 13 feet. This construction we wish to do is going to be set back 15 feet, so we're actually encroaching less than the existing house. So all of our construction is going to be 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 18 1 6 then on the other side, the front yard setback, we have an existing 50 foot wide right of way that my t1eighbors are six houses that don't live on the water, and that's where they can walk through my property to access the water. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's all grassed in. MR. MELNICK: I enclosed pictures, it's all grassed lawn. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We know. MR. MELNICK: We're not looking to encroach on that, we're not looking to change that because on that side that's all we're doing is changing that one and-a-half story to two ;3tories. 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just let me reiterate, you're proposlng the one-story addition on the side there, the 9 by 12, then you're proposing a second-story addition to either you want to call it the rear of the house or the middle of the house there? MR. MELNICK: That second-story addition agaln, is not changing the footprint of the house. On that other side now there's not a bathroom. Since we're raising the roof on that end of the house, we're going to put a bathroom above that existing bathroom that's there on the first floor, so the plumbing goes through the bathroom. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just filling in basically. MR. MELNICK: And the two ends of my house the way they're built, you have to go down the stairs and then up the other staircase to get to t,he other end of my house. So by doing that, you'll actually walk straight through and be able to access both ends and use the bathroom on both ends of the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're going to lose all that good exerClse you were getting. MR. MELNICK: Yes. I have a kayak. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, looking at the notice of disapproval and it doesn't make any sense to me. It should be turned down because of Walz, are you going to increase that setback you have now? Are you tearing this house down? MR. MELNICK: No. Are you talking about the second floor? 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 19 1 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: about you have a house there, hanging on the walls, and you they're gOlng to stay. MR. MELNICK: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe just take the roof off and raise it up. So you're not increasing the degree of nonconformity? MR. MELNICK: Not at all. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you are. MR. MELNICK: Talking about on the second No. with have I'm talking walls, pictures windows, and 2 e 3 4 6 7 floor? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MR. MELNICK: But we're keeping all our construction within the existing footprint of the house on the second floor. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I am just wondering why Walz doesn't apply. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It does apply. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It wasn't put 9 10 11 12 In. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It wasn't put In. That's nothing you need to worry about. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, quite honestly, it is something you need to worry about. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's not in his disapproval. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: of disapproval, the way I read il varlance. Okay, that's the notice of disapproval. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: If I could explain it a little bit because the Building Department pxplained it to me at the staff level. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: On the map, you'll see that the addition that they're proposlng, the second story is less than 75 feet from the bulkhead, so they felt that was an extension of a nonconforming setback, not only from the bulkhead but from the front yard setback, which is adjacent to that right of way, and they did leave the Walz reference out of the notice of disapproval, you are correct, but I know they meant it to be In there. So we can have them correct the disapproval. MR. MELNICK: How does that effect my -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It doesn't, legally. Because the notice it, you don't need way I read this 13 e 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 20 1 9 The failure to mention Walz is only -- MR. MELNICK: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The Walz decision was made, basically what it says is when you already have something that's nonconforming, if you change it In any way we have to check to see if you're increasing the degree of nonconformity. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The fact that Walz is not cited In the notice of disapproval has no bearing at all on the legal question of justifying the disapproval; in other words, it doesn't matter that Walz isn't mentioned, it's still Walz that's being applied. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's just paperwork. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's written reference to an interpretation that was done about four years ago. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone In the audience that wishes to comment on this application? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's my application and I haven't had a chance to comment. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm a little unclear about this 25 feet. When I look at the tax map, Mr. Melnick, they're showing a 50 foot lot, you have title to the other 25 feet and there's a right of way over that 25 feet? MR. MELNICK: You mean of the 50 feet? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's no question that the house is on 50 feet. The question lS, the other 25 feet, which lS to the west of your property, which you're saying is now 50 feet because the other 25 feet is on another plece of property. MR. MELNICK: It's on my neighbor's property. I have title, I believe it's 25 and 50 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of that 25 feet, that 25 feet that's shown on this survey, six people have a right of way over it; is that correct? e 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 MR. MELNICK: To the best of my knowledge ,t's that private road that it goes on, there's like 10 houses that are there, half of us are on the water, the other half aren't. So it's a right of way, I'm not clear how many of them have right e 25 November 30, 2006 21 1 9 of way, but we're all neighbors and nobody says anything. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand. When we talk addition towards the water from one and-a-half stories to two stories, what is the height of the ridge going to be? What is it now, and what is it going to be later? MR. MELNICK: Right now I believe the height, the existing height now, we're adding seven and-a-half feet of height I believe through the whole thing where the architect -- there are elevations on the plans. It's going to be almost the exact same height as the existing house as well. One end of my house is already taller. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, the back end. MR. MELNICK: We're not looking to do that the house, that is going to even the two It's going to be a foot higher when it's part of houses. done. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What are we gOlng to do with the water runoff from these rather steep roofs? MR. MELNICK: We're going to put -- we'll put that on the survey -- dry wells and put gutters. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have soil established enough to take that retainance; it's relatively sandy underneath? MR. MELNICK: Yes. And it's all city water. When they did the city water there, they actually had to brace it because it was all sand. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then the dry wells should really be as close to the back end of your house as possible. MR. MELNICK: I believe the surveyor made reference to the architect. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the questions that was not asked, and I'm not playing devil's advocate here, this is a decision that I have to write for the Board to make a determination, is there any particular reason why you chose to take the entire existing front portion of this house -- when I say front, I'm talking about toward the water -- and you do not choose to do a total fill in and maybe cut into that roof a little bit? In other words, you're actually taking something and you're severing it 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e 25 November 30, 2006 22 1 2 and you're bringing it up another story. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it's a half e 3 story. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, it's a half story but it's not usable now? MR. MELNICK: It is usable, you just have to be very short to use it. And I mean, there's bedrooms up there, all we're doing is making -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you don't hit your 4 5 head. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're creating a code compliant ceiling interior. MR. MELNICK: So we don't bang our heads on the ceiling. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I wouldn't have any objection but it's within 29 feet of the water. 7 8 10 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But it's existing how many years? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's not going to have any visual impact greater than what's there. It's going to give them livable space on the inside in a more generous way. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on. They're taking what they have, a bedroom in this location, what's to prevent them from just taking that bedroom and raising it up and putting another bedroom right underneath it? And that's what it looks like this house is going to be. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't understand what you're saying. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You're used to ducking your head and doing your living in that area right now, and it looks to me like you're just taking that roof and adding another eight feet underneath it. MR. MELNICK: The reason the roof is going the same is we want to keep the look of the house the same. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's fine. MR. MELNICK: That's the only reason that is going to be that way. That area is going to be used for more of the staircase going up, we're going to make a drop-down staircase there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's a connected ridge, that's all. MR. MELNICK: We don't want to change the overall look of the house, that's why we bought 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 23 1 9 the house. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just need you to supply us, Mr. Melnick, with the existing height, what it would be and the present height. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have it here, 18 feet and 26 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's 18 feet now and then it's going to be 26 feet; is that to the I~idge? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's to the ridge according to this plan. MR. MELNICK: On the architect's drawing i-hat you have, he did the average grade calculation. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you please do me a favor, check that and make sure that's all correct so when we're dealing with this on the 14th I have the best possible figures so that there are no change in those figures because they will be couched within this decision. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They're all here. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay? MR. MELNICK: Okay. We're not looking to change anything from these drawings. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We'll say no access to the attic. MR. MELNICK: Other than this drop-down ;-.:;taircase. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We'll say that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Michael Flynn on Soundview Avenue in Southold. Mr. Flynn, how are you today? What can we do for you? MR. FLYNN: I would like to put an extension on my house. It's a small ranch. The original house was on a large piece of property. It was divided up '25, I took possession of it in L976, they divided up the properties. The house is now between 11 and 10 feet from the property lines, I'd like to put the extension on the back of the house. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're keeping 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 24 1 9 basically the same, a little bit, eight inches more. I don't have a problem. Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No problems. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No problems. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) MR. FLYNN: On the mailings, I sent out SlX, I only got three cards back, one lS from my neighbor across the street, who lS a seasonal person and I sent it to their address in Brooklyn. The other one is my neighbor and I have no idea. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing lS for the Omans. Who lS here to represent them? MR. LARK: Richard Lark. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Lark? MR. LARK: Richard lark, Main Road Cutchogue, New York, for the applicants. To start with, I'll hand up the affidavits of signed postings. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Thank you. MR. LARK: The applicants, Henry and Christina Oman, as well as their daughter Carol, which lS the purpose of this hearing, are present and so if the Board later on has any questions, they're available here to answer them. The applicant lS requesting an area variance in order to divide their property into two lots. Proposed Lot 1 will contain as it does today, the applicant's house with no changes. Proposed Lot 2 will be gifted to the applicant's daughter Carol so she can build a house for herself. And the proposed building envelope lS more or less supported by the Planning Board you have In front of you as part of their application. Before we get started, I need to give you two updates for the record when we started -- and the building inspector quoted the reason for the variance was Article 3, 100-32, that's been changed to Article 3, 280 Section 14, but there's 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 25 1 8 been no change in the content because it refers to the bulk schedule as affects this application. Also, since the application there's been another change in the community, the Suffolk County Water Authority has put down a water line running the length of the Main Road all the way up to Bridge Lane connecting up on the dual highway, Route 48. So there is now public water accessible to this lot. The reason I mention that is if it is approved and the Planning Board subdivision is approved, there will be no difficulty with the health department in obtaining building permits. So those are the two basic changes. The applicants prior to the commencement of this process did go to the Planning Board to discuss the subdivision of the lot and the reasons for it. Originally, the applicants had submitted to the Planning Board what we recall as a flag lot, but the Planning Board came back with the application as it's before you, as they felt that a more traditional type of lot split or subdivision would be more in conformity with this rural neighbor on Bridge Lane. And they felt it would be more fitting and in fact recently the Planning Board had written you a lengthy letter on October 26th explaining their position, which is in support of this application. My only comment in bringing it up is that when I go to the property as I have many types, it's my feeling that the proposed building envelope on proposed ~ot 2 could be set back maybe another 15 or 20 feet to the east. I think that would be more conforming especially when you look at the aerials and can see the irregularities of the front yard setback of all the homes that were built there on Bridge Lane. They all vary a little bit and it would not be inconsistent with this neighborhood. As stated previously, this application here is to go forward with the Planning Board, the Planning Board set out three area variance, the first one is size, the relation in this neighborhood is 80,000 square feet, and when I show you the subdivision map, just about every lot on Bridge Lane, at least 90 percent of them are all nonconforming lots. But be that as it may, the zoning requirement is 80,000. Lot 1 will be 40,002 square feet, and Lot 2 will be 31,314. The 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 26 1 2 other requirement in the zoning is 175 feet of lot width, Lot 1 will be 140 and Lot 2 lS proposed to be 90 and the other variance is that the proposed Lot 1, would be side yards presently and the zoning district lS 20 feet on one side totaling 45. Lot 1 has 30 feet on one side but proposed to be 16, which is a four foot variance but it still would have 46 feet total side yards. Lot 2 would conform with 25 on one side and 35 on the other. To issue the area variance, the Board has to consider the five mandatory factors as set torth in the state statute. However, in applying the factors the Board has to gauge in the balancing test, which, of course, as the Board lS aware is the benefit to the applicant, versus any detriment to the neighborhood. And I submit to you that when you go to the property and you look at the overall situation, that this lS a rural environment, a rural residential environment that we're dealing with here, and applying the five factors, I believe the Board can find that there is no detriment to the health, safety and welfare to this neighborhood by adding this one house, which would be the net effect of granting the application and getting the subdivision from the Planning Board. If the variance is granted, then the applicant's benefit is they get their long-standing wish being able to gift the property to their daughter so she can build a house. The other benefit is the daughter will be able to remaln In town In her own house, which as we know due to the inflationary nature and everything else for a young person it's very difficult to own and build a lot here under the present situation. I gave In the application because it came IIp in the application process, three affidavits which set forth the history of the property, unless the Board has some questions on that, I won't dwell on that as part of this application this morning. I think they're pretty thorough in eXplaining what the situation is there today and how we got there since the late 1960s. On the five factors, just briefly commenting, the undesirable change to the neighborhood, I believe a visit to the property will speak for itself. You have a mini version of all the properties along the easterly side of e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 27 1 2 Bridge Lane that -- and I think this lS probably [:he reason why the Planning Board, you have the smaller version of Ismar Acres. The point lS south of the railroad tracks as the Planning Board pointed out, why they wanted the subdivision done this way this is In conformity with all the lots pretty much with the relative size and the dimensions, the rectangular shapes of them all. They basically run from the railroad south 41 to 42,000 square feet, and they all have a lot width of 130 to 135. So that puts this thing pretty much in harmony, and that's what I think the Planning Board was trying to look for was creating a harmony with this application. The second factor, the benefit sought could be achieved by another manner. To achieve a subdivision on the property, we would have to have the varlances, otherwise the Planning Board can't proceed because the Planning Board's perception, this Board, with the zoning what it lS and R80, can legalize the property so that they can proceed with the application. Is the application as requested for a variance before you substantial? Conceded, if you consider them In a vacuum it is In relationship to the deviation of the R80 requirements In the bulk schedule. There's no question about that. But when you apply the balancing test and consider how it would fit into the neighborhood because the neighborhood in and of itself lS basically nonconforming, and I have here to show -- you have it but it's not in color u we're existing Lot 5 (indicating). You can take that lot In that area when you stack up with all the lots on the easterly side of the road, this thing fits right In so it's not substantial when you do it in relationship to the whole neighborhood. And the reason for that lS obviously the neighborhood is basically nonconforming except for the farm field on either side on both sides of the road, both behind this property where, the development rights have been sold and across the way where the vineyards are, those development rights have been sold, and that was a factor I think the Planning Board was considering; there's not going to be any substantial development there of new homes of any kind except for the one or two vacant lots that remaln. So the creation of this one, they felt e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 28 1 9 with this one they felt with the next factor would not have any adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood, and the pluses I added, now we have public water. The last factor, was it self-created. The answer lS obviously yes, because they waited too long. If they had initially after they built their home had gone for the subdivision, we wouldn't be here. Now, the only opposition that was submitted was the letter from the neighbor to the east, Bedell, and it's unfortunate that they're not here today because when I read this letter and when I went back and revisited the property and stood on the rear line at the property line, I had tremendous difficulty in even seeing their winery complex with their fancy deck and their fancy tasting room and everything. The maln reason is not the interference of the grape Vlne, it was the topography. I found myself some 10 to 12 feet lower than they are and even if you had a Hubble telescope, they could not see this property from the tasting room or the deck or anything. So I find this letter highly disingenuous. It was just interesting to me to note that here they are on agricultural land with a commercial venture and they're objecting to something of a residential quality next door, and I submit that that letter is disingenuous and probably should be disregarded overall. I won't take any more time but In summary, when you put the five factors and put the balancing test to it, I respectfully request that the Board could, without any difficulty, grant the variance. Now, if you have any questions of Mr. and Mrs. Oman or myself, feel free to ask. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have several questions. First of all, it may be that starting with the Bedell letter going backwards to forward, it may be disingenous to talk about the view from their place, but it's also disingenous to suggest that there's something irregular about them having it tasting room In a commercial area since that lS a legitimate well-established use of a vineyard. As you know, it's well established. But more important than that, I'm concerned about what may be a bit disingenous to keep referring to the neighborhood, whereas in fact, as I understand 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 November 30, 2006 29 1 6 this, you're really talking about one corner of the neighborhood, namely the part to the north, but not to the south, which is two acre zoning and maintaining that which was not part of the subdivision, not to mention what's on the other side of the road. So what I see here the neighborhood argument, which is not your only argument, does depend on comparison with the houses that were in the approved subdivision, which the Omans might very well try to join early on. But in effect it looks as though it's a changing of the original zoning line which occurred, which that subdivision was granted, namely on the south part it's two acre zoning, including the Oman's house and in the north it's one acre zoning not including the Oman's house. So what I think you're asking for is if only that zoning line had been drawn two acres to the south then the Omans would not really have a problem. But there is one more problem and that is the house just to the south of the Omans is very much like theirs, it's one house on what is nearly two acres. And what is to stop them from then deciding that they want to subdivide their property so they can put yet another house on the east side of Ridge Lane? It looks as though we're going on kind of a slippery slope toward undoing the R80 zoning and turning it into de facto R40 zoning. 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 18 MR. LARK: To answer your question, I can't speak for the neighbor to the south, but the zoning, when the Ismar Acres was granted, it was all R40 over there and the zoning went in later, therefore creating the nonconformity. As to the property across the street to the west, that's part of the Pugliese situation over there and all the development rights have been sold. So there's going to be no further development on the westerly :3ide, basically from the Main Road all the way to the railroad tracks. Of course there is a residential component north of the railroad tracks, but south of the railroad tracks that cannot be developed as well as to the east. So what happened is the zoning, when they went to R80, they did a blanket of the whole area and just incorporated everything from basically from the dual highway all the way to the main road. So that explains that. As to the question to the 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 30 1 2 neighbor to the south, I have no comment on that. e 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. But the R80 when the upzoning to R80 occurred, the previously approved subdivision was essentially carved out of that. MR. LARK: No, it's not that subdivision is R80 as we speak. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Was it approved as a subdivision after it was R80? MR. LARK: Before the zoning was upgraded. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Exactly what I'm saying, it may be R80, but it's nonconforming and they might as well have said that's R40. They could have called it R20 if they wanted to or R200 because they were not going to interfere with this subdivision, which is essentially grandfathered with the reestablishment of the zoning law, okay, fine. 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 e 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Lark, it's my understanding that both the properties surrounding this, not to be redundant, lS all involved ln the development rights? MR. LARK: Yes, both on the east, the rear yard, as well as across the street to the west, all the development rights have been sold. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Including the piece that's just southeast of this? MR. LARK: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And across the street 12 13 15 16 17 here? 18 MR. LARK: Yes, definitely across the street. 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Mr. Lark, the number on here, this number 5, is that a county tax map number? MR. LARK: I believe it lS. To answer your question, yes, it is. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, it's number five shown as 1.6 acres. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I did already. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have a 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 31 1 2 question. I just read Chris DeGregorio's sworn statement here. It looks to me like they created two lots there. There was an intention at one point to make three, but they never did. MR. LARK: Going back when I did the history on it, which you have those affidavits, it was proposed at three lots but the seller wouldn't do anything, you had to buy it as-is. So Mr. DeGregorio and Mr. Oman, who is also here, bought it and rather than go for the expense of the subdivision to do it in three lots. Mr. Terry, which was his power at the time, said you can cut it in half and I will give you building permits on either because it conforms with the zoning, and you're larger than the existing zoning, and your proposed house conforms to the zoning. That's how the building inspector did it in those days. They did not require to come back. Technically speaking, if you read the law, even then as it is now, you have to go to the Planning Board. You wouldn't go to the Board of Appeals, of course, but you would go to the Planning Board to get a subdivision. Things were a little simpler in those days. Late '60s, early '70s. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. any case if they had three lots at it would have been conforming. MR. LARK: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They decided for In But I mean, that time, 16 17 whatever reason not to. MR. LARK: Expense, money. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Separate deeds for two lots but never separate deeds for three lots? MR. LARK: That's correct, that's what happens. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In reference to the letter from Bedell, he's talking about screening, and I couldn't make heads or tails whether or not that screening was on his property or the applicant's property. MR. LARK: The irony is you stand on this property at the property line, you can't see it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But I mean the screening that he's talking about that he didn't want these trees taken down. MR. LARK: They're on our property. They're all cherry trees. A lot of them have been 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 32 1 6 choked out with the vines and everything in the back if you go back there, but probably should be cleaned up a little bit. But those trees are on our property that was a potato farm before it was a vineyard and that was the property line and the trees just grew up there. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because I got from the letter that he was maintaining a buffer between the residence. 2 e 3 4 5 9 MR. LARK: No, no, no, BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: to tear it down. MR. LARK: Not the case, that's why it's disingenuous. That is not the case. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you did say at the end of Mr. Oman's property there is like a off, the elevation drops off. MR. LARK: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: About how far, three feet, six feet? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's not SlX. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Three? MR. LARK: There is a dip there, and if you notice that's not farm; that's where he has his irrigation well and stuff like that, traditionally when the potatoes were there because it's a little different land there. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else on the Board have any questions? Does anybody in the audience wish to speak on this application? Yes, ma/am? not at all. And you were going 7 8 10 back drop 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 MS. PETER: Good morning, I'm the Oman's neighbor to the south, I'm that other piece of property that was never subdivided. I have no objection to what the Omans are requesting. I do, however, find it difficult to understand Bedell rejecting. Because they recently put on a big extension, and no one in the neighborhood had any objection to it. We welcome them, they keep their property beautiful, but they also have parties on Saturday nights, the music is relatively loud. It's wonderful, it's a commercial-type establishment, but we live in a residential area, and I think we would like the same consideration that we give them. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Could we have your name for the record, please, ma'am? MS. PETER: Patricia Peter. 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 33 1 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on this application? MS. OMAN: My name 1S Carol Oman, I'm the daughter. Just for the record, obviously it's hard to afford land 1n Southold town, and I have applied for the affordable housing but was just over the limit as far as 1ncome. So having no other options, we're requesting this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, anybody 2 e 3 4 5 7 else? 9 MS. OMAN: I'm Christina Oman. The only thing that I would ask as a mother, her father and I would ask that you find favorably 1n this because it's our daughter and her future, and we have two children who live in the area, and we would like to stay here, and this is the only way she can do it. It's just too expensive and we had the property years ago and never anticipated any of this. And we just hope that this goes through. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much. MS. OMAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there are no other questions from the audience, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 (See minutes for resolution.) 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing 1S for the Rozenbaums for the farm stand in East Marion. Miss Wickham. MS. WICKHAM: Abigail Wickham, good afternoon. I am here on behalf of the Rozenbaums Ln connection with their application for a farm stand on the Main Road in East Marion. I have a lot of material to cover. I would first like to glve you, however, a brief overview of the farming operation that this farm stand is intended to support. The lavendar farm has been in existence for about 15 years. At this point, they have SlX acres out of the 17 in production. They are planning on adding two acres next year, and there would be an anticipation of a gradual expansion of that over the years to come ln the lavendar production. One of the interesting things about this operation is that there are no pesticides, there LS no spraY1ng, which 1S a very un1que thing in 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 34 1 7 the farming business, and a very beneficial thing In the farming business. Further, there lS virtually no farming equipment utilized in this agricultural production. You don't have tractors and nOlSY machinery operating at all hours of the day. So that is also a very important aspect, when you have a small farm in a residential neighborhood. The basic operation -- as you know, Earming out here is extremely difficult, and a small farm of this nature which was preserved as part of a residential district really has to find a niche in order to be commercially successful, and this niche lS something that they have found that will work very well, and it needs a farm stand outlet to enable them to take advantage of their retail sales of produce from the farm. The ~eason for that is that basically their season is extremely short. Their wholesale season is pretty much 30 days from the late June, beginning July to the end of July, that's when the fresh lavendar lS In full production, and is harvested in order to be able to sustain a wholesale trade. Thirty days lS a very short season for any business. Their primary retail business is also July and to some extent August, where they have sufficient crops and customers in order to be able to sustain a fairly active operation. Their season begins in May, very, very, slowly, picks up slightly In June, until the last weekend in June, and then July is their maln season. August lS closed down a bit, but it is still fairly active. September slows down and by October, even November they can stretch it fine but it's very, very mild. So it's pretty much impossible to operate a business on a 30 to 60 day year, and the proposed Earm stand will help them extend that and make their farming operation considerably easier as I'll explain in a minute. I think In order to prove their case, I have to first of all dispel some misperception about this operation. One of them is that this is not going to be a farm stand, it's going to be a gift shop, and I think that's based on the design that was given to the Town. It looks like a fancy little gift shop, however, the reason it was designed as an attractive structure is two basic reasons. Number one is in consideration of the 2 e 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 35 1 9 residential community primarily, the Gardiner's Gay Estates subdivision, they did want to design it so that at that entryway to their subdivision on Cedar Lane, it would be an attractive building and we actually have a letter, which I believe you have In your file from the president of that association indicating that is the type of design that they would feel would be appropriate to their neighborhood. The second thing lS -- and this lS extremely important and I have also given you literature on that -- is that lavendar sales as a niche farming operation has a very particular look to it. It's kind of a cottagey appearance that customers who are specifically interested In that business like to see are accustomed to seelng. You will see it throughout the county where there's a lavendar farm have a cottagey-type set up, and that's why it was designed that way. And I don't see anything in the code that specifically says how a farm stand is supposed to look. It doesn't say it has to be attractive or unattractive. It has to have certain criteria that are very specific and that's why we're here. So the question is, is this a farm stand. There are two code sections that we have to look at. The first is 100-13 of the Town Code which defines a farm stand, the sole purpose lS that it must be for retail sale of produce grown by the owner of the property on a Southold town farm. This is in fact grown on the same farm, it's not elsewhere in Southold town. The Rozenbaums are here today. I had them bring up a sampling of the products that they do sell. Right now as you know they're in a tent for a couple of months; it's very difficult. This is all produce that is grown on the farm. It's specifically includes, which they didn't bring, 15 varieties of potted lavendar plants. I didn't have them dig them out of the ground today, but they do actually sell actual lavendar plants. In June through August, primarily, as I said July, but late June, heavily in July and a slightly smaller, secondary bloom in August, they have fresh cut lavendar, which is in particular, you can buy by the pound or smaller containers. They also sell dried lavendar bunches, which are there on the table. Handmade lavendar sachets that are made by them, those are on the tray there; handmade 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 November 30, 2006 36 1 9 lavendar wands, she tells me they're little basket things that are made with the lavendar plants. Handmade lavendar soap, and oil, which is from the presses, and this is all within the definition of farm products and the code in the ag and markets. They also sell bottled honey from the bee hives on their fields. So the bees from their fields that's agriculture production, and also bees wax from the bee hives, also located on the farm. So, as you can see, that's a fairly broad range of products, and they don't need ln order to sustain themselves to get into the knickknacks and the glass wear, and the t-shirts, and the cameras and all that stuff that gift shops need to sell. They have a very broad attractive range of products right off the farm that their clientele is looking for, and that they can sell there. That's what a farm stand lS; that's what they're intending to use it for. And that's what they're intending to use it for. I will say if there's any concern on the part of anyone that that building go beyond that use that's an enforcement issue. You have got a lot of people down there that are going to be keeping an eye on them, and I'm sure that they will be very interested if someone decides to expand beyond what lS allowed. So the use lS appropriate. Another requirement is that the building be one story or less -- it is. It may be roofed, but it must be less than 1,000 square feet and it lS. This particular building is actually less than 700 square feet. The footprint is I believe 980 square feet and that is because there lS a porch that again is intended to convey that cottagey look but the actual interior space is less than 700 square feet. It is not insulated, and it lS not going to have any mechanical heating and cooling, another requirement. The question that we must simply look at today is whether it is open to the weather on at least one side. Originally, as you know, it was designed to have French doors on three sides and it was designed to be insulated and that was in order to not heat it but to keep the building warmer for those May and October days, that has been eliminated. There will be no insulation, and we have eliminated the French doors on the 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 November 30, 2006 37 1 9 north and south sides and proposed garage doors, which would be open during the open hours of the business. So they are completely open on two sides. If the weather is inclement, they can close one of those sides depending on whether the storm 1S coming from the south or the north, but the other side can remain open away from the direction of the wind. When the ZBA first got this application and this was prior to the imposition of the garage doors, I received a memo from you in August of '05 that said, please furnish the following information: "Overhead doors on one side of the structure if only a farm stand 1S proposed." So I think it was the intention that that would constitute a farm stand. Unfortunately, for some reason I'm not clear on, the zoning department has issued in its approval of that it says, "The garage door aspect does not constitute open on one side." And I am very confused by that for a couple of reasons. Number one, we have a number of farm stands 1n Southold town that have exactly that configuration. The ones I can think of off l:he top of my head are Wickham's Group Farm on the Main Road in Cutchogue. Krupski's farm stand on the Main Road in peconic; Wisznofski's farm stand up on Route 48 1n peconic, and most particularly Ule one that we see very recently opened the building department is the Krup farm stand 1n peconic, which has a CO updated October '05, which was right around this whole time this discussion was occurring, and it contains garage doors on the north side, and while there are two garage doors, they are configured so that only one can be opened at a time. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where is this? MS. WICKHAM: On the south side of Route 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 48. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. MS. WICKHAM: that the intention of stands law is that a side of the building BOARD MEMBER at this point? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Oh, I think I know. 22 So I think it's pretty clear a farm stand law, the farm garage door that opens on one should be sufficient. SIMON: May I ask a question 23 24 e 25 Is there access to November 30, 2006 38 1 2 the farm stand when the garage doors are both closed? e 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there another door that customers would be using? MS. WICKHAM: They proposed the French 4 doors. 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No, at the moment; in other words, can the farm stand be open when the garage doors are closed? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, on the farm stand? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No, on this one? MS. WICKHAM: On this one also, yes. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There is another entrance? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, and again that was part of the original French door design, which would now be only on the -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One can certainly argue that these are garage doors, but they typically look more like barn doors because they slide horizontally rather than being overhead. But there are plenty of examples of windowed areas with pull-down shutters. I don't think the issue is so much the design. MS. WICKHAM: All the farm stands I mentioned have other doors. All of the farm stands other than that one I mentioned have overhead garage doors. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Let me clarify my question. Would it be reasonable that they would be conducting business with the farm stand open while all those garage doors were closed, or would they depend on having at least one of those doors open as access for customers? MS. WICKHAM: Well, they would want them open for two reasons. Number one, they face the parking lot, people driving along the Main Road would be able to see it, see what was In there, get right in, and then if they walked in, the north door being open so they can see the farm. 8ecause when that thing blooms it's very dramatic. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My suggestion lS that behind the rule of having at least one side open is that that would be the way people got into the stand, and so in other words, the fact that the 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 39 1 5 garage doors are ordinarily open as a way that people come in, just as in Wickham's farm stand, suggests that it probably is not correctly characterized merely as a closed side of a building but as a side which is primarily open except when the farm stand is closed. MS. WICKHAM: The side where the garage doors would be would be the ones where the parking area is. 2 e 3 4 6 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. I'm trying to think of a way of how to interpret this in a way other than the way the building department has. It's not a wall because in fact it's a prlmary entranceway, and only incidentally is it a garage door, and only then when the farm stand lS closed. And I think that's the point that intrigues me as a matter of this interpretation that you raised. MS. WICKHAM: And the only reason that it lS not completely open all the way is because you need some wall space or utility. If I could continue. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Please. MS. WICKHAM: The need for a farm stand on this property lS, as I mentioned, in order to enable them to operate their farm on the location, now they're operating from a tent which beyond the weather problem and beyond the hours that they can be open has a number of other implications. There's absolutely no security. They can't lock it up at night. So what they're doing is they're basically packing up all their stuff from their home In Southold every morning, bringing it down there, unpacking it and then at night, packing it up and taking it home, and that's just crazy. You can't run a farm that way. Everyone knows that farming is a dawn to dusk operation anyway. They don't have any space in the tent for drying their lavendar or making their honey, which would be conducted in the basement. There is no bathroom for their employee, there is a bathroom proposed here for employee only. Again that's an enforcement and you can make that a condition. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where will the bathroom be located? MS. WICKHAM: It will be In the basement. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's strictly a sink and toilet as drawn anyway. 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 40 1 9 MS. WICKHAM: Yes, half bath. There's no shower. Right now without electric, without phone you have -- you can't have credit cards, a real cash register, lighting when the hours change, so it's been very, very difficult for them to operate under these conditions. Also, I think it's important to understand that the Planning Board, had they reviewed this subdivision, and when it was sponsored by the Peconic Land Trust in order to get this large amount of acreage preserved under the county farm land program. They clearly set this parcel out as a farm parcel. The filed map designates it as a building area. The letter from the Peconic Land Trust which you have indicates that this portion was held out specifically for a farm stand. And this parcel where the building area would be lS noted on the filed map, and it is also noted that it can never be separated from the farm. It always has to be together, so there's no way it can be subdivided out or used outside of the farming operation. One of the big concerns that I know the Board has and I know the neighborhood has is obviously parking and traffic. We have first of all, on the map, proposed eight spaces. What will happen here is if this Board approves the application it has to go to the Planning Board either under Article 47, which governs farm stands to review parking, or if there lS some mechanism for which they have to go to site plan approval, we would be prepared to do that, but we have been to the Planning Board work session twice with this proposal, they don't have a formal application because we don't know under which provision it would go, but there was no major comment or problem about it. We have written to and received approval from the Suffolk County Farmland Commission to add if necessary five spaces for parking on the farmland portion if it's required by the Planning Board. It would have to be an impervious surface, we would obviously not want farmland taken up by parking, but it's there if the Planning Board rules that it's necessary. There has been a lot of concern about the traffic itself. We know that most of the traffic lS caused by factors other than this particular farm stand. It's caused by the ferry, it's caused 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 November 30, 2006 41 1 9 by the day traffic, it's caused by all the houses in the neighborhood, visitors, Krups farm stand across the street, a whole lot of uses, and I don't think it's fair to say just because this may have a few cars that you can't do it because there's already too much traffic in the area. I will go through with you briefly what we expect the traffic to be based on what has happened. But primarily they have found that the traffic here is primarily eastbound, people that visit their shop primarily come eastbound. They're comlng from Greenport or they're coming out from the city, and they're continuing along their way along the north fork. They're going to the ferry, a lot of people do stop on the way to the ferry in order to visit this shop and what they do then they will be turning a right-hand turn into the shop and then they will be making a right-hand turn out. They won't have to deal with turning left across the incoming traffic that is westbound. Mr. Rozenbaum recalls only one accident in the past few years that he has been here. If there are other accidents that were mentioned by the neighbors in their correspondence, they were I believe further down the street or not related to this particular immediate area. In terms of the actual parking, this is based on their history of having been there several years, the maximum number of cars at one time, they find -- I'm going to go month by month -- in May very low volume, during the weekdays maybe one or two cars at a time, weekend two or three cars at a time max; Memorial Day they rnay have four or five cars that's the maximum at anyone time. In June it's basically the same as May although the last weekend in June it does pick up again weather dependent because the fresh lavendar lS coming into bloom. There they may have five to six cars max at anyone time. In July they have a peak season, their weekday car max will probably be about three on weekends, five maybe seven, and on Fourth of July they can have anywhere from SlX to eight cars at a time and he did say that that area is full. I would comment that if every single business in Southold town has to have adequate parking for Fourth of July cars, we would be one parking lot. I mean, that's just a fact that you have got to get by that day. 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 November 30, 2006 42 1 9 August again, the volume drops back down to more like a June type of volume and in September more like a May volume, so it's just that one particular season. I stress before I stop the fact that Gardiner's Bay did at the hearing on the subdivision oppose the access being off Cedar Lane, and for that reason a private drive was created at the subdivision. I don't think it's fair now that they say they don't want the traffic at all, and if they don't want it on their property it's got to be on the private road. I do want to address the front yard setback issues because that is one of the major aspects of this variance and we are actually asking two front yard setbacks. One is rather a technical one I think, the Cedar Lane side. Again, the Planning Board has required and the Rozenbaums understand and are guided by the fact that access from the farm stand will not be on Cedar Lane. So that is really a technical variance. I'm a little embarrassed that it was the Planning Board that pointed out that the zonlng is not a C but R40. I took it right off the notice of disapproval lS AC, but that means that our front yard setback should be 50 feet, and we are under that, but again on the Cedar Lane side, you have an attractive building. Yes, it's close to the road, but it is attractive, it's a separate entrance as required by the Gardiner's Bay subdivision and beyond that, while you will have the building up close to Cedar Lane In the front, you have this huge undeveloped frontage which will have no buildings at all going back along the farm. So I think when you do your balancing that lS certainly a benefit to the applicant as opposed to a detriment to the neighborhood. The insufficient front yard on the other side, which is on the private road is a front yard insufficiency as their private, own usage. It's only for the private stand and those two homes on the side that will be affected, the homes in the back. This is not a visability problem because you're not gOlng to have a large number of homeowners going back. Also there are adjoining properties along the Main Road there that have very narrow frontages and really are similarly situated in terms of the narrowness of that particular lot configuration. The Main Road 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 November 30, 2006 43 1 9 setback I think is important; that far exceeds the requirement of the front yard setback, that will not be a variance. The configuration of the property includes the use of that portion of the property in any conforming way, so the applicant really has no choice but to request the variances in order to get to use that property at all, and access, whether you locate it on the farm, would be the same if you put up a basically small farm building. Any traffic that's going to come In for that farm is going to come out there. We would appreciate, if you have any comments on the design or the method of which the building is configured, we would be happy to accept them, but we would like to ask that you balance the fact that they can have a farm stand, which was understood when the property was divided and the development rights sold they basically can't operate their farm, so we're outweighing that detriment as opposed to the neighborhood detriment which ended up with 12 to 13 acres of preserved land and really a beautiful, beautiful setting which they can drive through on Cedar Lane. I would be glad to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On your right of way, it says proposed right of way, but distance lS a 10 foot drive by the stand. MS. WICKHAM: Talking about the setback? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, talking about the right of way. MS. WICKHAM: The right of way width is -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is 10 foot by the 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 stand. 21 MS. WICKHAM: Is 25 feet. Again, I think the Planning Board in its review will have BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What is the answer on that? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 10 foot. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: 10 foot for the traffic lane and 25 feet for the easement? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How will that right of way be used other than for access to parking spaces? I see it continues around, swings around the edge of the properties that front Main Road, 20 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 44 1 9 residential properties. MS. WICKHAM: There are two residential lots that will be served by that particular driveway as well. One is Lot 1 and the other lS another lot that was sold separately. With the assistance of our supervisor, the Rozenbaums have requested that this property be put in an agricultural district, and they have requested that the whole property including those two ~esidential lots be included. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right now I see that it's used for parking essentially, there's a stockade fence, and there's signs that say parking, parking, parking along the back side of that fence. There is no right of way, there's just property. MS. WICKHAM: goes to those houses. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. I'm just wondering whether there's equipment going to be driven back and forth, whether irrigation is going to be brought in through that right of way. MS. WICKHAM: There's a drip irrigation As I mentioned, there's not a lot of farm for equipment, but that is where it would exit. There's a right of way that 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 system. traffic have to 16 map? other BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you have the tax I don't have the information that shows the 15 1 have MS. WICKHAM: BOARD MEMBER to write this. MS. WICKHAM: Yes. WEISMAN: Could you approach? Oh, I've got it. This is the farm, 28.6 and 17 18 ),8.5. e 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is the residential lot for which you need the right of way? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. And this plece too, this is a separate lot. This part of the farm can't be subdivided, this can be sold off. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 28.5 cannot be sold off and 28.3 can. MR. STEEL: Greg Steel. In the process of construction, just to let you know, the reason we are getting certainly worried with all the glass doors and so on is because of all the new codes and partially open structures and stuff like that lS high winds coming through will be able to hold 19 20 21 22 23 24 November 30, 2006 45 1 9 down this building. Once the air gets inside it has a tendency to lift up. So every time we reduce, if we ever had a hurricane, farm stands would probably be the first thing we lose in this area because if they're open, they definitely will catch the air. So our thinking was the east elevation, when we originally designed this, we had three French doors on the side, two French on the north side, and two large garage doors on the south side, and we changed that to open two sides, both north and south to keep the open feeling but with insurance and stuff like that now, any building we build we have to be able to lock it up in order to protect it from the high winds. So the big thing is locking up everything at night lS such a large task so therefore we tried to design this building in order to fit into the community and not really look like it's -- I mean, the days of a derelict looking farm stand I think would cause more problems with neighbors than something that's clean and tidy. And a large concern is if you put it outside on an open air place you have a large chance of the air itself tossing it around. So if there's any questions whatever. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What lS anticipated upstairs? MS. WICKHAM: Probably they will hang lavendar. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it's a cathedral 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 19 ceiling. MR. STEEL: Another thing, when you're selling products like this, a lot of times people look at it with natural lighting, so when you enclose the place it's dark and you put artificial light in, people looking at plants and flowers, you're not really seeing their correct color unless you have natural lighting, and that's another reason -- 17 18 20 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The purpose for the dormers. 23 MR. STEEL: To locate doors to let In natural lighting. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How are you treating the interior walls? MR. STEEL: Right now they're just exposed. We may end up putting a permanent roof board on the inside and because when we put the exterior siding on you're going to have nails 22 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 46 1 9 coming through. So more than likely we'll do like a wainscott just to make it safe. And just on the walls have racks and shelves to display the different types of fragrance and stuff like that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm confused by the whole thing, quite honestly. It's been amended to the extent that everybody's kind of happy. It looks to me in looking at the survey that you'll be entering this from the opposite side of the Main Road? MS. WICKHAM: There will be some parking on the Main Road side, and which will be the south side and there also will be parking on the other side, so people could enter from either side, but the object lS to be able to walk in, and be able to walk in to get into the stand through the open garage doors and then look out the other way. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But the open garage doors are on what side? MS. WICKHAM: Two sides. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The Main Road side, MS. WICKHAM: And the Main Road and the farm side, the north side. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: On the site plan everything that's dotted lS that meant to be gravel; was that the skirt off of Cedar and the Main Road that you'll be entering, or are you entering and exiting through the proposed right of way? MS. WICKHAM: Entering and exiting through the proposed right of way; that dotting will be landscaping, lawn area. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you're entering and exiting strictly through that right of way on this proposed site plan; has the Planning Board seen this site plan? MS. WICKHAM: They have. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But you have no formal application? MS. WICKHAM: We have no formal application because it depends on 47, but they have seen it. They are the ones that imposed the 25 foot right of way, when they did the subdivision. They are the ones that imposed the revisions on no access In and out of Cedar Lane for the farm land. 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 47 1 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the C and Rs on t:he property are from the Planning Board? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They are part of the record. Can I just ask you a question? If you took the farm stand, you could take the farm stand and just move it back to the farm and have a farm stand? MS. WICKHAM: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. MS. WICKHAM: No, basically what you can have county farm land is a very small portable building that doesn't accomplish any of these things. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn't do a farm stand? You couldn't do a one side open type thing where you can sell stuff out of? MS. WICKHAM: No, it has to be portable. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is a separate lot; lS this separate from the farm? MS. WICKHAM: No, this particular piece lS an appendage of the farm where you are allowed to build, you can't build on any -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is an envelope created by the Planning Board. MS. WICKHAM: And it was specifically intended when it was sold In that configuration that this would be the building area for the farm stand, through the Planning Board and the Peconic Land Trust. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Basically the location of this farm stand, this building is predetermined as a condition of preservlng the rest of the land? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. This is where they intended to put the farm stand because it has the Main Road. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, that's all I 2 e 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 have. 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Regardless of the decision by this Board, this matter must appear before the Planning Boards or not? MS. WICKHAM: Chapter 47 requires that a farm stand go to the Planning Board for parking review, yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Even farm buildings, farm stands? MS. WICKHAM: Farm stands under Chapter 23 24 . 25 November 30, 2006 48 1 2 '17. e 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right, I'm just verifying that we're allan the same page as that. 4 5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Gail, was this denied for not meeting the definition of a farm ~3tand or no? MS. WICKHAM: It was based on the fact that it wasn't open on one side despite the fact that there are garage doors on both sides, and it was also denied for a front yard setback. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But do you want to very quickly say why it was a farm stand? MS. WICKHAM: I think I did, you were not 6 7 8 9 here. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: She went through that In great detail. MS. WICKHAM: I'll say it again. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No, that's 11 okay. 12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The only thing we didn't talk about is the square footage of the building. You said it was 720? MS. WICKHAM: 700 square feet of interior floor space plus 220 square feet of porch for a total footprint of 980 square feet. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I am sorry, the way that the Building Department had explained it to staff, and that's why I was confused originally when you had designed it. MS. WICKHAM: The Building Department BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The Building Department indicated that a farm stand was a structure that would have to be maybe less than 20 square feet, the other definition. MS. WICKHAM: There is another definition in the code about a 20 square foot building. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's to prohibit the tractor trailers coming in and setting up as a farm stand because they had no enclosure, so this is not that. MS. WICKHAM: But the other confusing thing in a farm stand definition it says a tractor trailer in excess of 20 is a farm stand, but Chapter 47 -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have another question. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jim. 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 49 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This concerns signage, and I'm wondering what kind of sign they're going to have there and are there going to be any off premise signs? MS. WICKHAM: Only if Department allows it I guess. application for sign permits. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think what -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But it will be limited to that plece of property. MS. WICKHAM: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Gail, In other words we don't want to see lavendar for sale up by the causeway, lavendar sale down by the MS. WICKHAM: I've already had that the Building They will make an e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 conversation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's illegal. MS. WICKHAM: I understand that, all conforming slgns. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? MR. PETER: Good morning, my name is George Peter, I'm president of Gardiner's Bay Estates Homeowners Association. We have a letter of approval for the stand when it was first amended. We are still in favor by the design. The other regulations are up to you In Slze and dimension. We appreciate what the Rozenbaums are doing for our neighborhood. Another reminder is that as you were saying before, we as an association own Cedar Lane. It is our private road. It's a main access road into our association. Since he's been operating the lavendar farm he's been extremely cooperative In preventing accidental parking on Cedar Lane, which lS really just a two lane road, and he has put up no parking signs. He's found out of town tourists who park accidentally to block our access and egress, he's been very good about that. He's tried to block off any chance they park next to that. So he's been cooperative In every sense. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anybody else wishes to comment on this application? Yes, . ? Slr. 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. MAYER: I'm Rob Mayer, I live directly across the street on the northeast corner. I'm against this because of the traffic. What he says lS dark and true as far as I'm concerned. If I e 25 November 30, 2006 50 1 2 sit out on my porch there, Rocky Point Road lS a speedway, people pulling off, the conglomeration of traffic on that corner and the accidents and the parking in front of my house to walk across the street. This is a nightmare between steps and the traffic that that place lS going to generate, even that it generates right now, what's going to happen? How are people going to come out of Rocky Point Road, make a left turn, when people are slow enough to pull into the farm stand, they're coming down from Orient to go there. They're parking, walking across the street because they can't make the left because the traffic gOlng east, it's a conglomeration of everything there. This is incredible that you would consider a building right there. Now, maybe I'm wrong but lS this a farm stand just for the lavendar or will they be able to sell other products? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, only products that have to do with lavendar. MR. MAYER: What about the other people that have these things, why put up a building there? I mean, that's what I thought this thing was about. Not to sell retail, I thought they were going to build there and sell wholesale. When I saw that tent go up I was aggravated because of the traffic. I mean, really, that's all I have to say. I have a brutal traffic concern. There's accidents there all of the time, whether close accidents, or fender benders, or major accidents. I mean, my road is closed half the time with fender benders there. It's nuts, now with this thing going there, forget about it. You're going to have a cockpit all the time there directing traffic. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Miss Wickham, do you want to say something? MS. WICKHAM: I think I've addressed why it's not just for sale and I think I have addressed as much as I can about traffic, and certainly if there's enforcement issues that needs to be dealt with with DOT. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Therefore, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the November 30, 2006 51 1 2 Drews. We'll postpone FITF until Mr. Schwarts e arrives. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: MS. MOORE: Good on behalf of the Drews. Island, Mark Schwartz is a prior commitment. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore lS any portion of this house going to be saved? MS. MOORE: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the entire foundation going to be demolished and a new foundation? MS. MOORE: CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: '/5 feet? MS. MOORE: Yes. The existing house -- we have the site plan dated September 13, 2006, should be the one you have in front of you, that one shows the outline of the house and the darker hatch markings show the proposed. The existing lS 53.3 from the bulkhead to the existing deck and the 70.3 to the house. I also provided In my packet photographs of the house and the decking, and you can see that Photograph 2 in the packet I originally gave you, it shows the location of the house and the decking in relationship to the properties to the north. If you notice, many of the waterfront homes that were on Nassau Point, many of these were older homes that are at a point that because of the newer codes and the cost of construction and the cost of the properties themselves, it makes more sense for demolition and reconstruction; that is what this family has proposed to do here. The placement of the house is, as we said, it's set back further than the existing structure. The sanitary system was placed and approved by the health department on the landward side of the house. There are numerous trees as you can see all along the west side of the property, along Nassau Point Road, and they have been very careful In their construction and proposed garage to try to limit the number of trees that would require removal. So we would like to keep the house where it lS because it preserves the maximum number of trees as well as obviously keeping the location of the sanitary system where it's been approved. Miss Moore? afternoon, Patricia Moore I have the Fisher's the architect and he had 4 5 6 7 8 . Yes. 9 And you're gOlng back 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 52 1 2 This has Trustee approval. It has DEe nonjurisdiction. We're at this point the last agency to review this. I had an additional photograph which I did leave on the dais while you were taking a break. That photograph shows the character of the waterfront area there. The adjacent homes, if you face to the north, the north homes are again set back closer to the bluff than our proposed new construction and two houses to the north is a very substantial house that lS one of the newly reconstructed houses that is significantly closer to the bluff than our proposed location. On the opposite side, the south side of the property is a very small house that has a lot of natural vegetation; the property line on that side is being retained. The existing house is being retained so the setbacks are being preserved, so there won't be any change to the setback on the smaller house that's on that photograph. That's with respect to the setback from the bulkhead. This is a very stable bluff. There is no erosion. It's one of the higher, taller bluffs along Nassau Point. It's one of the relatively lower ones as it relates to the Nassau Point area. On the north side of the property, the other variance we required was merely for the roofing over of the stoop and the stairs, are permissible, that does not require a variance. However, the roof over -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The stoop? MS. MOORE: Is what I need to ask for is to allow a variance for that cover, otherwise it's an open entryway. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just to reiterate, you are, according to the site plan, 80.8 feet from the bulkhead to the proposed building? MS. MOORE: Proposed, the main house lS 80.8. The setback to the proposed deck -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is 71? MS. MOORE: 71.3. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How wide is that deck? MS. MOORE: The deck is 112 feet from the street, porch from the edge of the street, which is the furthest part. This home is primarily enjoyed in the summer time so the deck and the views are very important to the client. So the decking is something that they truly want to e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 3D, 2006 53 1 2 preserve. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high above the ground lS the deck? MR. DREW: 18 to 24 inches. MS. MOORE: It would be similarly designed as the one that they have got, which lS an open cailing, which wouldn't be considered at grade because it's slightly above the grade, but it's not highly elevated. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What lS the purpose of the roof over the stoop? MR. DREW: Just a covered entry for rain and also a detail to break up the wall elevation. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Pretty bland, a volumetric device. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the distance between the porch on the southeast side or the steps of the porch and the property line? You're showing a 20.3 foot over on that side, but you're not showing a distance on the other side? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's 15-5. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 15-5. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, over here (indicating) . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, sorry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm asking where it says dry well? . MR. DREW: From the edge BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MR. DREW: I would say 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ten. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm concerned about closing up side yards, okay. You have a side yard that's closed up totally on the north side with the roof over the stoop. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You retain 10 but you've got yourself some sort of -- I no idea what the blocking around that is; is that blocking? MS. MOORE: That's hay bales. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Those are hay bales during construction? MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, you can't tell me that no one is going to build a 6,000 square foot house and not put some sort of screening in there. So it's gOlng to be reduced. So if you're starting with 10, you're going to of the Yes. feet. steps? . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 feet have what 21 22 23 24 . 25 November 30, 2006 54 1 2 reduce it; it's going to be six by the time you put something in there. That's why it's critical to know what kind of screening these people are anticipating because this is really, really closed up. It's a problem. It's a problem from a fire fighting standpoint; it's a problem for everything. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's again 15 feet on the other side. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, 15 feet less whatever kind of screening you put in. You put significant screening in, and it grows to a maximum girth to three to five feet, you're back to 10. You have to end up with a clean 10 to 12 feet In there based upon topography. You've got a significant grading change between the back of the property, which is of course, the road frontage side and the elevation of the water side. MS. MOORE: Given your comment, I think we have been talking the porch on the south side, the larger porch, a design change could be proposed that has the stairs going towards Nassau Point Road. So we don't have the stairs encroaching, giving 20 foot clearance on that side. That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone In the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing lS for Papazahariou. Miss Mesiano? MS. MESIANO: I am Cathy Mesiano, and I am here on behalf of Zaharia Papazahariou is my client. We made an application to the Building Department for a swimming pool. We were denied on I:he basis that a swimming pool lS not entirely located in the back yard of the property. I believe about 400 square feet of the pool extends into the side yard, and we believe the configuration of the house on the property creates 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 55 1 2 a practical difficulty in that CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Two front yards. MS. MESIANO: Well CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a right of way e 3 4 there. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's a 20 foot right of way. MS. MESIANO: I was assuming because of the encroachment into the side yard. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That would be the front yard if it's in their deed, the right of way, and if they use it. MS. MESIANO: That right of way lS for the benefit of someone else. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's not in your client's deed. Let's see, that would be the determining factor. MS. MESIANO: It's In their deed it's not for their benefit. It's for the benefit of -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's on their property though. MS. MESIANO: I have to apologize. That was not made clear to me, or I did not perceive that from the wording of the notice of disapproval. I had looked at it and understood that it meant that it was in a side yard. Because that right of way is not for the benefit of this person but for the benefit of another. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's not a rear 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 yard. 17 MS. MESIANO: It's not a rear yard is the bottom line. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That's why you're 18 here. 19 MS. MESIANO: So whether it's because of the 20 foot right of way or then the side yard distance from that, it's still between 127 feet -- it's 127 feet from the pool to the side yard and 129.7 from the house to that person's. So in any event, I don't think that that would be a deterrent or distraction or negative impact on another's right of passage through the property. Visually it certainly does not have a negative impact. As far as a practical difficulty, this is not or rather a self-created hardship. I don't believe that it is a self-created hardship. Given these parameters there's not a rear yard to be had because, agaln, the house is set on an angle on 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 56 1 2 the property, the side yards are not your typical side yards. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's essentially no conforming, and it's very heavily treed on the other side. It's completely open space. It's completely screened by dense evergreens. MS. MESIANO: I had my mind set on a particular set of facts. It was not my interpretation of the disapproval. It was for two front yards. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I only noticed night myself. I have no problem with it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nothing it last Jerry? at the e 3 4 5 6 7 8 moment. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I actually just had a question and not specifically regarding the pool, but in making the site inspection I noticed the really quite large accessory structure. The garage noted as a garage with kind of scaffolding and concrete platform behind, and it's got lots of windows with blinds all around. MS. MESIANO: I will make a point of inquiring. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I would really like to know how that accessory structure - there's no driveway up there. There's an attached two-car garage to the house. This is not what's before us, but in making that inspection, I'd really like to know what that structure's being used for. MS. MESIANO: I will certainly find out and get back to you. I didn't focus on that because my focus was the swimming pool. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no problem with the swimming pool. I just want to know what's going on with the garage. Because there's no driveway going to it. So clearly -- and actually there's landscaping in front of the garage door. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, the property card says that 1n 1997 there was a building permit issued for a structure of two-car garage, so that's what it's being used for. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But there's no driveway. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There's no way it's being used for a car. 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 57 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It has a building permit and CO. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But there's lots of windows with very beautiful Venetian blinds in them. e 3 4 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just clear something up, real easy for you, Jim, and everybody else. If you're applying for a variance, you have to be in compliance. If you're not in compliance, then you don't get the variance, and that's the story. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm pointing out for you that they have a CO for that building. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't care if they have a CO for it, what does the CO say? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Two-car garage and storage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, if it's not being used for that, they don't get a varlance. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm trying to figure out how you know that it's not being used for a two-car garage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because there's a tree in front of the door. You couldn't put a car in. 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you don't need to put a car in a garage, you can store anything you want in a garage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It doesn't necessarily even have to be a garage. It could be a storage shed. It can be that size. It could be a zillion things besides the focus of this particular application. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How do we know it isn't a residence, for example? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite honestly, you can't make that determination. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I am asking the question. That's one of the advantages of site visit. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And Cathy's going to qet back to us. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You see that many windows with window blinds in them all the way around. I just want to know how the storage is being used. 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 58 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: For anybody's information when I read the notice of disapproval, my assumption was that the building inspector made the determination about that right of way, so therefore there should not be any mention in there. He made his decision, that's why it's not ln there. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There's a broader question, suppose someone applies for something on one corner of the property, we look at it, and while we're on there, we notice that there are two houses fully occupied on the same property. It isn't clear to me, are we supposed to simply ignore that because that's not part of the application? Or are people placing whatever they're doing at risk when they apply for something and thereby invite site inspections? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: By us granting them an application, we grant the building inspector the right to go on that piece of property and inspect that piece of property, and that quite honestly, is his purview and not ours. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I disagree with e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e you. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You can't disagree, we're not enforcement officers here. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We never sought to be. But we have had this discussion innumerable amounts of times over conditions of rights of ways and always asking this nice young lady, and she intend to glve us the answer. That's the end of it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? Yes, sir? MR. HOLLIS: My name is Phil Hollis from 1150 Sound Drive, adjacent to the property. I'm objecting to the pool. The pool lS right under my wall. My kids can fall right in there. Now, I think you're -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: the wrong application. We're next one. I think you're on talking about the 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 on, sir? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: What street are you e 25 MR. HOLLIS: BOARD MEMBER application. 1150 Sound Drive. SIMON: That's the Seeley November 30, 2006 59 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's the next application. We'll get there. All right. I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 4 ------------------------------------------- 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Seeley at 1250 Sound Drive in Greenport, who wishes to build a swimming pool at less than 100 feet from the bluff. Miss Mesiano? MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. I understand that there are numerous issues. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There's just one. MS. MESIANO: Mr. Seeley is applying for a swimming pool in a location less than 100 feet from the edge of the bluff, and his practical difficulty was created in my opinion in the ill conceived design of the set of plans of the subdivision. The soundfront lots on this section of the subdivision are compromised at best because it appears to me that consideration was not made for the fact that once you impose a 100 foot building setback line from a bluff and then you impose a front yard setback line, there's not much left. Mr. Seeley, I would say, is the worst of the lots. I do have copies of the site plans, subdivision map. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'd like to see. We have a tax map. I'd like to see the subdivision map. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Here (indicating) MS. MESIANO: The practical difficulty for me came with the creation of the subdivision. Ours is the eastern most lot. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Cathy, I just wanted to make sure they had a copy of the covenants. MS. MESIANO: We have covenants and restrictions that were recorded against this property in conjunction with the subdivision of the property. One of the items was pointed out as an issue, and I would like to address that and just briefly I'll read Covenant Number 11, No draining shall be permitted with topography of the bluff except that which may be necessary to control the erosion against storm water going over the edge of the bluff. So I would just like to 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 60 1 2 add that. And the third point that was raised as a result of the inspection by the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation Board is that it be noted that there appears to be some -- they mentioned two gullies that had been created on the face of the bluff. Since we have been made aware of that. Mr. Seeley has been watching that. It appears that this is a result of the deer traversing. There's always footprints in the area. It doesn't appear to be gully created by water going over the edge but by the traffic by the deer. So we have an lssue with that. So I've got several issues that I need to address. The two issues concerning the soil and water conservation board's recommendation and the covenant at first blush seem to conflict. However, when you read the covenant more clearly and it's saying except that which may be necessary to control -- the recommendations of the soil and water conservation board are specifically that Soil and Water Conservation Board is recommending a berm be placed at the northerly edge of the landscaped area of the property for the purpose of impeding any erosion, any run off the bluff. Linda and I had discussion as to whether this was counter to the covenants and restrictions. Since these covenants were saYlng except for that which may be necessary to control or remedy erosion, I think that that falls within that exception. So I would like to now set those thoughts aside and focus on the pool placement, alternative suggestions for placement and so on. As initially presented to the Board from the proposed pool to the top of the bluff and the shortest distance is 66.8 feet. I made a suggestion to Mr. Seeley that the pool be redesigned, reoriented, which was taken under advisement, and their surveyor has drawn another configuration, and the closest distance In this configuration -- and that is to say the pool was initially oriented in a generally north-south direction, and this configuration lS In a generally east-west configuration. By doing that we have increased the setback from the top of the bluff to the pool to at least 72 feet. I have just received a survey this morning. I have made some recommendations to Mr. Seeley that we could further improve the setback from the bluff to the e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 61 1 6 pool. I will give you a copy of the survey, but I would like to say also that I would like to go back to the drawing board. I think that this can be made closer to conforming, and create less of a problem and require less of a variance. This lS the new proposal I was just speaking. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: So you're amending the application for this proposal, correct? MS. MESIANO: Yes. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Yes, thank you. MS. MESIANO: My view of this plan that the surveyor provided us with, I immediately noticed that the spa, which was proposed seawards of the swimming pool, I felt could be removed and increase that setback. So I would eliminate that from that area altogether, and I would propose shifting the pool in a generally southwesterly direction so that the pool can be farther from the property line. And that being said, I wanted to say that this lS going before the Trustees, and I'm on the Trustees calendar on the December 13th hearing. The remediation to the bluff as was recommended by the Soil and Water Conservation Board letter is primarily the subject of that application as well as, but I will ask at this time, I would certainly be happy to address any questions that you have, but I would like to hold this over until after the Trustees hearing because I need to address with the Trustees the remediation of these eroded areas, that the erosion is from the deer path more than the water runoff. And I need to address the Trustees construction of this berm as was recommended by soil and water. And after I have completed the Trustees' application, I will know what I'm able to do as far as the bluff is concerned, and then I can come back to you with more of a firm plan on the erosion issues, and issues raised by Soil and Water Conservation Board. So at that time I will know how much flexibility the Trustees will allow in the placement of the pool. I have come close to their 75 foot setback requirement. I'm trying to placate everyone I can to come close to that 75 foot setback. So I will request that we hold this over, but I would be more than happy to address questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't think we mind to hold it open as far as the bluff lS concerned. 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 1 62 2 As far as the pool lS concerned, according to the LWRP, you're 100 foot back now with your house? MS. MESIANO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see no reason to put a pool In there at less than 100 feet back. I am very concerned about the bluffs In that area gOlng eastward. There have been blow-outs and if you have a couple gullies now -- and I don't care who they're caused by -- unless it's remediated, I certainly don't want the weight of a pool anywhere near that bluff. And if you're 100 foot back, you're a lot safer. I would not vote for it. MS. MESIANO: We have no alternatives on this site. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I realize that. MS. MESIANO: And we would not ask for a variance without also implementing the remediation that was recommended by soil and water. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There's a question, when was the house built, actually? MS. MESIANO: The house was built within the past two or three years. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. And the pool was presumably an afterthought? The one question we could ask is Slnce they're so close together and the house was built without the pool is if the original site plan had called for a swimming pool, would they have been able to get the variance for that building, house plus pool? The answer to that question would seem to be fairly relevant to our deliberations on this issue that's before us today. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not really, Michael, because it's two different things. MS. MESIANO: The plans have been designed In such a way that the pool and the surrounding fencing could have been integrated into the structure of the house, and it could have been part of the principal structure. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's true. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What you're saying is that that option is no longer available because the house has already been built. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I guess in a sense that would be more likely to take this very seriously if the house hadn't been built just two years ago. If it was built 25 years ago, then the e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 63 1 9 question lS how are we going to accommodate a preexisting, a pool with a preexisting residence. MS. MESIANO: The reason that I thought that this was worth trying to get a varlance on lS because in studying the subdivision map itself, I keep getting stuck on the fact that the subdivision itself was, in my opinion -- strictly my opinion -- poorly conceived, and valuable lots in the subdivision, the most problematic lots In the subdivision, practically the house that's on the lot was designed for this odd-shaped building envelope that was again, I'm not putting myself out to be smarter than an expert, however, simply looking at this, and knowing that waterfront is valuable, and they're not making any more, glven my druthers, I'd sacrifice some interior lots to provide a better waterfront lot, and then have a larger building envelope. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But the developer, they decided they wanted more lots and they got more lots. We can't later on say I also want to be able to do whatever I want to do on those lots. MS. MESIANO: It is what it is, but in looking at the property, my oplnlon on this lS that it's unfortunate that it wasn't more -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Your argument lS essentially, we wish we had a better lot. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And we don't. MS. MESIANO: I can wish for anything I 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 want. 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And nobody would object to your trying to get this approved, get the variance. Your difficulties with the size of the lots would not have arisen were it not for the fact that the Seeleys also want a swimming pool, and we should remember that a swimming pool is not a uniquely waterfront related feature. It's a very desirable feature. So there's where the problem is. So in this case the casualty of poor site plan, if that's the case was, lS the swimming pool. It's a wonderfully situated house; it's a very nice lot. The question is, can they also find room for a swimming pool on that lot glven the house is built where it is. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did you get the notice of inconsistency with the LWRP coordinator? MS. MESIANO: Yes, I did and I believe I 18 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 64 1 2 addressed that lS concerned. of me. to the Board as far as the drainage I don't have that document in front e 3 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It was from Mark Terry. MS. MESIANO: I know that. I don't have it In front of me, and I know you're running late and there are people behind me, but I did address the issues raised in that as far as the drainage LS concerned. Again, taking into account the comments of soil and water, if a swimming pool of some degree is allowed in this site, Mr. Seeley is more than willing to put the resources in to do the remediation, restoration. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would respectfully submit that he better try to restore or remediate that bluff, otherwise you're going to lose it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: With or without the 4 5 7 8 9 10 pool. e 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You've got a problem, a big problem. MS. MESIANO: I understand that, and it was brought to his attention by this report. Once we saw this report it's been taken seriously, which lS why the application is in to the Trustees. 11 12 13 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very good. MS. MESIANO: And as far as the pool is concerned, I know we have -- I think it's a 16 by 32. The Seeleys are quite flexible to design something smaller and get as close to that 75 feet that the Trustees will give us, that's what we're trying to do. I want to go to them first because -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We take precedent the Trustees. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: have to go to the Planning Board to C and R issues. over 15 16 17 18 20 You may still overcome these 21 MS. MESIANO: Linda and I have had some discussion, and I had understood that the Board was going to be asking for an interpretation. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: No. I had suggested to you that you could write to the Planning Board and ask them for an interpretation. MS. MESIANO: I'm sorry I thought BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: No, it was up to you to do that. 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 65 1 2 8 MS. MESIANO: I'm sorry. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The covenant says no grading within 100 feet of the bluff. MS. MESIANO: Then read the rest of that sentence. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I read it. MS. MESIANO: Except for the purposes of erosion control or ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The pool lS erosion control? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Obviously the berm would be, but the swimming pool would be grading, period. e 3 4 5 6 7 MS. MESIANO: The pool would be at 9 grade. e 14 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You have to do grading to make a pool. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You'll have to excavate. MS. MESIANO: The covenant says grade, I don't think it says no excavating. I think it says no grading. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's still a disturbance. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Excavating lS worse than grading I think. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Good deal of instability in soil. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We dealt with this issue in Mattituck at one point, where the bluff was 165 feet high, there were significant problems. We actually had an engineer weigh the weight of the pool, gunite pool with water in it as opposed to compacted soil, and believe it or not as a result of that analysis, the weight of compacted soil is actually heavier than a gunite pool with water in it. It was his determination. It was an interesting situation. However, In making that determination, this homeowner knew that they had to build outside of the 100 foot mark. So what they did was they took the deck down, they drove pilings underneath it, and they built a swimming pool which basically lS a free flow in the contour of the house with total engineering specifications that the Building Department allowed. And that's what you might have to do here, even if you have to cut it into the house, if that's what you want, then that's 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 66 1 6 what you may have to do. And I'm telling you that that was what was done. I observed this pool after it was constructed, and I have to tell you that it was extremely tastefully done. It was certainly nowhere near the standard size of 16 by 32, and was it outside the master bedroom. It was directly outside the master bedroom, and, in my particular opinion, I think that's what you have to do. 2 e 3 4 5 8 MS. MESIANO: I am here to hear your comments because I know that this is not -- again, I learn, nothing's ever simple. But I know that this is more problematic than most because of the issues concerned. So I didn't come here expecting answers, and I know what I would have gotten -- so I wanted to hear the Board's comment, and I also would like the opportunity to go before the Trustees. Again, I'm sorry I misunderstood, and I will put that letter into Mark Terry. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That was the only suggestion I had. It's not required, but it was just a suggestion I had. MS. MESIANO: I'm sorry. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Don't be sorry, it's okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I walk by this house every morning, and I watch this house being built and the house alongside it. And the house alongside it has a pool on the side yard. The house was made narrower so they could put a pool ln, and my assumption is they're restricted by the same covenants that theirs was. MS. MESIANO: This is the house -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: To the west. And I think a covenant is a covenant, and I read the covenant as okay, you can do a little disturbing, build yourself a berm, try to keep the water off the bluff, but I don't see where it says anything where you can build anything in that 100 feet. The Board knows how I feel about covenants. It's more than just a handshake; it's an agreement, and you agreed to it. And it shapes the value of that piece of property. So I mean, you have to get around that, quite honestly, long before we consider anything else, and I haven't heard you say anything that you have some kind of hardship other than some kind of covenant. I understand 7 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 November 30, 2006 67 1 5 the position of the house, but the position of the house was in the actual lot, was defined by the Planning Board and so was the building envelope. [ don't see you getting past that. As far as this erosion lS concerned, I suspect that the stairwell that goes down to the west of that piece of property that everybody gets to use is blocking a path that the deer used to use. There used to be a road that goes down there. 2 e 3 4 6 9 MS. MESIANO: The neighbor completely fenced his property -- not just around his swimming pool. Trapping the deer, changed their path that they used. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have lived there for 30 years and this year lS the first year I have seen deer on the beach. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They're stuck and they're multiplying quickly. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We used to be able to go down this road all the time. This was a party place. But you want to address erosion, that's what he's got to do. And honestly, you haven't In this hearing addressed that. MS. MESIANO: Those steps are not something we can speak to because those are the association and they're off this property. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree, but that's your problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? Yes, sir? MR. HOLLIS: Phil Hollis, 1150 Sound Drive. The bluff is in months going to fall down. They have not made a single attempt to put a dry well. They cleared all the brush, the house lS for sale -- all the brush is clean, this bluff lS going to go down any moment. I purchased the property adjacent to that, and I had to put a retaining wall, I had to put four dry wells; they have done none of that. They want to maximize property because they cannot sell the house. This is speculators. I've been there for 20 years and honestly, we're going to lose the bluff. As far as the swimming pool, frankly speaking, I have a swimming pool, but they have to meet the code that you set up for me. They have not done that. They're ignorant. When they were building they 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 68 1 2 knocked my wall out, they knocked this. It's just to get the money and run, basically. We're here to stay. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else who wishes to comment on this application? Yes, sir? e 3 4 5 MR. SEELEY: I'm Bob Seeley, how are you? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hi. MR. SEELEY: I didn't knock his wall down. I don't know what he's talking about. His pool is like 20 feet from the bluff, that's irrelevant anyway. When we bought the house we were going to Live there. My wife, we're gOlng out there, she decides she didn't want to be near this guy, so we're not going to live there now. One of the reasons we didn't go for the variance originally was because I wanted to get started on the house. Took a while to think about it. The architect, he says get the house started and talk about it later. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MS. MESIANO: There's only one other thing I'd like to add talking about the covenants. I think you were referring to the 100 foot setback line. Again, I think it's a gray area in the covenant, the setback line pertains to structures. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: As I read the covenant, it says no grading within 100 feet of the bluff, it doesn't say building. MS. MESIANO: If you look at the subdivision map, Jim, lS that what you were referring to? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to hear it discussed. MS. MESIANO: On the subdivision map there's a line in the code that there's a 100 foot building setback, specific In that a building is a structure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: For some purposes and not others. MS. MESIANO: Unfortunately. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: As I interpret it, and I've been involved now for 20 years, a building setback line is just that. There's l~t -- you know, a structure has to do with the actual physical boards and everything but the building setback line to my mind lS a line that's set with no building on it per se, just says this 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 69 1 2 lS -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: building envelope? I believe it's ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: envelope put all your structures. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Building envelope in which we put everything in it. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Even were that not the case, you always have the grading problem as well. Just the a structure. Building e 3 4 5 6 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anything that lS determined to be a structure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you want to adjourn it? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. I think we're all agreed on the setback issue. So I'd like to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's her dime. I'd like to glve her an opportunity. If she feels like she wants to go to the Trustees and come back. 8 9 10 11 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: She can still go to the Trustees. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: She wants to go to the Planning Board also. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So what? What does that cost us anything? If you want to go through the process, that's what you're asking us for, to go through the process and come back to us and say that's what the Trustees say. I have no objection to us holding the hearing open until then. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The alternative, Ruth, would be January 25th at 11:10 in the mornlng. So, I don't know how the rest of the Goard feels. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We could leave it open for 10 years. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Leave it open without a date. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Without a date and she'll get back to us. Okay, make that motion. (See minutes for resolution.) 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ------------------------------------------------- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for the one on Main Road in Mattituck, shown. Mr. Goggins. MR. GOGGINS: William Goggins, 31045 Main Road, Mattituck, New York, for the applicant Roy C. and Robert Schoenhaar. As you know we're 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 70 1 2 applying for two variances today. It's that split zoning in Mattituck. When we rezoned the town, they put a zoning line down a part of this parcel. The parcel that's on the Main Road is business and the parcel in the back is residential, it hasn't been subdivided. It's just one big piece of property. It's been owned by the Schoenhaars since the early '80s. It's been In the family ever Slnce. There is a present structure, which 1S in the commercial end of the property, which 1S a ranch house that's been there since Mr. Schoenhaar built it in the 1950s, '40s or '50s. Mr. Schoenhaar decided at the time to subdivide the property, since he's getting older and at some point they wanted to develop the commercial part of the property. So when we put forth the subdivision process, the surveyor drew a line right where the zoning line is, which split the property, and that separated it so the commercial end 1S 34,189 square feet, and the residential part is 78,458 feet. In order to get two residential lots in our town in an R40 zone, you need 40,000 square foot per lot. So the surveyor put together what he thought was a good way to put these two lots together and that takes us to the present map. Frankly, with regard to the first variance, Section 100.38-3, regarding the bulk schedule of the 80,000 square feet, the residential part is 78,458 square feet. It's 105, 52 feet short of the required 80,000, and it certainly wasn't self-created. That was created by the Town Board when they remapped the zone there, and I did a calculation, if they had moved the map just nine feet north, we wouldn't be here today on the bulk schedule on the residential property. I also did a little research for the surrounding properties and their sizes and the average Slze of the residential lots 1n the area 1S 25,845 square feet, which is substantially less than what is required in the R40 zone. I also took the liberty of tax map Section 143 and actually putting the actual square footage sizes of all the surrounding residential properties dnd -- e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You're going to create two lots out of this highlighted? November 30, 2006 71 1 2 MR. GOGGINS: In the residential portion we're putting two lots, and In the commercial just one. e 3 5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So you want two in that 78,000 instead of 80? MR. GOGGINS: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the square feet? Oh, there it is. The commercial property lS 44,369? MR. GOGGINS: The commercial property is Lot 1, which is 34,000, 34,189. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, thank you. MR. GOGGINS: Then the two residential properties, one is Lot 2 on the map, which lS 34,089 square feet and Lot 3 is 44,789. I'm not sure why the surveyor did that. Mr. Schoenhaar and I looked at it, and it doesn't make sense why I:hey would do that. We thought they would make Lot 3 40,000 and make Lot 2 38,000 and make it more of a standard lot size. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That can be readjusted. MR. GOGGINS: Yes. If we did that then one lot would be In conformity and one lot would be 1,540 square feet short. Again, this certainly wasn't created by the applicant. It's a line on the map that caused the problem. The second variance is the side yard setback on that existing structure that's in the commercial portion. The Planning Board looked at it and I know they sent a letter to the ZBA and they had no opposition to that. They actually supported that variance. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's along the right of way? MR. GOGGINS: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The existing house lS partly on commercial, partly on residential or purely on commercial? 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. GOGGINS: It's all BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: as noted on the survey? MR. GOGGINS: Right. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: nonconforming use? MR. GOGGINS: Right. on commercial. So it's on Lot 1, 23 So it's a 24 e Pre-existing, 25 nonconforming. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: What did the November 30, 2006 72 1 9 Planning Board have to say about this? MR. GOGGINS: There was a letter, they supported it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That right of way is very simply a piece of property that Mr. Schoenhaar owns and you're just deeming it to be a right of way; is that correct? MR. GOGGINS: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have total fee to that; no one else has a right over that? MR. GOGGINS: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any particular reason you decided to put it on that side and not on the other side of the property and do a crossover between the two? MR. GOGGINS: I don't know. The only thing I could think of is that it would impact the west residential property. Because the property on the west is a big piece of property, and it carries most of the right of way, and there's two parcels on the Marlene Lane side that would be impacted in that their driveway would go past the back of their homes, which I realize is probably going to be a concern, and we'll do anything that would help the neighbors. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Those are definitely the concerns that the neighbors have. MR. GOGGINS: Those are our concerns too, that they would want some sort of screen. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's why I said if it was over on the restaurant side, it would probably be less apt to be used as having it stand out alone on this side with a crossover; they come over and do a crossover. But you've got to take it away anyway, if you make them equal. Mr. Rein, who I spoke to today, he's not in opposition to this. I guess Moyer, those are the other side, it would have an effect on Vitale and GO foot of the Sully, I think is the other property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Zara and Bob Sully. MR. GOGGINS: It would affect Vitale and 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Celie. 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Celie Realty. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we have to listen to contiguous owners. We know their concerned. We have to figure out a way to mitigate this right of way, that's my opinion. e 25 November 30, 2006 73 1 2 7 MR. GOGGINS: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this application? Any neighbors? Yes, go ahead, please. MS. LARETTI: Hi, my name is Ginny Laretti, and I'm 13 on the map, which is where the property takes kind of a hard left, and I've spoken to a number of neighbors as well, and I guess the concern is again, sort of changing the character of the area, and the density which the original Board had indicated they had a problem with. I think that you have to look at the fact that the front lot actually has a residential structure on it already and with that turned commercial, it has a residential unit there, and adding two more behind it, and we know, as you said, that there's also going to be a commercial space in front of it, you have basically four structures on a very narrow right of way, and it's not going to be a public road, and it's not going to be maintained as other public roads are maintained. As a result of that, I think that the problem that we have is fire and emergency access is going to be limited. And I think that the variances requested are substantial, and the setback relief is substantial, and we're concerned about that. I feel there's not really enough buffer between the buildings, and there are some back structures that are omitted from the plans that have been submitted. I don't know if they are impacted or not. I'm concerned because I did speak to Mr. Schoenhaar to discuss this and he's a very nice gentleman, and he said he's going to put all the screening in and all this other stuff, which is great because my concern is to keep the character of the neighborhood, which is very wooded at the present time. I come out here for that; that's why I come here. He said he's going to put screening. He hasn't committed to that in his plans, and as we heard earlier today, I think one of the issues was with that road, the setback lS really -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Diminished. MS. LARETTI: It's a problem because we're already small lots. It looks as though he's looking to put all this in about 3,000 to 4,000 square feet, quite large in comparison houses. e 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 74 1 9 Our house is about 1,100 or 1,400 square feet. I'm on a half acre. And while their lot sizes may be large In some cases, mine is small, but it's not the smallest lot size on half acre. My structure fits the character of the lot as do on Marlene Lane. There's small houses on small lots. There are exceptions to that, but there are a lot of existing historic-type houses on smaller lots. They're smaller. These are huge envelopes on small parcels in which they're seeking a variance, And I find that problematic because it's changing what it lS -- the reason why I'm out here. It Also doesn't say on the plans whether or not it's single family or multiple dwelling. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would have to be 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 single. 15 MS. LARETTI: But even so, with these large 3,000, 4,000 square feet houses, which would accommodate larger families, you're looking at a lot of cars. Where are those cars going to go? And when the cars are there, how are the emergency vehicles gOlng to access these houses? So I have a problem with that. There's no reference whether clearing restrictions are being met, I don't know, it looks to me the percentage of trees they can take down. It's basically a cul-de-sac without a sack. So how do the fire trucks get around if they can't turn around? What if there's a five alarm fire? I'll be burnt down. I have a back structure I have on my property that's not listed on their plans, so I have that concern. Sanitary water lssues, and the water issues, you've got the fire hydrant issue. Where lS the nearest fire hydrant? I think it's on the Main Road. So from the Main Road back to the end of that property where basically my property is, I'm toward the end of that lot and especially because his property curves to the left into my property, I have a concern. If something goes down, I'm not sure the fire trucks can get there. So that's a real concern that I have. So I also, as I said, have a concern because I assume that there's gOlng to be four buildings, not three as has been indicated and one variance and then another variance, and then Another variance in the future. We're taking a lot in little pleces. I have heard -- and I don't know whether this is correct or not and you would 10 11 12 13 e 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 75 1 2 know better than I -- that there is a way, once you subdivide these lots and you have commercial moved to residential, there's some way to merge in the residential into commercial if there's a certain square footage that is met. So, for example, if you have a 40,000 square foot commercial space and a 30,000 square foot residential space, if you want to merge the residential into the commercial it's less than a certain percentage you can do it. So I'm concerned that it will be subdivided twice and then merged back into the commercial somehow to create that into a commercial space. I don't know whether that is possible but it's something that I had heard. Also, I understand that with the business you need 30,000 square feet of space for a business but when you have a dwelling on it, you need 40. So his existing residential structure on the commercial space and having only 34,000 square feet there, there's a concern because then he's going to seek another variance, and you're going to have the density greatly increased in the area. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 So I completely understand that Mr. Schoenhaar has had this property for a long time, and he has a right to build on it, but I think that he can't do it at the expense of his neighbors. And I think the increase of the density has a detrimental effect on the value of his neighbors' property, especially when I think of the fire and emergency access. Thank you very much. 15 16 17 18 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: anyone else that wishes to Yes, ma'am. MS. SKURO: My name is Rose Skuro, I live on Marlene Lane, and will be directly affected by the development of this property, SCTM#143 3 33.2. I have a petition stating we appeal to the Board to uphold Town Code and deny the granting of variances at this time. I have a petition with signatures (handing). CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much. MS. SKURO: I also have for the Board a document that states my concerns. Do you wish me to read it? Thank you. Is there speak on this property? 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. November 30, 2006 76 1 9 MS. SKURO: I have received legal notice ,kscribing the most recent application for SCTM ff143 3 33.2, assessed to Roy C. and Robert Schoenhaar. A section of this parcel forms the (easterly border of my property and the granting of varlances for the proposed development brings up serlOUS issues that will directly and permanently affect my environment, as well as the environment and character of the neighborhood and the community in general. This parcel is landlocked on its east, west and south borders by residential and business property owners. The parcel's north border lS bounded by Route 25. Access to and from the lot and/or its structures requlres the use of a right of way, where 100 feet is the mlnlmum required by Town Code. In addition, Lot 2 will have a lot ~rea of 34,098 square feet where 40,000 square Eeet is the minimum required In the R~40 Zoning District. Currently, there lS a preexisting structure on the property with no proposed changes to the building at this time. The proposed right of way would need available access from an already congested Route 25. The access would be located on the south side of Route 25, across from the shopping plaza and In between not one, but two busy shopping plaza (entrances and exits used by shoppers on a daily basis. There is also a stop for the Hampton ,Ji tney and the S92 daily bus service on one of those two entrances. This is a high traffic area that is not only dangerous to negotiate any day, but especially in the summer and fall, when vacationers and visitors make use of Route 25 and at times this reduces the flow of traffic to a standstill. The surrounding area contributes to the congestion with a new pharmacy, gas stations, banks, boat sales and small businesses. During the workweek, residents of the area and commuters also deal with rush hour traffic peaks to share the roadway with larger vehicles such as delivery and supply trucks traveling to and from businesses In the area as well as utility vehicles, buses, pedestrians and bicyclists. In the event of an romergency, when one or more ambulance, police, or fire vehicles need immediate access to the property, there could be a problem gaining access to the interior parcels not only due to the 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 November 30, 2006 77 1 2 traffic on Route 25 as I have described, but also from the proposed residential development, resulting in multiple users of the same right of way and homes crowded on smaller parcels of land, reducing availability to the surrounding area. A portion of the proposed right of way lS located along my property's easterly boundary line, and I will not only be directly affected by the proposed right of way as planned, but I am rtlso concerned about issues regarding pedestrian and vehicle access, additional parking problems, proposed development of landlocked property and the increase in population and usage of that area. This situation may also encourage trespassing by one or more individuals at any given time In order to gain easy access to their residence or nearby shopping areas, recreation facilities, and other neighboring residences or businesses, thereby necessitating the need for privacy barriers or additional fencing along property boundary lines. I am concerned about zoning variances that create overcrowding, and will diversely impact the environment, the character of the community and the quality of life afforded to the residents. On a parcel of land where there currently exists one structure, there is a proposal for two more residences to be built, one of which lS to be built on inadequate acreage. There also exists the possibility of developing a business area on that same acreage now or sometime In the future. Also, the granting of the variance for the right of way may set a dangerous new precedent that could be referred to and implemented in the future in similar situations in the Town of Southold, with even less desirable results. Granting zoning code variances for property located In an area that lS already problematic would create permanent, undesirable changes to the character of the area, create new issues requiring more intervention by local government and authorities and possibly necessitate new regulatory procedures, as well as negatively impact the surrounding residents, the neighborhood and community In general on an ongoing basis for all future generations. Thank you. . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you for sitting November 30, 2006 78 1 2 here so long, too. Yes, sir. MR. MOYER: Good afternoon, my name is Dale Moyer, I reside at 650 Bay Avenue, just east of the parcel. I have just a few quick points to make. I do not believe the Board should create a nonconforming lot that has only 34,000 square feet, not meeting the 40,000 square feet minimum. However, I do have no problem with one residential lot for this parcel, if it conforms to Town code. The other concern I have lS I understand the Town frowns upon flag lots due to safety issues and other issues, this proposal appears to be establishing In a sense two flag lots, and I hope this Board takes that into consideration. My other concern is why the Board would consider a setback relief of 87 feet leaving only a 13 foot setback when the Town code calls for a 100 foot setback from the right of way. This relief of 87 feet seems very excessive to me. Thank you for your time and consideration. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone else wish to speak Mr. Goggins? MR. GOGGINS: Thank you, Dale. on this application? e 14 If I could just address some 15 concerns. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I just clear one issue up first, Mr. Goggins? These building envelopes that are being addressed by the neighbors are not something that we created or they have been presented by us I suspect, they're something that the Planning board was cognizant of? 16 17 18 19 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. When the Planning Board reviews an application, they have to look at the date, the issues regarding fire and ambulance and access. They have to look at building envelopes, they want to make sure that any proposed houses are going to be built within that building envelope pursuant to Town law, so it's a process. We just don't come up with a plan and come to the ZBA. We have to go to the Planning Board. They have to review plans, and we made '3ubstantial changes from the beginning. And one of the lssues of the Planning Board was fire truck access and emergency access, and that's why at the end of the right of way they put that T at the 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 79 1 2 end. So there would be a turn around area. We had a cul-de-sac in there originally, but they didn't want a cul-de-sac. They wanted a turn-around area. So that's what the Planning Board wanted, certainly not what we wanted. But the Planning Board, they're smarter than us. They have more knowledge and they wanted it a certain way and that's how they wanted it. So, again, we had a cul-de-sac, but they made this T area for a turnaround for emergency vehicles, not us. So those concerns have already been addressed by the Planning Board. And as for the building L, that doesn't mean they're gOlng to build a five thousand square foot house. That's just an area where they can build a house, whether the house lS gOlng to be 100 square feet or 2,000 square feet or 3,000 square feet. They're not going to build those houses there, but they have the option to do so pursuant to the code. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also with the building envelope as was stated before, anything you want to build in that, it has to be in that building envelope, whether it's a pool, garage or shed. MR. GOGGINS: That's right. So if anybody wants a big house, they're not going to be able to have a pool, a tennis court, an attached garage, all that kind of stuff. It's the building envelope and a lot of people don't understand that. That's the way it lS. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to clear that up that although it's before us, it was another Board that requested that in those locations. MR. GOGGINS: That's correct. And also all the surrounding properties according to the surveyor have public water so there's no issue regarding cesspools and distances between cesspool and wells because it's all public water. And all utilities will be coming off the Main Road, so that's not going to impact the neighbors either. If I could just point out, most of these neighbors have less than 20,000 square foot of land on their property. These properties are nearly doubled. So they certainly conform with the neighborhood. In fact, they exceed what's already in the neighborhood. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I apologize for this again, but I just need, again, from the point e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 80 1 9 of view for the neighbors and us, have you anticipated any C and Rs on the right of way at all in reference to the specific use of the right of way, the pavement of the right of way and more in particularly any screening of those neighbors that have particular concerns? MR. GOGGINS: We have been waiting for ~lanning Board to tell us what they want. Whether they want asphalt or whether they want rock or pervious material or whatever they want. As for screenlng, Mr. Schoenhaar is willing to screen any area that this Board wants screened or the Planning Board wants screened. But the Planning Board has not said that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's get pragmatic about this, and I don't mean that In a sarcastic sense toward you where you've been before us many times, and you've done everything we have asked you to do. If you put trees in, and they're not watered, they're gOlng to die. So I suspect the only real screening that you could put In that would last would be some sort of earth tone fence or something of that nature. I mean, that's the best I could see at this particular point, regardless of -- I mean, those are one of the lssues that I think that we're dealing with; lS that not the case? MR. GOGGINS: That is the case, so whether it's required an earthtone fence plus trees along it or just trees or just a fence, Mr. Schoenhaar understands their concerns, and he wants to allay those concerns and make it less of an impact. We understand that they have enjoyed having a wooded property behind their lots and have privacy, but they had to have some expectation it would be developed at some point. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One option is to move the right of way to the east so you're not dealing with that kind of setback variance from the right of way. Because you have an awful lot of room from where the house is sited to that other property line; it's still commercial In the front, you still have some residential in the south, but at least that would get rid of that problem with that enormous setback varlance on the preexisting house. 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 November 30, 2006 81 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On the other hand, it isn't clear -- and I can't speak for them -- whether the neighbors on Marlene Drive would be more unhappy or less unhappy to have the right of way removed to the other side of the subject property. MR. GOGGINS: Presumably make the people on Bay Avenue unhappy. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's absolutely e 3 4 5 6 right. 7 MR. GOGGINS: And I think, like I said, the Planning Board has reviewed this and this is their kind of -- it's our initial design, but it's their completed analysis, and once we finally got to that point, they said, okay, come to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance so they have already considered all of these issues and -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They actually looked at the right of way on the other side and thought this was better? MR. GOGGINS: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite honestly, on the other side, you're gOlng to go down all residential property. It doesn't abut commercial. MR. GOGGINS: The east side definitely has more of an impact on the Bay Avenue properties than it would have impact -- it only impacts one and a half of the properties. It impacts Vitale and it impacts the woman that spoke earlier and on hers it's just a turnaround area. So to negate the impact upon her lot, Mrs. Skuro's lot, the only reason that's there is because of the turnaround area that the Planning Board wanted, and that's only 60 feet. So if we did screening just In that 60 foot area, then her property wouldn't be impacted. There would be no impact to her property at that point. The only person to impact would be the Vitales, and I don't see them here to oppose the application. AUDIENCE MEMBER: They moved. MR. GOGGINS: They moved? Who is there 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 now? 23 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I'm slightly confused by the Planning Board's memo. Maybe it's unfair to ask you to help clarify, but I'll just explain my source of confusion. The memo says on the one hand the size and shape of the proposed parcels is consistent with the surrounding area. 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 82 1 2 Then it says, okay, we'll look at the 13 feet. We support that setback relief, then it comes out and says we typically don't support increases In lot yield. MR. GOGGINS: That's exactly what they e 3 4 say. 5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They don't say we support the increase in this instance. MR. GOGGINS: They don't say either -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They're saying 6 7 both. 8 MR. GOGGINS: They're saying both. But they're saying, it is what it is. It's a unique piece of property, and they're not going to go either way. They use that word "typically." It's a good point made, they don't oppose it; they don't support it. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes. They're giving it to this Board, which lS the Board to make the decision. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So we can then act upon alternative relief Vla changes in site plan cecommendations. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You do whatever it is you normally do. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think the right of way is In the right place quite honestly. Simply because that right of way on the other side belongs to Mr. Pamillo, and that goes to a residential house. It's not really commercial, it's back to a residential house. The house exists on this piece of property already and any future building on that front lot is subject to the same laws that it is subject to now. That lS if you have a lot on that piece of property, you can't just put a commercial building on there and expect to keep the house without having a variance. MR. GOGGINS: That was one of the concerns of one of the neighbors. Maybe years ago people could mess around with it, but not any more. Site plan approval, it's a long process, you have SEQRA, you have all these things. You have to go through to get a commercial building. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We could restrict that to if you want a commercial building, you don't have the house anymore. 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 83 1 2 MR. GOGGINS: BOARD MEMBER condition. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The right of way is just a right of way for two homes. It's more a driveway. How about the fire hydrant this lady brought up. I'm sure the Planning Board is going to make them and the water district is going to make them comply to all the fire codes. MR. GOGGINS: Right. The main drain goes down the Main Road there. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So there would be a hydrant within insurable district? MR. GOGGINS: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Any other concerns? I think that's it. Quite honestly, these lots are going to be larger than any lots it abuts. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They are. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So I have no objection. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Goggins, would you object to -- I think in fact you suggested it, it makes no sense to have a 44,369 square foot lot -- the creation of one conforming lot and the other one slightly less than conforming, around 38,000. MR. GOGGINS: I agree. I think the reason why they did that initially was because they wanted a bigger lot to be adjacent to the neighbors. Because Lot 2 is not adjacent to any of the neighbors. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think part of what makes it 44 lS the inclusion of the right of way. MR. GOGGINS: Small part of that. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think what Leslie lS suggesting is maybe you could make that lot smaller, make the other one bigger, but it's somewhat of a fission because it's really not bigger than the other one right now. Numerically it is. MR. GOGGINS: But, no, we have no problem reducing the Lot 3 to 40,000 and increasing Lot 2 to 38,480. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. Because you effectively lose the building potential with the creation of the right of way. MR. GOGGINS: Right. Then it becomes a I understand. WEISMAN: That would be a e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 84 1 2 1.9 percent variance. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which is substantially less. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I just wanted to mention, Lot 2 is actually 32,812. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Without the right of e 3 4 5 way. 6 MR. GOGGINS: Right. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there are no other questions or comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 7 8 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know the Town of Southold, they are buying the parcel to the north of the property of FITF. Go ahead, Pat. MS. MOORE: I know you're all aware of the establishment of the Town of Southold and Land Preservation, they are buying the parcel to the north of the property FITF. It's drawn at the request of the Land Preservation and the Town Board. They want to incorporate cobble into that lot. So as a result, the line of the creation of this lot has made this lot undersized. The parcel is as conforming as we can make it. However, the wetlands area and some slope results in the need for an area variance. The Town Board did rezone this parcel from M2 to R40 in order to conform with the residential use that the applicant requested. And they also rezoned the northerly parcel that they're going to acquire. I think that one stayed R80. So all in an effort to accomplish this preservation so this plan does depict what the Town wants. 00 you have any specific questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not really. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not really. MS. MOORE: I am here only for the area variance. I was hoping that the Trustees and the DEC would respect the location of the house. I'm hoping that this house will stay where it is, if not, we'll have to be back on another application unless the properties to the south have closer setbacks, which I think they do. So I may be able to push the house forward towards the road at an average setback. So I'm hoping they avoid the need for a further variance. 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 85 1 2 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We didn't look at this at Fisher's Island. MS. MOORE: Some people were looking at it from the road. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did go up there a couple years ago. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: They had it in their packets when they went to Fishers Island. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, we saw it from the boat and -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, I walked the property last December, and I'm assuming they're taking that old building down. MS. MOORE: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand there were some gas tanks there that have been mitigated. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is the old government building. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: probably looked like the old gas terminal in Greenport. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The Mobil one? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Now, Mr. Anderson. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Okay, this is on CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is on Fergus. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The tape is recording. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Anderson, just before you start, may I say that this is certainly a magnificent house, and not the opportune plot for it. It should be on a five acre plot. This house is much too big for this sensitive piece of property. I would suggest that you cut this in half and move it back more than 20 foot from the rear yard setback or whatever it is. It's not acceptable. It's too big. It's 100 foot almost in length, 60 foot in width. It's only a 50 foot buffer to a wetlands. What's going to happen there, they're going to move in, then they're going to want a dock, and then all of a sudden they're going to be eroded, and then they're going to want a bulkhead, and we're involved. It's just 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 86 1 2 too close to a wetlands. that -- what? MR. ANDERSON: already. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: sorry, you're not going to too big a house. And it's too big for e 3 We have a permit for that 4 You're just -- I'm get the 20 foot. It's 5 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I comment? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, you can. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ruth, I think you need to hear the application before you make a determination. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I walked the property. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just let him have his say. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just want to tell him right from the beginning, so he can address anything he wants. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You can address it during the application. The man hasn't said a word yet. Let him have his say. Then, you are strong enough to go with convictions, if it passes it passes, we'll vote on it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, go ahead. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He made an application, he paid a few bucks, let him have his say, and then you can have your say after. MR. ANDERSON: Okay? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to ask everybody to keep an open mind. This is a proposal to construct a 5,000 square foot single-family dwelling on a lot that contains 63,000 square feet. It is a flag lot. It's zoned R40. The lot is oversized in the neighborhood it sits in. The coverage proposed In this application is 8.4 percent. It's well within the coverage descriptions that pertain to this lot in this residential zone. Therefore, the house is not too big in the sense of zoning. The dwelling also benefits from receipt of a permit from the Town Trustees and the DEC and the Health Department. The relief requested in this application is to permit the construction of an attached garage 25.2 feet from the easterly lot line, defined as the rear lot line in this application, where 50 feet is required. It is important to note that but for the garage's 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 87 1 2 connection to the dwelling by heated space, we would not be before this Board. The dwelling Slze is what it is because it's a one-story dwelling. Mr. and Mrs. Fergus are here tonight -- I mean today, and their desire lS to have a one-story house because they have moved on In age. Mr. Fergus has difficulty climbing stairs. We submitted applications before, the Board has read the application and has reviewed the criteria by which zoning variances are demanded. I will briefly highlight them today. So that we don't believe this house will have an undesirable change to the neighborhood because it will be -- it is a flag lot that sits off the road. The house will not be visible from the street. It is also substantially screened in other directions by a 50 foot buffer that was required in this application in connection with the wetland permits. So on that basis we believe that there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood. We submit that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method because this dwelling was shifted to the east as a result In an effort to maximize wetland setbacks. If we were to shift the dwelling back 25 feet to the west, we would not be before this Board, but what we would want are setbacks closer to the wetlands than what's proposed now, and that lS because the lot relative to the wetlands boundaries narrows as you move from east to west. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 We submit that the variance request is not substantial because again, we're here only because of the attachment to the house. In the event that this was a detached structure, we would not be before this Board because that setback would be 10 feet from the rear yard, but we are less than 25 teet, we're an attached structure, whereas a detached structure could be built 10 feet from the eastern lot line without the need to come before this Board. Again, we submit that this will have no impact to the physical and environmental conditions with the properties in the neighborhood. It does benefit from a DEe permit. It does benefit from a Trustee permit. 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 88 1 2 It benefits from a Health Department permit. It provides a 50 foot nonturf buffer, which is more than what's found In the neighborhood because most lots in the neighborhood, developed lots, preexist these types of environmental codes and conditions that stem from it. We submit it's not self-created from the standpoint that it lS the placement of the house that has been dictated by maximizing the wetlands that has caused us to come here. I want to also mention to you that I spoke with Mark Terry, he's your LWRP coordinator, the Town was kind enough to fax over his statement, his memorandum written on November 26th, apparently, and I would say -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It was already faxed to your office yesterday, I did it. MR. ANDERSON: You did it? Thank you. And that he used the sources of comments that were made in connection with the LWRP that was undertaken by the Trustees, and that the 6.3 which deals with the proposed setback from the wetlands of 77 feet is really not germane here. What we're asking for is the setback from the property line. So the first page of this memo doesn't really fit, what we're here today to talk about today lS zoning. However, when you do get to the conditions that begin at the bottom of the first page and extend into the second page, those are the same conditions that are imposed by the Trustees and are built into this application. As a final matter, I was just aware that Heather Cusack is here on behalf of the Trustees with that, they noticed a grade change, specifically coverage that goes over the septic tank. The concern being a potential for flood, the change in property, it was suggested to me that perhaps a French drain be installed along the northern property line and that's perfectly acceptable. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: May I ask a question? Do I understand that the 8.4 percent or nine percent, that's the coverage of the non-wetland portion of the lot; lS that correct? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it's total lot coverage. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Total lot coverage. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 89 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: According to what I have here, it looks as though it lS. 63,000 minus -- according to this it says it's only 3,300 are wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it's 5,000 square feet approximately of 59, which is about eight or Ulue percent? MR. ANDERSON: Right. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the question then lS there somewhere on this piece of land where the effective building area is an acre and a half, whether there's room for a 5,000 square foot house that is all on one floor. In other words, the wetland issue, if things are working the way they're supposed to, the wetlands and the wetland setbacks are supposed to take care of themselves under setback laws. So the idea is that somehow or other, it would seem to you probably or your client that on a lot that has an acre and a half of buildable property there ought to be someplace on there where they can build a house, which apparently seems to be what the code allows. And the problem, as you say, the reason you're before here is because of the question of the setback of the garage, which is not on the side that's near the wetlands; am I correct? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So this lS I guess a remark, if you find what I say consistent with what you're arguing? MR. ANDERSON: What we're trying to say is that this house is sited towards the eastern portion of the lot, where it is widest and where the greatest wetland setbacks can be achieved. In doing so, it has triggered a variance application with regards to the setbacks off the rear lot line, that portion of the house with an attached garage. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. So your understanding that is what lS before us has nothing to do with the wetlands but it has to do with where the garage can -- MR. ANDERSON: It does relate because your criterion for zoning variance delves into the environmental regulations that came to this lot and how those regulations in this instance has caused a practical difficulty. The practical e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 90 1 2 difficulty being to place the house where the lot lS widest and in doing so triggering a variance off the rear lot line. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the issues are quite clear, I have no questions. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Fergus lS here, I think he would like to say a few words. MR. FERGUS: I just hope that the Board's thought process on the approval or disapproval of this lS not finalized in terms of you should come ilnd visit. My wife and I bought this land In 1982, we also planned to reside in it as a permanent home. We already had, years gone by, DEC approval, Town Trustee, whatever other ilPprovals were required for a house that was higher, In other words like a colonial, this lS a one-story house. We didn't care at that time. In 1999 I lost a son-in-law, who was a lawyer, 1990, 1991; I lost my son in the Twin Towers and those permits were down the tubes. So now, a couple of years later -- and we went through this two years, it's the last permit we need. I ask you, the lot it is an acre and a half, you're right, but the flag piece is open, it's 225 foot long and 30 foot wide. 65 some-odd thousand square feet. Then you have your wetlands, then you have the setbacks. I don't think there's any other place we can put that house. It may look like it's 5,000 square feet, you chuck that garage, it's a main room, like a living room, there's a kitchen, there's three bedrooms, and there's four bathrooms, that's it. The garage area may be a little bigger than what it would be, I wanted it bigger, as Bruce said, we wouldn't be here asking for a permit, I'm told, if we would disconnect it and it became alone. In other words, there's no requirement that it has to be 50 foot back under those circumstances. I'm getting older, I needed a place to retire. I know you're smiling -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. I admire you for doing a one-story house because it just fits into the land better. Is there any way you could live with a smaller garage? MR. FERGUS: I've already made it smaller. You know what I mean? We put a lot of stuff together. I put the dock In the '90s. All the prior permits are fine, it just happened 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 e 25 November 30, 2006 91 1 6 it went down the tubes. A two-story house is not something we could live with, one-story that's I believe for older people. One step In the house, it damn near killed me. I just had my knee replaced, I'm going to have a hip replacement. My wife has had a hip replacement, and she's got a shoulder replacement -- a what do you call it? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Rotator cup. MR. FERGUS: And knees. So I'm asking you to consider, if you can. I can't put the house any other place on the property as proposed and we put In so much time with the permits. I'm asking personally, we would like to live here in Southold, and we've owned the home for 25 years, and that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have a few questions. If I might, please. MRS. FERGUS: My husband and I think we reached a point in our lives where an detached garage just doesn't work. Just pull the car In and go into the house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It is a three-car garage with a loft above it. MRS. FERGUS: We made it smaller. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because the plans we have are the three-car garage with the loft above it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The plans are the three-car garage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Three-car garage with the loft above it. So the information we have -- so we don't have accurate -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Information. You may have reduced -- MR. ANDERSON: What you have before you is what the application was. MR. FERGUS: In other words, there were three garage doors because there will be three cars. We cut it down. MRS. FERGUS: We cut it down when we ~ttached it to the house, we made it smaller, so it could only hold two doors right now. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We don't have updated plans. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It still has a loft over it or not? 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 92 1 2 MR. FERGUS: It does, just for storage. MRS. FERGUS: The loft. We needed it, I don't want to give away everything that I own. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you're building a basement too. MRS. FERGUS: Building a basement but considering where the property lS, we have been advised that's going to be -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You're going to have a very bad situation. You're going to be right on the water table. It's going to be very difficult . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To be honest, Mrs. Fergus, I would be very careful, just for your own sake, you're so near the water building a basement. Once the high tide comes In, you may have water In that basement. MRS. FERGUS: This lS really -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because it happens on -- I'm 600 feet from Orient Harbor, and when it comes up, I get it. MRS. FERGUS: That's the reason we were trying to cover our bases and put the loft, make the garage higher for storage, but thank you for your time. BOARD MEMBER submit to the office MRS. FERGUS: BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is it possible to the most current plans? I can tell you. GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 one question? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Why lS it called out as a three-car garage? MRS. FERGUS: It wasn't attached to the 18 house. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I just ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Since this lS again my application. The notice of disapproval, Bruce, reads 25 feet, you're addressing it at 25 feet. The plans that we have are 21 feet, and this lS the garage we're referring to, the setbacks, and that is the reason why we have this little inconsistency, Mr. Fergus, that we were just discussing. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: It's right here, ,Jerry, 25.2. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I apologize, 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 93 1 2 25.2. e 3 MR. ANDERSON: 25.2 is the rear yard, the 21 is the side yard. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sorry, I apologize. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the only variance you really are requiring. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's right, I did see that last time, I missed it this time, I'm sorry. 4 5 6 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Heather? MS. CUSACK: Hi, I'm Heather Cusack, I work for the Trustees. I spoke with one of the Trustees and with Mark Terry, who asked me to come over here and give you some information on this. The Trustees approved a permit for this house February 15th, and I have the plans here that were approved, and what Mark Terry in reviewing it for LWRP brought to the Trustees attention that the survey that's before you today lS just slightly different, and we have some concerns. The one that was approved by the Trustees has the septic system at a nine foot elevation and the one that's before you has it at 11, which I'm guessing is something that was imposed by the Health Department possibly. And the proposed finished grade will now be different In the left-hand side, it says proposed contour and proposed elevation. So the Trustees just wanted you to know that what they approved lS -- this is slightly different than what's before you. The concerns are that the water with it higher will shed onto the neighboring property and what could be done about that is putting in some kind of French drain along this property line or even right into that gravel driveway, and there's also water quality concerns there with Goose Creek. So just wanted you to be aware, you know, bring this forward to all of you that this would have to come back to Trustees if this was approved. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If this one is approved, it has to come back to the Trustees? MS. CUSACK: Yes. I just wanted to bring it up to you if you wanted to look at it (handing). This is approved by Trustees and I just highlighted that difference here and here where it says proposed contour and proposed ~levation that's not on the plan, that was 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 94 1 2 approved by Trustees. Just concerns about how that will be addressed. So, if you have any other questions. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So, if we approve this, it still has to come back to you? MS. CUSACK: Yes, because the plan you have is not the plan for an amendment just so the Trustees can address that different grade. This was approved March 22nd, and since then there's May, September and October, there have been three revisions. Mark brought that to our attention. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We probably should mark those. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bruce, do you understand? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, the difference lS very e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 minor. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have any questions of Mr. Anderson? Does anybody In the audience wish to speak? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could I just -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, Jim, I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Heather? Can I just ask you a question? MS. CUSACK: Yes, sure. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I really appreciate the fact that the Trustees sent somebody here to tell us what their concerns were. It's really very helpful, but I am wondering if you're aware if this property has ever been filled with dredge material and is that a concern of the Trustees? MS. CUSACK: It is a concern. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It was all dredged, 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 dumped. 19 MS. CUSACK: It's dredge spoil. And that's part of the concern with the drainage, what will actually happen with drainage. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Would there be a reason for us to turn it down? I can't ask you to make a decision. MS. CUSACK: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It seems to me like you did an approval on this piece of property based on the facts. And you contended and you came to a conclusion -- Trustees did -- that it was okay to put a house on this piece of property even though it's been dredged spoil; is that correct? 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 95 1 2 MS. CUSACK: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. and Mrs. Fergus, are you aware of that? MR. FERGUS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. r want to thank you for coming. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, that's great. MS. CUSACK: Oh, you're welcome. It may affect, because of the elevation of that septic and how the Trustees may look at that, it may affect your decision today because of the location there of the garage and where they're gOlng to put -- where they may ask for a French drain, it may not. Just wanted to make you aware of that little change. MR. ANDERSON: Grade we're talking about deals with sort of the opposite side of the building, you understand. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else wish to speak on this application? Yes. MS. LANE: Good afternoon, BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: State your name, e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e please. 14 MS. LANE: My name is Johanna Lane. I am the owner of the adjoining property, 1852 North Bayview, and I'm a licensed real estate broker. I understand that the ZBA lS here to consider only one part of this project, which is a variance for an attached garage pursuant to Article 3 Section 100-38.3, and I will address that issue specifically In a moment. At the same time I am mindful that SEQRA encourages us not to dissect a project, rather to consider it as a whole and when viewed from that perspective, I'm troubled by what appears to me to be a lack of thorough review of this proposal from all involved agencies. I have prepared a short statement here which I appreciate you just hearing me out and then come back with a rebuttal or any questions after that, but I would like to stay on point and get my points across. And I have a few to make. The first thing is the scope of the project. When I compare the documentation approved by the Trustees in February with the more recent documentation presented for this hearing, that's just been pointed out by the Trustees, I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 96 1 2 find significant differences and interesting contradictions. As such, I'm having some difficulty understanding the nature and the extent of the proposed development. And I think we all the agree that it's in an environmentally sensitive area and we need to understand what it is that's trying to be done here. So in terms of the discrepancies and changes that I'm finding, the survey approved by the Trustees In February has subsequently been revised four times, In March, May, September and October. Has the ZBA compared the current version with the version approved by the Trustees? It appears to me that today lS the first time that you have had an opportunity to see that. I have had an opportunity to review that very briefly, I haven't had very long but I've had probably 24 hours Longer than you. And a brief review that I have had reveals the following list of changes. The grading plans were mentioned. If I go back to the beginning and I look at Question Number 12 on the Trustees EAF, it asks as a result of the proposed action will existing permit approval require modification and the answer given was "no." Yet, when I reviewed the Trustee grading plan, I see that what was stated as nine foot grading plan then has now been stated as 11 foot on the ZBA grading plan. So my questions are: What lS the final grade of this property to be and where will the water run? Also, what part of the plan addresses the mitigation of water runoff onto my property? What steps are being taken to mitigate that? Has the ZBA compared their EAF with other EAFs submitted to other agencies. Has that reVlew of the documentation been undertaken? On our adjoining boundary line it's roughly an eight foot elevation on my survey, whereas my neighbor's plan lS to build his property out to at least 11 foot elevation. To over simplify the test hole data that you see on that survey, it states that the first [our foot lS sand, and then it's clay, which lS tough for water to filter through; so where lS that water going to run? It's going to run laterally. I'm sure you have all seen the flood at the entrance to the easement on North Bayview after it rains. At the entrance to that easement, it floods, even In the light rain, and trust me, e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 97 1 2 it's no different on my driveway. I have a flooding problem on my driveway as it is across the whole lawn. After the adjoining lot is developed, there will be significantly less land available to absorb the runoff and all that additional water is going to go where exactly? It's going to go downhill. And how are the dries going to disperse accumulated water if they're situated In clay? So it's going to end up with 11 foot here and eight foot here and that water's going to go up three feet, and I'm on a slab three feet below this house, and my house could flood three feet. So I have serious concerns about this aspect of this property. What guarantees can the Town give me that there will not be a river running through this property as a direct result of the rise in the grading and an awfully big house with inefficient dry wells. Raising the building pan with fill raises the significant flooding concerns for me. And this issue needs to be addressed before any kind of approval or construction begins. I have also concerns about lot size. I have compared the submitted survey with my own records. I have a survey by John Ehlers dated December, 2000, which shows the rear side yard lot line as 174.35 feet whereas Peconic Surveyors acting on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Fergus, are showing now 182 feet. How did it grow more than eight feet in six years? To add to the confusion, the original subdivision survey dating from around 1975 shows the rear side lot line as 190 feet, with the Fergus's lot at 53,000 square feet, which is 10,000 square feet less than what is now being claimed on the current survey. How can that be? If the land has eroded over time Slnce the subdivision was first done, then it would be understandable if the lot line had reduced from the 190 foot to either 182 foot or 174 foot, but surely there would then have been a commensurate reduction in the square footage of the lot over the same period, not an increase of 10,000 square feet. And I'm also thinking, if have got two lots, one here and another one In front of it, and the one in front of it erodes back, lS that person taking their lot line back into my property? I mean, these are just issues and questions I have. I'm not making allegations or claims. I'm just e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 98 1 2 saying, I'm very confused by the whole project. I have lots of bits of paper here that I'm supposed to be walking around for you to show, with surveys and this sort of thing, but I'm going to move on and give all that to you later. I could be wrong, but I think there's been an error factor in one of these surveys, but it's not clear to me which one, and the issue also needs further fact finding before a determination can be made. Then comes the amount of land affected. Addressing the question of exactly how much land lS going to be affected by the proposed construction. The Trustees' EAF states not quite .11 plus/minus, which by my calculations lS 479 square feet, that must be a typographical error. It also states that three and a half percent lot coverage, so I compared this with Mr. Fergus's project development submitted to the Trustees, I don't know if you have a copy of that, I have a copy of that here I can give you. That states a single family dwelling with a 2,674 square foot footprint, covered porch of 154 square foot, wooden deck 700 square foot, garage 900 square foot, shed, 240 square foot, which is a total of 4,668 square foot. Put another way, that's more than double the three and a half percent lot coverage stated on the Trustee application data. Compare this with the notes of lot coverage presented to you today and the revised plan, and you'll see that the lot coverage has now grown to 5,360 square feet. So clearly the project has expanded over the courses of going through the various agencies. And I'm not at all clear that all the other agencies are understanding exactly what's been going on. So I don't want to take up any more of your time with issues that may not be directly within your purview today, but respectfully request that a thorough review lS undertaken of all submitted documentation to insure consistency with all the involved agencies prior to any final decision. I'd also like to address a couple of other lssues. One is the self-created hardship issue. The Trustees asked in EAF the question, will the proposed action comply with existing zoning and other existing land use restrictions. The answer e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 99 1 2 was yes. And a 2,674 square foot home was envisioned, all of which sounded perfectly reasonable to me at the time it was presented in February, although I wasn't privy to the details at that time. One can't help wondering what hardship has developed In the intervening period to now warrant a variance. Reasonable people could agree that the variance is needed only because plans for the house have outgrown the property; that's what's happened since February. Also, I gave very careful consideration to the reason offered for the area variance as described In Part A of the application to the ZBA, and I have the following comments. In Paragraph 1, detriment to nearby properties, and I quote from that, Mr. Anderson's response to that question ~~ "The lot line abuts an unbuildable portion of lots 39.4" ~~ my lot. With all due respect to my neighbors, and they're certainly entitled to their opinion, it's not their decision to determine what part of my property mayor may not be buildable. Even if they're right, which I do not accept given the proposal for the subject property, they cannot take the benefit from my property for their own enjoyment simply because now they have an awfully big house in mind that unfortunately doesn't fit their building envelope anymore. So instead of focusing on what portion of my property mayor may not be buildable, let's focus on the subject property and how much of that is buildable. Let's deduct 8,775 square feet that constitutes the right of way that we both share, add to that the 50 foot buffer zone, which has already been reduced from the normal 100 foot to allow them to build anything at all, then there's the driveway needed for egress and ingress to and from the property and garage, plus parking for residents, their invitees and guests, as well as allowing for normal access into a flag lot for emergency vehicles; is there enough room for everyone without using the driveway as a parking lot, and where is the turn~around? I don't see that on a plan. Then come to adverse effects on the physical and the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. As we all know, the ecosystem In Goose Creek is very sensitive not least because of the Cornell Institute feed beds, which are very e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 100 1 2 close to my property and the subject property. For this reason and the abundant of wildlife, flora and fauna including numerous birds, nesting geese, turtles, horseshoe crabs, clams, prickly cactus, deer, rabbits and so on, we maintain our property, or my property in a very natural state. We do not have the kind of water quality problems that are being experienced further into the creek and the water lS currently crystal clear, the best kind of beach on the north fork. Maintaining this pristine state is my number one priority. And I try to do as little tampering as possible. We may not have a pristine lawn by other people's standards but we do have the pleasure of seeing a family of geese bring their goslings twice a day to feed on the wild plants that grow in the spring within a few feet of my house. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 In Paragraph 4 of Part A, the Ferguses are claiming no adverse effect on the physical environment and environmental conditions based on their maintenance of a 50 foot buffer. Without saying how they propose to pull actually maintain that, as well affecting my maintenance of the natural vegetation on my side of the property line as a reason why they don't need to maintain any on the subject lot. Again, this is muddying the waters by taking a benefit of a neighboring property and applying it to their own, when the real lssue here is are they willing to maintain a 50 foot buffer as it is now natural vegetation on their own property, a vegetated buffer. That's not stipulated in the Trustee permit. There's nothing that the Trustees have done that binds them and their successors in title to maintaining that buffer as a vegetated buffer. Anything less lS detrimental to the environment, and it's simply nonsense to say that it's not. To not requlre a vegetated buffer could lead to misunderstandings over the course of years. A cleared buffer and glowing green lawn leading down to the water line all maintained with pesticides running off into the creek. Did I mlSS the vegetative plan In the file? Where lS it? This is not spelled out In (:he Trustee permit. I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Fergus are getting on in age, and I am certainly not unsympathetic to anyone's desire to have an 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 101 1 2 attached garage in the winter regardless of age, and I do understand that it becomes more of a priority in advancing years, but there's no reason in my mind why they could not have the attached garage and comply with the required setbacks if only they were willing to reduce the size of their awfully large house. Interestingly when the project was presented at the Trustees hearing back In February, a similar argument was used for a larger than normal footprint for the house because they wanted to avoid having stairs and keeping to a single story. But now we find that the house has grown a full basement with stairs down and sufficient height to finish it off unless it floods, and I agree with the comment that was being made about flooding earlier because all the houses on the other side of the creek, they all flooded when we had that nine day rain two years ago, all of them, they all flooded. So I really think they're going to end up with a swimming pool In their basement, but anyway, there is a basement with stairs down and sufficient height to finish it off, as if it were a second story, as well the garage has a second story with a nine foot six ceiling height and a picture window that directly overlooks my property and directly faces my master bedroom window at more or less the same height. Why do storage boxes need a view at the expense of my privacy? Or could it be that the garage is destined to become an accessory apartment over time? The house itself appears like a two-story Cape, the garage elevation height is 22.6 feet or something like that, I'm not even sure of the house height. But that's two dormers short of a two-story Cape and there is no covenant being added to the deed to restrict a second story being added to this property over time if not by the Ferguses, by their successors. So when I'm looking at the plans for the house, try as I may, I can't envisage this home nestled on the property In a way that respects the wetlands and the integrity of the surrounding ecosystem. When I look at the elevations in the floor plan, try as I may, all I can see lS a lot that is all but cleared of vegetation completely except for a 50 foot wide green lawn at the water's edge that could be leading to a 7,000 square foot home, two-story home, with an e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 102 1 2 accessory apartment, a 3,000 square foot basement and triple car garage -- I'm saying triple car garage because that's what it says on the plans towering maybe 10 foot above the surrounding vegetation. There is no vegetation on that property that exceeds 22 and a half feet that lS not going to be cleared as a process of this development. So finally, I wish to stress that I did not take the decision to speak on this lssue lightly. There lS nothing personal in my comments. I wish Mr. and Mrs. Fergus a long and happy retirement in Southold, and I certainly don't want to be the one to spoil it for them by making difficulties unnecessarily. The issue here lS not about our stewardship of the land, which is for a fleeting moment of time that we own it; it's about the long term future of Goose Creek, and I'm not convinced that the ZBA is on sufficiently solid ground to make a good decision one way or the other on the variance issue without a thorough review of this project, including the fundamental issue of whether or not the subject property offers the Ferguses what they need for their retirement without destroying the delicate balance In the area that currently exists today. Thank you for your time. I have all the things that I am supposed to have wafted around here to show them if you would like to see them. One thing I would like to do, I have copies of the surveys here to demonstrate the 90 foot going back to the '97 survey. I have the project description from the Trustees. I have the environmental EAS form. I have the photographs here, and these are particularly good. This is my husband Dennis. MR. LANE: Can I approach? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. MR. LANE: If you haven't been down to the property I think this is going to add something to to it. You're looking at the vegetative state. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have all been e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 there. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But not from the air. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We've all walked 24 it. e BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But not from the 25 air. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We haven't flown November 30, 2006 103 1 2 it. e 3 MR. LANE: Also, I'm gOlng, if I can talk just a little bit of an aside for a second. All the other stuff is very important, but here's another indication of what's been going on since the beginning, and I've asked Mr. Fergus about trespassing on our property to gain access to his. We have a perfect example here, and I don't know who took these pictures, but it's got indications of Fergus's property, and it shows that it's been cut paths through, they cut them through our property to get to his property. And the person who was a real rocket scientist here took the pictures of the access trail, they're standing on our property taking the pictures, if you would like to take a look at that, all the trespassing that's gone on. We have had vans, trucks, all parked on our lawn. And a gate to try and keep it from coming onto our property. MS. LANE: I think what we're requesting here is a more collaborative process to work with us because we do feel that we have been kept a little In the dark In this and that the inconsistencies have not been explained to us. I saw the elevations and the plans yesterday for the first time, I didn't even know it was going to be two story. I'm not blaming all that on anybody else, I'm heavily committed elsewhere, and it's taken me some time to realize and do my due diligence of what this project is all about. As I'm reiterating here, I still don't know what it's all about, but my major concern I think out of all this lS the inconsistency in the plan. The dots don't seem to line up for me at all. It doesn't make sense what's going on. And my major concern lS this flooding. I don't know where this water's going to go except into my house because it's clay. I mean it's sand, you walk on it. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I sympathize with that. Back in the '70s when some of the homes were built J.n our area, there's homes that shouldn't have been built in the first place, but anyway, they have -- the Department of Health had people mound cesspools, which changed the whole direction of the water coming, because we live right across from a marsh and it just made it that it floods our property so much easier, I know. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to raise 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 104 1 9 a question, a procedural one. I think that you have raised -- what is your name, please? MS. LANE: Johanna Lane. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: -- has raised a number of questions, the merits of which I am In no position to evaluate, I don't know whether the Board is at the meeting and I wonder whether we should keep the meeting open, I'm just saying this to the Board -- in order to get more input on these -- these are very important questions. I think we're all sympathetic -- I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: I would like to respond to all of this. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, fine. But I'm saying whether we need to reVlew this closely, I I~hink you're onto a very general issue, which I think we're all concerned about, is the agencies are not sufficiently interconnected with regards to the information and the assessment. No, no one lS keeping any of this information from you, no one is keeping you in the dark. MS. LANE: No, I appreciate that. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But one has to be very diligent in order to have the whole big picture, and we often do not either. So I certainly think we have to keep our minds open and our desks clear for a time so we can think this through and for the sake of future decisions, regardless of how this one works out. MR. LANE: I would just say, don't feel bad, Homeland security has the same problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Anderson, do you have anything else to say? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I would like to respond. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to take you through pretty much all these comments. First comment I want to make is start off with a dissertation on the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and you should be aware that this lS a building of a single-family dwelling, which lS a Type 2 Action and the State Environmental Quality Review Act does not apply. You also probably know that the granting of an individual lot line varlances are also Type 2 actions and they are likewise not subject to State Environmental 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 November 30, 2006 105 1 9 Quality Review Act. There lS no issue of separation -- I think she meant to say segmentation -- which is discouraged in the statute because the statute doesn't apply. And finally that there is no agency coordination provided In SEQRA with regards to this project because the project is not subject to the State Environmental Quality Review Act because it lS a Type 2 Action. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Type 2 Action, right. MR. ANDERSON: And we all know Type 2 Actions by law are not capable of causing significant environmental impacts. That's what it says. So the question pertaining to the discrepancies of the Trustee approval deal with a slight elevation change in the vicinity of the septic system, specifically the septic tank and you will get that amendment, and adding a French drain, we are happy to do that. The third thing, drainage generally, you'll notice on your survey, you will see we have placed various dry wells which lS standard and best management practice for controlling runoff. Shown on your survey, if the Trustees requlre or if this Board requires additional drainage, we're happy to accommodate. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Bruce, can I ask a question about that? The drain, are you capable of keeping that, proving that you can keep that water on the property that comes off the house; lS there some calculation that allows you? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. For a two inch rainfall we can comply. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you can supply 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 lchat? 20 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I would be happy to provide you with that drainage calculation. MR. ANDERSON: Now, as to the lot Slze, what Mrs. Lane is referring to property line in our survey shows 183.47 feet, which is the measurement from the northeast property corner to the water, that is to the water is marked by mean high water, which changes. It's a variable and in fact, looking at this description and I would presume also the Lanes' deed description, they would go to a written meets and bounds description of the property extending to mean high water. So 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 106 1 2 that number can change depending on whether erosion happens, accretion happens. It lS also a function of interpretation on the part of the surveyor. And the surveyor is specifically licensed to make those sources of interpretations, and that's what he has done and he has put his seal upon the survey, and he has put his license on the line. And we must rely on what the licensed surveyor tells us in terms of the distance from that point to the high water mark as well as the area of the lot, as well as the coverage over the lot because that's what surveyors do. Next we move to the question of the environmental integrity of Goose Creek, we already have a Trustee permit for that. By the way the Trustee permit also includes that footprint of that house of that garage, being that setback from that wetlands. So there is no change. The change referred to here, as Heather Cusack just told us, lS that slight elevation change. There is not a smoke and mirror show going on here. Now, as far as the creek goes there is a 50 foot buffer, and it shows on the survey and it is required in the Trustee permit. That lS an enforcement lssue that the Trustees make. It lS their job to insure that it is protected. I will say in contrast, when you look at the adjacent property as shown in the aerial photographs that these people just handed up, it was their lawn extends right to the creek, and that if you look at that property you will notice that the high mark has In fact been cleared from the adjacent property now owned by Lane. So when you compare the two properties -- MS. LANE: I refute that. MR. ANDERSON: So, when you compare the two properties from the standpoint of environmental protection, you'll find that this has a 50 foot natural buffer, the other has lawn. This has an extensive tide mark, the other one doesn't. Now, whether they cut down the marsh, I don't know, I don't care, but to say that somehow that this is more of a detriment than what's next door is patently absurd, and if there lS this overriding concern, let them remove the lawn and plant native vegetation and get the appropriate permit authorizations to do 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 e 25 November 30, 2006 107 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I just ask, when were these aerial photographs taken? MS. LANE: In August, 2005, so not this past summer, the previous summer. I believe actually corroborated by regularly weeding the dock. e 3 4 5 (Audience discussion.) MR. FERGUS: I have a permit for that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sure you do. MR. FERGUS: The Town, before I put anybody on the property to cut a path in there, we went through, I wouldn't touch anything but only vegetation until I got that done. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. MR. FERGUS: Many, many years I never cut one native grass down on that property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think I'm going to make a motion to keep the hearing open until all these questions that have been raised by Heather, the Trustees, and these folks, what have you, have been answered to our satisfaction. There's too many discrepancies. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I have a comment on that? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just have a question. One of the things that this lady mentioned was to use driveway In lot coverage calculations. I think I heard that. MR. ANDERSON: They're not. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They're not. How about the right of way? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The right of way? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The right of way, does that include the lot calculations? MR. ANDERSON: For purposes of zoning you're supposed to be exclude it. For purposes of coverage of the adjacent area, you do include it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And it has been. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It has been? MR. ANDERSON: We're all under the coverage restrictions. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to get it on the record. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There's a couple more things here that I heard from this lady that don't jive with -- either she's misinformed or 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 108 1 2 she's accusing an agency of this Town of changing something, and MS. LANE: I have made no allegations against any agency of this Town, absolutely not. I'm sorry, I think you're misunderstanding what I have said. I'll be very happy to give you a copy of the statement to revlew at your leisure. I will give that to you today. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I suppose you've raised so many things, I'm trying to figure out where we go -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From here? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: From here. MS. LANE: A full review is I think what we're asking for. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How do we obtain these answers? What is to our satisfaction? Because quite honestly, what I heard, I could look In the code book and find the answer to those questions. Is that -- are we talking to somebody? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there's discrepancies in the different site plans that we're glven, as Heather said, they will have to go back to the Trustees. I'd like to see the Trustees address that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought that he would remedy that. What lS the other-- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I guess the French drain, whether they need one, the applicant's engineer. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to confer with the Town attorney too. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I actually have a question about the buildings, I don't know if you and your aircrafts and engineer have consulted about the inclusion of your basement, knowing fully well that it is likely going to flood, of water proofing, which is essentially creating CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can't do it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: -- creating a channel along the cove where the slab and the walls meet, and then using sump pumps in order to channel out the water back onto the property. That's very standard, you know especially when there's clay around the core percolation, one of the things that people often do after the fact when their basements do start to flood is at great expense, go in there because e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 109 1 2 it's so unhealthy for your house, forget about all the stuff you want to store. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All the mold. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's unhealthy for occupants and it's unhealthy for the actually air quality In the house and the structure of the house, go in and do what I had to do in my house, which is to go in and put in an entire system with sump pumps, that would make a difference In terms of groundwater runoff. And since you're close to the creek, where is that water going to eventually wind up going, it has to go someplace that's contained on your property, you put dry wells in, so it's not going to either wind up either on their property or back in the creek. So, have you thought about those issues? MRS. FERGUS: I believe that Courtney represents the gentleman that will be MS. GALLAGHER: I am actually the quasi contractor. I've been working on the plans for the Ferguses over the past three years. I'm designing and maintaining this house. We have talked about foundation, a foundation plan. I do work with Joe Fischetti, and we do design the sump pump system to connect to a lowering system to connect with the dry well system. We actually built the house two doors down in the area where we did have to remove a lot of lawn. We did have to bring material in to make the house sit properly, and you know the property goes down. It's the garage doors on the -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We granted that e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 house. 19 MS. GALLAGHER: Right. That was only a few years ago. And their runoff, they do not have issues. We complied and their dry wells are holding up nicely. And now they have a crawl space there and we don't have any issues with that crawl space for utilities and what not. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are the dry wells that are on this survey a part of that plan or are they for -- lS that simply for rain? MS. GALLAGHER: The dry wells are for rain, anything that's any kind of in areas that we do have access to the basement via outside, we do connect dry well system in front of the stairs to catch any runoff. We do take the drains very seriously because, you know, the last thing you 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 110 1 2 want lS the customer coming back to us screaming and yelling with an issue with the house. We put appropriate venting windows in to allow to alleviate all the problems. We put a cement bank systems in so any issues that we have with the basement we do look at, Fischetti's been around for a long time. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you have a foundation plan that indicates location of sump pumps and various discharge? MS. GALLAGHER: No. I don't actually draw the foundation plans, we have Joe Fischetti. The foundation plan should be attached to the plans that you have in front of you, that we are going off of. e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We do have a -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What lS your full name? MS. GALLAGHER: Courtney Gallagher. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bruce, while this nice lady is looking for that, Bruce, my concern is the issue that this lady to my right and to your left, that's the issue of this change. We are dealing with the standard septic system In this house? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there are no elevated systems that require, no walls around them? 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 MR. ANDERSON: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, the French drain that you would be building would be towards their property? MR. ANDERSON: It would be on the line. It would have it 20 feet from the septic system. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much of this property lS going to be devegetated? MR. ANDERSON: Landward of the 50 foot. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. What actually lS going to happen between the Ferguses' property and the people that are speaking now to my right and to your left? MR. ANDERSON: What lS going to happen; what do you mean? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Between the two, lS there going to be a vegetation buffer; is there anything that is going to be proposed? MS. FERGUS: They're threatening a fence. MR. LANE: The fence that she's speaking 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 III 1 2 of I put it because of trespassing, and that runs along the right of way. There lS no fence between. We have all the phragmites. MS. FERGUS: It's a wetland. MR. LANE: We got to clear the phragmites to put the French drain ln, and our phragmites, which were supposedly not touched are going to shield them. It's going to give them the buffer or whatever you want to call it. So actually, Uley're not doing anything, they're just taking all of their property and using it, and using our property as their buffer. Let me just say something. I had a conversation with Bruce one time when we were standing there, and we were going through this permit process, his credibility I'm sorry, is in the gutter. He turned around to me and he said -- MS. LANE: No, you can't do this. MR. LANE: I will do this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Uh-uh. MR. LANE: He said to me, if you want to clear anything, because he made statements about what we have been clearing or what have you, if you want to clear anything, do it now. MR. ANDERSON: I deny that. MR. FERGUS: He did not say that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don't want to hear personal stuff, please, please, nothing. Stick to the facts. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask you a question? Are you saying that somewhere in our code it requires a buffer between your property and his? . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. LANE: No, what I'm saying is you can put all the French drains you want, and I'm not a water scientist, but water lS going to run to the lowest point. If you put in 150 cubic yards of fill and where is the excavation for the basement going? And where is the excavation for the rock? On the surveys, their survey and our survey, together, it shows an eight foot elevation on both sides. No, actually on our side it shows eight foot, and on their side it shows 8.6. How could the surveyors have been so screwed up, they have the boundary lines different and the high water mark. We could remedy that. There's an area where we have an indication on the survey that shows from the Volkavich property where the line 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 November 30, 2006 112 1 5 lS. So it's not susceptable to erosion. They could be showing where that true boundary line lS. We think it's a floating boundary line because we have three different numbers where it lS on three different surveys. MS. LANE: Yes, and it was pointed out that it's a matter of interpretation for surveyors. So maybe our surveyor got something different. MR. LANE: If you take anyone of those numbers and move it back, what's that going to do, we don't know. What is our property and what lS their? 2 e 3 4 6 7 8 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm concerned about you said something about a 50 foot buffer. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's from the wetlands. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All the way the Prench, on the waterfront. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the waterfront. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not on your property. You're concerned about their French drain taking away your buffer? MR. LANE: No, no. My point being, if all the people who are paid to do this are wrong, where is the water going to go? If you have clay at four feet, and you have lateral water movement, that's the only way it could go, where does it end up? We're on slabs. It's going to end up In our house. It's going to end up -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In the creek. MR. LANE: We're saying, there's a problem that you can't just change. It's part of the system. Maybe if they're going to tear up all the subsurface and take away all the clay and put In sand, you're still going to have the water table. They can't change that. You've got a problem in the area and they're going to exacerbate that. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to say that our intent here is to really do the best job we possibly can to respect the rights of property owners, both neighbors and builders, and those who want to build, development by right can happen, but we want to make sure that it happens in the most responsible way possible, and I'm sure that's what everyone wants. You don't want a flooded basement if you can avoid it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He doesn't have 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 1 113 2 a basement, he lives on a slab. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You don't want a flooded house, and I for one want to make sure that when I sit down to deliberate with my colleagues I have benefit of as much information as possible so we can make the most informed judgment for everyone's benefit. That's why I asked about the architectural plans because it did confuse me because even just the set of drawings that we've got here, at one point it says the section calls it out at three car, the floor plan calls it out as two and a half car, you're saying it's a matter of the doors being changed, and I'm saying, much as I guess you're saying, we have lots of information. The Trustees came In and now they said, there's inconsistent information. All I care about -- I realize we are very limited in what you are asking us to do in terms of one simple setback variance, that lS why you're before us, but when these issues are raised, I want to be able to sleep at night. I want to be able to say that I've done my job as a public official, the best of my ability to incorporate a total picture, and to work with other agencies if need be, to make sure that we're all on the same page here. I do have a problem with Trustees having one bit of information and we having another bit of information. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And they have another bit of information. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because there are so many runoff and drainage problems in the whole area, it's not just your piece of property, or your piece of property, all the along there there are issues that all of us need to be concerned. I just looked at the foundation plans and in the corners I see called out F D, French drains. There is nothing that shows In the section or In other plans, on the electrical foundation plan, how they're tied into anything. They're noted -- MR. ANDERSON: What do you want us to provide exactly? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Two things. A survey that has consistent information on it. When you go back to the Trustees and you get the change and in grade and so on, that's the survey I'd like to look at In terms of making a final e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 114 1 9 deliberation. MR. ANDERSON: That survey. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right, I mean, you're going to do it anyway. The other thing that I would like to do is see how below grade water in basement areas is going to tie in to about any kind of onsite cistern, dry wells, drain, whatever. I want to see how water management on the site is going to be controlled. Mr. Fischetti can provide it, Mr. Saetta can provide it. MR. ANDERSON: On the sump pumps, is that what you're asking? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The pumps and how the discharge tubes are tied in to create control of groundwater runoff. You need to understand it as homeowners, as property owners, because I don't want to see what happened to me happen to you. It cost me $10,000 to fix a problem that I didn't create. I moved into a situation that's on solid clay, and I'm at the end of a hill, on the bottom. It's just important that people be informed about what they're getting into, that's all. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Leslie, you have to deal with the it's going into. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I Not only that, fact of what 15 16 mean. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can pump anything out, but what is it going into? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's what I want to see. Water discharge is accounted for in the corners of the foundation plan, but not how it will be removed, and where it will wind up. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me ask you a question, when we have had these extremely high tides -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, in a containment system. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: have you ever walked down to the edge of their property; is there any flooding on their property? MS. LANE: There's certainly no sand on their property. It goes right up to the qrasses. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But the tide has not come up over? 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 115 1 2 5 MS. LANE: Possibly it does, yeah, a little bit. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I'm just seeing the past few years, I'm not saying anything against the Ferguses, but the past few years, we have had more and more of these really bad storms. The tide is really coming up. I see it when it comes up, it pushes the whole freshwater lens up, so that the water is bubbling on at the ground. Of course they with the clay, if it comes in under that clay, it's going to come bubbling up too, and there's not much you can do about it, I think they should be aware of it. There are problems with waterfront plots, as nice as they are. e 3 4 6 7 8 9 e 14 MR. LANE: I haven't seen any, we have had heavy downpours. On the surface it's all sand so it goes right through, but we took a water line in there, and yeah, the clay is there. So once it hits the clay, yeah, over time it may permeate through it, but if it's a fast rain, where's it going to go? If you put that interruption in higher than normal, now you've raised the groundwater, you got less places to go, I've seen it where the grass is actually under water or where it's soggy under the feet even though it's sand. 10 11 12 13 15 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just want the Ferguses to be aware of these problems that you do have, and it's very difficult -- MS. LANE: The tide line is definitely getting higher. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To mitigate those. MS. LANE: If it's a heavy storm it comes halfway up the path, it never used to do that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. Global 16 17 18 20 warming. MS. LANE: I've lost about a foot of the pastern side. MR. ANDERSON: Perhaps the Lanes should install drains. They don't have any drainage. MS. LANE: We welcome all suggestions to try and fix the environmental problem. What we're trying to do here is mitigate the impact on the pnvironment. MR. ANDERSON: Are you offering to assist your drainage? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 116 1 2 MS. LANE: Possibly. You're welcome to do e it. 3 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. MS. LANE: What I would like to say lS this LWRP form that I have here, you know, the argument that's being used as well on the visual aspect lS that the proposed dwelling will not impede the line of sight through the subject lot anymore than it is impeded now as the said lot lS highly vegetated. But he's clearing all that vegetation but most of the vegetation would only be up to the heights of the phragmites and yet the roof height is only 20 something feet. So that beautiful view is impeded. I mean, I'm not saying that he doesn't have the right to build but I'm saying the arguments that are being used. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I was wondering if we could have a copy of your questions, please. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Statement and your questions, would be very helpful. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What did you say, you just did what? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You said something? MR. ANDERSON: Trees, they're trees. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I didn't hear you. I didn't hear you. I have great empathy. You bought property some time ago, and at the time you have become more and more aware of how development has impacted collectively. You've had it for years, you're entitled to -- this has always been declared a building site, and you're entitled to build your home on it. I do have a lot of empathy for you. It's an expensive process to go t~hrough . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It's time 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 consuffilng. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Frustrating. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But I do hope you understand that this is not about attempting to take away your right to build your house, to make sure that when you do it's In the best interest of all concerned. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And in the safest way BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the environment too, and for your sake too. MRS. FERGUS: I understand that and as my husband said, we owned this property since 1982. We have never touched a phragmite on that 20 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 117 1 7 property, ever. Mr. Tuthill, got permission, like he said, got permission after 11 months to cut a path to our job, and I mean, we have abided by DEC, we have abided by the Town Trustees, I mean, as far as dry wells and things like that, that's fine by us, we don't want water any more than the Lanes want water. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The issue is what soes forward. There's no indication, I think that anything that you have done or anybody else has done is defective. It's just a question of where do we go from here. It's a lot easier to be preventive than it is to be corrective. MRS. FERGUS: I agree. That's why we have no problem putting in extra dry wells and sump pumps. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Good. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The point is I oon't want to have the Trustees telling you one thing and telling us another thing, that's unfair to you. We should collaborate, get the same information, make sure we all understand what all the implications are and then make our best decision. I don't want to see anyone feeling like they're confused, or jerked around, or how come this one says this or that one says that. Sometimes you know you can do everything right and follow everything everybody tells you -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And be wrong. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And it still doesn't come out as clearly as it should. Our task is to try and make sure it comes out clearly and well. MR. FERGUS: My wife and the architects, the size of the house aside from cutting down the size of the garage, I mean, it would be asking to put the garage at the original size, and push down this for a larger variance, we cut that down, the main portion of the house, I think it's under l,OOO square feet, Courtney, I think somebody measured it, which is still a sizable house, granted, we haven't changed anything in terms of the dimension. There was a reference here that something was changed in terms of the house getting bigger and smaller and bigger and smaller, we haven't changed that. As far as any surveys that you have, they have all been certified by the local surveyor. 2 e 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 118 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. MR. FERGUS: We did what we had to do. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You just have to understand one thing, Mr. Fergus, sometimes when they're submitted, there are different dates on those surveys, and there may be one little thing left off and/or one little issue, and when you review them and you lay them all out as this nice lady did In the back, they may not be exactly the same, and those are the problems that you run into with submissions of other agencies, and that's an issue that she's raising, and that's an issue that we have a particular concern about. And not that there's anything -- it may be so diminimus, that it doesn't have a real effect upon anything but we certainly want to be aware of it. If there was a different submission to a different board with some particular issue that we're not dealing with. That's the reason why I asked Bruce regarding the cesspool system, if it was going to be a raised system or a flat system, and that's a concern, why, because your neighbor In the back doesn't it's sediment, they don't want anything moving toward their property, and I don't blame them, I wouldn't either. Those are all issues that we're trying to deal with here based upon this particular hearing, and I just want you to be aware of that. MR. FERGUS: Where do we go from here? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'd like to make a motion to keep the hearing open until such time that the Trustees have reviewed it and that we have gotten the questions answered from this nice lady to my right out here, and then we will schedule it for another date. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What are the answers from this honestly? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Question, question. nice lady, quite e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 We have them in 22 writing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She who created some is going to 23 questions; am I correct? Now, give us those answers? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Anderson. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could you write a letter addressing those; lS that what's going to happen? And then we can review that? We will submit them to 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 119 1 9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We'll include them In a letter to him and he'll respond. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm concerned. MR. ANDERSON: I'd be happy to address whatever questions you have. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We're closing a hearing -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We're not closing it. We're keeping it open. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All right. We're leaving a hearing open; where are we going to get those answers from? Who are we going to ask those questions? If you have a question, all I want to know is where you're going to get the answer because you're leaving it open. It doesn't seem to me like you have any place where you're going to go and get the answer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the reason why I wanted to discuss that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: With who? Let's get it on the record, that's all. MR. ANDERSON: Here's what I don't understand. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's up to Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: We requested a Trustees permit amendment, we will get that permit amendment submitted to you and that will be the survey. That will take care of that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. MR. ANDERSON: You have asked that the drainage sump pump design and how it will tie into the drainage to make it provided to you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct. MR. ANDERSON: That will be provided to 2 tit 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 tit 14 15 16 17 18 19 you. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. MR. ANDERSON: This woman which raises questions, I'm happy questions and respond to them. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: put In a letter to take those 20 21 Good, thank you. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So then we're going to talk to counsel next. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. MR. ANDERSON: Then you can decide whether you agree with my answers or not. 24 tit 25 November 30, 2006 120 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sounds good. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I will second that e 3 motion. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (All Ayes.) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you all very much for your time, patience, courtesy, et cetera. 4 ------------------------------------------------- 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for a rehearing for Mr. Guild. Mr. Guild, I know you have been before this Board before, but I did not have the privilege of listening to your testimony, although I did read it. I would appreciate it if you would give me a brief, three minute overview of just what you want to do MR. GUILD: I want to add an additional 37,000 square feet to my greenhouse range. And the setback I want 50 feet, and they called for 75. 7 8 9 10 11 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When you build a greenhouse, what is the procedure for doing it? I have pictures, if you care to look at them that I took yesterday. You have all the plastic down; what does that do? MR. GUILD: What do you mean? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have the plastic down from the greenhouses that are already there to what? I would assume to the 56 mark. MR. GUILD: There's no greenhouse there. This is no greenhouse. This is blocked off. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Whatever it is, plastic? MR. GUILD: This is the cloth greenhouse. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I know but I mean, why is the cloth down? MR. GUILD: Because I put mums there during the fall and we keep the weeds out. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To keep the weeds out. But in other words, when you build the new greenhouse, you do not strip the top soil off? MR. GUILD: No. When we built the first range, we graded everything so everything was done right then. So it's all level. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very good. MR. GUILD: We have to do it that way. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So this makes it easy to keep all the weeds down so when you want to 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 121 1 2 grow something it's fine and dandy. that's In the rear, is that part of or -- That gully your property e 3 7 MR. GUILD: That's part of my property, yes. We left it there. When we have a heavy rain, it floods there and doesn't go onto the other property. And we're gOlng to leave it there. And if we have the 50 feet -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 56 feet? MR. GUILD: 56 feet, it's still going to be there. CHAIRWOMAN your plastic is at MR. GUILD: OLIVA: Actually the the 56 mark? Actually, yes, it's end of 4 5 6 8 very 9 close. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, just wanted to be sure. And I just wanted to ask you one more question. Up near the road, you have two areas also that are -- and this is actually that one (indicating) . MR. GUILD: We grow mums there too. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you're just keeping that covered to keep the weeds down. No new structure? MR. GUILD: No. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Can you explain why you need the amount of room you need between the two greenhouses? MR. GUILD: Because I have unusual ventilation. I have vents. So we don't have any fans runnlng, we need the air flow between the two greenhouses. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So if you brought the back greenhouse closer, what would the problem be; you wouldn't have enough alr flow? MR. GUILD: Enough air flow, plus we want in between the two greenhouses, we grow hardy mums that's what we put there. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The deer don't eat 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 them? 24 MR. GUILD: I put electric fence around. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I saw deer marks allover the place. MR. GUILD: Yes. But when we had mums there we had electric fencing around. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So if you brought the rear one closer, would you not have enough room for the hardy mums; you couldn't do it 22 23 e 25 November 30, 2006 122 1 2 behind? 9 MR. GUILD: We're probably never going to put another greenhouse up there. We want to keep -- I want to keep the distance the way it is. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Guild, in your original hearing, you requested a 32 percent lot coverage, we granted you 30 percent. In the survey you just submitted, it says 29.9 percent. MR. GUILD: You said 32, I never said 32. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In the notice of disapproval, building inspector calculated your proposal based on your hand-drawn survey; in other words, part of it was hand drawn, part of it was an originally licensed surveyor at 32 percent. This Board granted you a 30 percent lot coverage. We now see in your corrected survey, that it is in fact less than what we granted you. You requested 32. The notice of disapproval said that you were requesting coverage that would amount to 32 percent. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: He told me he was happy with the 30 percent lot coverage. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The distinction then is that we are back here because you are continuing to request a 56 foot rear yard setback for your greenhouse, which is what your original request was, as opposed to the 75 foot required setback. When I inquired previously about ventilation, essentially you said that you could live with a little bit less space in between those greenhouses than what you originally requested. I think what you're asking for is not so much the issue of ventilation, which, despite all of my efforts to try to get you to explain what the minimum space requirements for that adequate ventilation were, that what you really want the space for is in addition to ventilation to maximize the ground cover area for growing your crops? MR. GUILD: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. I just want to be sure that I understand why -- because I could not get an adequate technical reason for ventilation to be at that number of feet that you were requesting. It's a combination of ventilation and crop. MR. GUILD: I think it would be in the best interest, that's what I want and I can keep . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 November 30, 2006 123 1 2 more crops in between the greenhouse. Also the other reason why I didn't like the finding at the end of the statement that I could never build again, and I think that's too restrictive of a statement. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I think it said if you add anything you have to come back. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, he lS right on the original there was a condition for granting the lot coverage at 30 percent, it stipulates that no additional structures on the subject parcel be built in the future that would cause this lot coverage to be exceeded. That was a condition of the original -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Doesn't mean that you couldn't come back in and ask for a variance. MR. GUILD: Yeah, but I think if I built the greenhouse, that's saYlng I cannot do it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. It would mean it's just like now. You want to build a greenhouse you have to get permission. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That statement's really superfluous, if you wanted to build it, you'd have to come in. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's right. MR. GUILD: So the statement shouldn't really be there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Those statements are for subsequent owners. This has nothing to do with you, Mr. Guild MR. GUILD: Prior owners say, oh, you can do anything on it. You sell the property to them and then they come back in and then all of a sudden they can ask for 90 percent lot coverage. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: But the code already says that. You can't exceed the lot coverage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that. But I'm just explaining to him. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think he's taking it as you'll never grant me another variance. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, that's not e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 true. 24 MR. GUILD: Suppose I want to go build a Morton building, because I'm renting a building now. Truthfully I don't really need to rent, I could build a building there, but I'm not ready to e 25 November 30, 2006 124 1 2 do that, maybe 10 years down the road. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You have to come back e 3 anyway. 6 MR. GUILD: Oh, I got to come back in, that's a whole different ballgame. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. But saying that you have to come in anyway, and there's a clause that you have to come back anyway doesn't do you any harm. MR. GUILD: What I understand from that statement in the end is if I agree to this I can never build again. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, no, we can't do 4 5 7 8 that. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, what that means is that it repeats what the code says, and it is redundant. It is not necessary to put it in the deliberation. It is there as Mr. Goehringer said, Eor purposes of clarification. It simply means that you are already exceeding what our current zoning allows, which we are granting you to do, and if you wish to do additional structural work on that property, you would have to come back to see whether we would be prepared to grant another variance for additional lot coverage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which would be relief of that condition. MR. GUILD: Because I had some other people read that and they interpreted it the same way I did. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It's a reminder. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don't have any problem in rewriting a deliberation that deletes i.t, simply you would have to comply with the law anyway. If it makes you more comfortable, that's not an issue. MR. GUILD: At 56 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's the question. Here's the important point: If the connecting piece between the existing and proposed qreenhouse with the two greenhouses are now calculated at 30 percent lot coverage, 28.9 percent, assume they're calculating the lot coverage to be -- then that's a reasonable thing to do. Part of the reason for maintaining the setback at less than the 75 feet was to reduce the lot coverage because the piece would be shorter, that connecting piece would become shorter and 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 125 1 9 that's a built plece of structure. If you reduce the setback to 56, then what you're doing is creating a longer piece. I was basing it on calculations that the building inspector indicated in the notice of disapproval would yield a 32 percent lot coverage. MR. GUILD: That's what he did, I disagree with him. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We can only go on the basis of the legal disapproval that we're glven. I'm not a licensed surveyor, which lS why we asked you for a surveyor. Had you done that to begin with, we wouldn't even be here. MR. GUILD: The other thing lS if I couldn't put the greenhouse there, why did I have to get a survey until I know I can put it there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because it cost you $250 like every other citizen of this town to come before this Board with a legal document so we make decisions based on legal documents. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Besides, if you wanted to sell it, the first thing people would say is where's your legal survey. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I will tell you something now, given the fact that there is virtually no visual impact on anybody whether you have a 75 or 56 foot rear yard setback, I don't have a problem with the setback. What I had a problem with was the lot coverage, and the lot coverage as it turns out based on this new survey, essentially doesn't exceed what we already granted you, so I don't have a problem with the setback. MR. GUILD: I understand all this, but I also know it's a gray area because in New York greenhouses are equipment, they're not built. It's such a gray area that's why, you know, BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don't have a definition that says temporary structure. It's either a structure or it's not a structure. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You know that is a problem because we often come into conflict according to what our zoning requlres us to operate under. You know, we can't legislate from the bench. If we have a law, we have to uphold that law or grant relief from that law. On the other hand, when you don't think a law lS up to snuff, in other words, if it's dated, if it needs to be revised, then you need to change the code. 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 November 30, 2006 126 1 9 But we can't change the code from this bench. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think also what needs to be reflected on the record is the unique situate of this property. That it's in a New York state agricultural district and Ag and Markets has its own point of view as to what rules apply in those districts, and we're required to work with the applicant and Ag and Markets to come up with a good solution, and that's what we're doing here. So, we should be careful about the precedent setting value of this decision in properties that are not in the Ag district. MR. GUILD: I agree with you. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That's why we're here. MR. GUILD: I live here, I want to 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 15 prosper. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Sounds like you're in good shape. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Kieran, how do we proceed? Close the hearing again? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Close the hearing again, and make your new decision. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) 11 12 13 e 14 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for East Marion Fire District. Mr. Boyd, are you going to be the spokesperson for our 30 foot tower? 17 24 MR. BOYD: I'm Ed Boyd representing the East Marion Fire District. I'm here today with an application for a 120 foot communications tower for the fire district -- for the fire department. The reasons for this are very simple. We have had occasion with all the fire departments with precedents using in a 46 megahertz area, it simply doesn't work anymore. The coverage that we have is terrible and we are overrun with interference. The interference has become a true difficulty in our day to day operations and with Babylon Town and specifically Deer Park Fire District are running through extremely large transmitters, which interfere with our working frequencies on a regular basis. All of the fire districts in Southold town are going to a high band radio 18 19 20 21 22 23 e 25 November 30, 2006 127 1 9 communications. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. MR. BOYD: In order for a 450 megahertz to work, we must get an antenna in the area, and it must be a substantial distance up in the air. The antennae must be suited to the topography of the area it is going to cover. This new communication system is required for the safety of the fire fighters, certainly is necessary for the efficiency of the families, the dispatcher and the operation of the ambulances, who have new protocols which they must adhere to. The way that most fire districts are answering this protocol is by issuing a portable radio to each and every member of the rescue squad or ambulance squad so that they can call In immediately upon the dispatch and signal to the dispatcher that they are responding to the requirements of the county standards. Certainly, these include marine divisions. Water rescue has grown an unbelievable amount In the past few years. The Coast Guards are actually getting out of the business and turning it back to the local. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does East Marion have a marlne division? MR. BOYD: Certainly do. Orient and Southold and Cutchogue and Greenport. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Everybody. MR. BOYD: We all have it. We've gone from two years ago one or perhaps two incidents to an excess of 20 this last summer. It's just a fact of life. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I believe it. MR. BOYD: You do have all the details of the presentation in the packet. I have two witnesses here today that I would like you to hear something from, but I can expand or contract what they have to do say. A big difference between the last application that was before you and East Marion lS that in the case on the Orient application, we did not have a 450 megahertz system In operation. East Marion already has it in operation. East Marion town already has an operation and I would like to have Chief Wallace of the fire department explain to you exactly what the situation is with the 450 megahertz at the existing antenna height. So it can be demonstrated -- 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 November 30, 2006 128 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN MR. BOYD: MR. BOYD: Schiebel, who you Eastern OLIVA: What is the existing? 30 -- not even. The other gentleman lS Bill might remember, is from e 3 4 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, we remember. MR. BOYD: They're the gentlemen that I would have speak about the radio frequency maps. T apologize in advance, the color copy has proven to be unservable today. So we have one color map, the other is black and white, but we would be happy at a later date to supply color copies to flesh out the application. So without anything further, at this moment I would like to turn it over to Chief Wallace so we could very briefly explain to you what the status is of the 450 megahertz radio that they operate right now in East Marion. Chief? CHIEF WALLACE: Chief Gregory Wallace, East Marion Fire Department. Hi. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hi. CHIEF WALLACE: As Mr. Boyd has said before, we run with 450 megahertz; we need the increased coverage on the west end, which would not be able to operate on the 450 megahertz, on the causeway where we need mutual aid assistance from other departments, but we had not been able to contact our provider on low band. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When did you go over to the higher frequency? CHIEF WALLACE: We put the higher frequency in effect January 1st. It did not cover even our district. We had an incident where we were called for a water rescue and our boat was out doing operations, and I could not communicate with them, I did not know where they were. It's very dangerous. Having a repeater at a height of 120 feet would enable us coverage in our district as well as coverage in neighboring districts because as things are going, the volunteer system lS being taxed and taxed more and the departments on the east end have decided to work together cooperatively a lot more than they have in the past. So we find ourselves not only doing operations In our districts but often doing operations in other districts as well. It would be easier to utilize that communications. There was an incident in Southold where we 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 129 1 8 could not use our high band radios. There was a lot of traffic on low band, so in order to communicate with our members, we ended up using Cutchogue's repeater off their frequency. But there is need for coverage throughout the entire town because we do work often in mutual aid response. So where it is now doesn't even cover our district. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. CHIEF WALLACE: That's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does Greenport have the high frequency too? CHIEF WALLACE: Greenport is in the process of putting it in place. I don't know where they are at this point. I know they have a system. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Southold? CHIEF WALLACE: Southold has theirs up and running. Cutchogue, Mattituck and Orient has just qot theirs. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right. I see it gOlng up every day. Okay, thank you. CHIEF WALLACE: You're welcome. MR. BOYD: The other presenter that I would like to call, to bring before you is Mr. Scheibel from Eastern Long Island Electronics who will just show you very quickly what the propagation maps are and why we believe that we must get to this height for our antenna. These are the black and white copies, and I'll leave the color copy behind because it's a lot easier to see. But I'll speak from the color copy, if you don't mind (handing). A lot of the actual presentation I think you've seen before. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Probably we'll see it again. MR. SCHEIBEL: Do you want me to do it 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 a.gain? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, but it was really good, though. MR. SCHEIBEL: I mean, cut to chase, the Chief and Ed have kind of given you the details, and I know you're well aware of why we do this now, and the fact that most of the departments are being put on line, they have the antenna that's about 30 feet right now, and what the first map 22 24 tit 25 November 30, 2006 130 1 9 shows, it's kind of In black and white, feet is really bad. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nothing. MR. SCHEIBEL: They cannot even cover their own district with a handheld radio. At 120 foot mark, there's obviously a clear difference between the 30 foot antenna and the 120 foot antenna. You can see that the coverage extends now you can see, which is how we englneer the systems. We want at least one district on coverage to each direction, and obviously at 120 feet we accomplish that goal. That's pretty much based on that terrain on Long Island to deal with. As you know from the past that's kind of the number we come up with. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the elevation in East Marion where you want to put the tower? MR. SCHEIBEL: I believe it's 30 feet. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It's more than obvious when the coverage you see the pole right now at 30 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 Orient. 13 MR. SCHEIBEL: Then, if you look at the other side, the back side of the equation, this lS the radio's ability to talk back to the repeater site. e 14 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We remember that, the talk out. MR. SCHEIBEL: The talk-out map, which lS from the repeater back out to the radio; you won't see a drastic difference because the license that East Marion has actually has translimitations. The license in East Marion, like Orient, and this has to do with the FCC and channels. I won't bore you with the details, but the FCC put limitation on their transmitter because there are already what they call co-channel users In Connecticut that they don't want to create an interference problem. So the antenna height for the transmitter and receiver will actually be different, whereas in Orient they're the same. But you can see, easily, this lS the talk-out coverage at the current 24 feet, and this lS the talk-out coverage at what ends up at about 45 teet. 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me see this one e again. 25 MR. SCHEIBEL: As we say in the radio business, height is might. But see talk-out November 30, 2006 131 1 9 coverage you can make up by adding more power, you can't do anything, as we talked about last time, there's nothing you can do about the handheld radio, the four watt handheld. And its small battery and small antenna is a constant versus I can do something to the hardware that's located at the repeater site to generate more energy and therefore make up for talk-out. And there you have it. Beyond that, this pretty much speaks for itself. If you have any questions as to why we did what we did or our intentions going forward, I would certainly be happy to answer them for you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, we see the Orient tower going up now, how much different In view? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How different is this going to be? Because the Orient tower only goes partly up with the white it's more like MR. SCHEIBEL: The Orient tower will be white all the way up. MR. BOYD: When they have the antennas fixed to the central core, then the panels will go around the outside of it so the entire presentation will be white with a single monopole whip at the very top. The East Marion tower is designed to appear as a flag pole. There's gOlng to be a flag on it; there's gOlng to be a cross on it. The flag will be lighted with lights. That's the way it's been presented so far; that's the way it was looked at by the Planning Board that they seemed to appreciate that design. That's it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the purpose of the cross on it? MR. BOYD: Decorative. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And to hold the 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 lights? 21 MR. BOYD: And to hold the lights. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How far from the building is it gOlng to be? MR. BOYD: I'd have to look. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We have the elevation and the site plan, but it's so tiny. Before we had full scale. These are awfully hard. MR. BOYD: I can get you larger ones. It's also a very confusing site because there's so many lines on it. It looks like about 20 feet between the back of the rear garage and the base 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 132 1 5 of the enclosure around the tower. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was just wondering if they couldn't move it closer to the building as you did say in Orient, it gives at least the height of the building, kind of mitigates the height of the tower sort of, a little bit. Because otherwise there's nothing. Everything's flat. 2 e 3 4 8 MR. BOYD: I believe the fire district wanted to keep some area behind there for relative easy access to the garage area. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right. I just wondered. MR. BOYD: It was discussed. I know it was a subject of discussion by the commissioners at the meeting and they figured they were getting it as close as they could for effective use of their property. In the packet that each of you have there's a color photograph that shows the stakes exactly and those stakes show you where the fencing around the base of the tower would be, not terribly far back from the rear garage. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How far are those from the back of the lot? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: He thinks it's about 20 feet. MR. BOYD: Well, from the back of the lot it's considerably more. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, from the back of the lot. It looks like it's 106 feet -- no that's to the front -- 133 -- MR. BOYD: 106 minus 20, looks about 86 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 feet. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it's closer to the 19 house. e 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, yeah. Because we don't have, as we did in Orient, the entire site plan. We don't have information about landscaping around the mechanical area. I presume it's part of the site plan approval from the Planning Board. MR. BOYD: The Planning Board has dealt with that. They have no problem with that at all. It's a double row of trees around the outside of the fence. Staggered one tree here, closer to the fence all the way around. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high? MR. BOYD: It really is nothing that 20 21 22 23 24 November 30, 2006 133 1 6 anyone at the Planning Board found to be the slightest bit offensive given the nature of what we're dealing with. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, unlike in the case of Orient where there was an impact of residential streets as well as Main Road. Here the impact is not so great at the base. There's no real impact on Route 25. It's primarily on the resident properties behind is. Which concerns me to make sure that you've done everything you possibly can to make it as attractive and the least intrusive. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think there could be some trees on that rear property line. MR. BOYD: Obviously if you want that we would be happy to comply with that. If I remember correctly, the majority of the flags will be on the north, east and west of the enclosure, and the entrance to it will be on the southerly part, but I think that's another reason BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which is facing the 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 back. 23 MR. BOYD: That's another reason why we needed some separation between the building and the enclosure, so that we could get into it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Service truck can get back in there? MR. BOYD: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know, I just want to say this to you, Mr. Boyd, at the last hearing in Orient -- I'm putting words in my fellow Board Members' mouths, sometimes I take them away but I'll put them In this time -- there was an attempt -- of course/ we moved the antenna closer to the building, and certainly one or two of the Board Members and there is a nice young lady in the audience that wants to speak -- in an attempt to mitigate this cylindrical pole, there was a thought of some future plantings of some evergreens that would certainly grow to an excessive height some day. So that if the tower ever had to be moved, not to get in the way of the tower but to somehow mitigate that height. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Soften it. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Soften it, and I'm just trying to get a gist of -- and this is for future applications that you may come before us -- that from the fire commissioners if there 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 134 1 8 would be any attempt to do that on their behalf, to try and help the community out in the back there. MR. BOYD: Obviously I can't commit to 100 percent but I'm confident that anything that lS a reasonable request will be accommodated. I'm not sure exactly what can be done in the way of trees that get to a certain height within a reasonable period of time, anything like that. The one thing that I have had a question about and probably shouldn't even stir the pot on this one right now, but I'm not sure that the white color that we have been going with on some applications is the best. It's gOlng to present as a flag pole, white lS the traditional color for a flag pole and that seems to be what the community settled upon as being the least -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Offensive? MR. BOYD: -- offensive, shall we say for the presentation. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite honestly, Sunday I was out in Orient, gray or that blue color it would be much better than white, unless you want to make it look like a church steeple. It just sticks out as this big white line on the blue. That was the first thing that struck me is it looks better without the top on it. Less intrusive. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It doesn't look really bad with just the plates, I agree with you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The problem is when you try to make something what it isn't, it is a monopole, and it's not a flag, and it doesn't have the same scale, and it doesn't have the same diameter. MR. BOYD: All these designs exist there's a limit as to what can be done. But your observation as to the color is certainly one that I concur, and in Orient, if we were a clean slate we might possibly look at a different color rather than the white. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Quite frankly, I think there is a certain honesty and aesthetic quality to pieces of engineering that ought to look like pieces of engineering and serve a functional purpose and don't have to be camouflaged. I mean, they're gOlng to be out of scale no matter what you do relative to what's 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 135 1 9 around it. The other thing is I believe what we've talked about or what Jerry's talking about In terms of trees is there is an engineering report several years back that was in our file that indicated that the case of Orient that base it was really visible from the scenic corridor, Route 25, which will in part be the case with East Marion as well, that a 30 foot high tree given the setback from the Main Road at full maturity would mitigate the height because of the angle. You actually calculate the horizontal to vertical distance and actually triangulate it and the 30 foot high tree, the suggestion was not an evergreen because that would essentially diminish the open fields that are important to the scenic corridor, so it was a deciduous tree that was suggested. It's possible that maybe putting that on the boundary behind the fire station where the residential properties are. I would suggest deciduous because they're probably more in keeping. MR. BOYD: I know it had been discussed the possibility of putting some deciduous plantings along Route 25, and that has been objected to by the fire district because we believe that it would impede the visibility of the apparatus coming out. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No question about it. MR. BOYD: But along the rear of the property I don't see any reason why that could not be done as long as they're not going to be 25 foot trees right away. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think that's an unreasonable cost. MR. SCHEIBEL: As long as the trees didn't grow to a height where it would -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Interfere with your signal, right? MR. SCHEIBEL: I think the lowest antenna lS at 38. So you could go pretty high with the trees before you had any problems. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the absolute minimum height that your equipment would operate optimally at? Is it 120 feet or less than 120 feet? MR. BOYD: I think you're asking a question that cannot be answered as far as minimal 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 November 30, 2006 136 1 8 height and optimal. Optimally we're looking at 120 feet. Bill can testify to what would happen to the RF propagation if the antenna height would be diminished, and it would be a percentage factor. MR. SCHEIBEL: Let's say we were to drop the antenna height 20 feet, you'd probably see you'd lose coverage by that 10 percent but there's actually a computer with all the arithmetic where I could come back and say -- in fact, I think we did this with Orient. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you did. MR. SCHEIBEL: And the way Orient actually ended up being built was less than what the optimum height was and actually what was lost was coverage of Plum Island. So you can see from the 120 foot map that we now have coverage out, like you're talking water rescue is important now, cross district coverage. So we obviously can cover out to the Orient Point area with like a 95 percent liability. So if we drop the antenna 20 or 40 feet, you're going to see differences that are relative to the change in height. We can protect that, that's what the computer does. I don't actually hand draw that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I'm just wondering with Orient at 90 feet and you have a higher elevation to start with, why do you need 120 feet, how about 80 feet? MR. SCHEIBEL: Actually because the coverage out of Orient, because remember Orient actually was supposed to be 190, we dropped it and exactly what happened was we lost some percentage of coverage. Given that what we end up with is there's no fire district outside of Plum Island. Plum Island is what they call work water cap, it's pretty easy to talk across the water. Plus the leaves on the trees is enough to knock a radio signal down by a good percent. So the way we got to the 120 foot number was that you talk in from handheld radio at ground height for the district to each side of that is what we try to accomplish, and that's how we got the 120 foot number. If we knock that number down what will change is there won't be handheld level coverage at that, whatever, 95 percent liability that we design to is going to drop to like a mobile level of coverage outside the East Marion district. The handheld coverage will stop and will probably not 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 137 1 2 suffer. 9 MR. BOYD: One other point the Chairwoman brought up lS the difference in the ground level elevation between East Marion and Orient, could we get by with a lesser tower there. Well, certainly if we're talking about protecting out into an increment space, but we must remember that East Marion as such is higher than Orient. So we have to stick with basically the same height of the tower above the ground looking at the receiver as a little portable is a little higher as well. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right. You say, you're not serving the lower area with the higher; you're serving the higher with a higher. So MR. BOYD: Basically that takes that into e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 account. 24 MR. SCHEIBEL: In some of these runs I make I'll load all the perimeters In and it will take minutes before it comes up with a map. It actually goes to the D.S.8.S. policy data and then it looks at the levels we'll enter the manpower gradient it can generate, it comes up back to me and it comes back with the zero. MR. BOYD: Any other questions? I don't want to go overboard on this thing. I think you understand what we're talking about. You've heard this before. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just have one other question, although it's not part of this application. Are there commercial cellular phone company equipment that's also going to be anchored to this monopole, I presume so? MR. BOYD: Not as part of this application but there are of course interested parties, and I suspect there will be applications to collocate on a tower that's put up for the fire district use. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Of course. Then the obvious next question that you've heard before, to what extent is that 120 feet rather than 90 feet influenced by the needs of the private cell phone companies? MR. BOYD: In this instance it's not. We would get more coverage than we got out of Orient at 90 feet. We would like to have optimum coverage for our fire district in East Marion and the 120 feet is the optimum. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We would like to 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e 25 November 30, 2006 138 1 6 believe that if the cell phone company said that we really want 150 feet, you would still be asking for 120. MR. BOYD: Well, in a perfect world they would want 155. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's what I'm saying whether their wants are instrumental. MR. BOYD: We're not asking for that. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They're going to want another cellular tower at Orient Point anyway. MR. SCHEIBEL: You heard 195 lS the maglc number for a lot of reasons. Number one you go to 195, you can put up that structure and not need FAA approval, which has a whole layer of complexity. Once you have 195 point something feet, now you have lighting considerations. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We're just concerned that we're not deciding those issues when we're reviewing this. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's another thing, if, God forbid, if the tower falls down at 120 feet, do you have enough room that it's not going to hurt anybody? MR. BOYD: The only thing it will hurt is our own building. The answer really is, these structures are designed to withstand so much. It just isn't going to fall, and if it does fall, they collapse upon themselves. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Implode rather than explode if you don't live in Orient, you don't understand wind. MR. BOYD: I understand the wind all right. I live on the bay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know you're down Paradise Point, but Orient is different. People from Cutchogue have moved to Orient and they have said how do you stand the winds, and I said but you live in Cutchogue, and they said it's not the same. The wind doesn't blow that much down here. MR. SCHEIBEL: Even in a Category 5 hurricane, the antennas themselves would probably break and come off, and they would basically not fall. They had hang by their mounts, the monopole itself has survived typically to withstand in excess of 135 mile per hour. So if it does, it won't come down at the base because that's actually the strongest part of the structure. If it comes apart it will come apart at the top. 2 e 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 139 1 9 It's almost like all towers are actually constructed that increased wind they actually can move a little. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Like the bridges. MR. SCHEIBEL: That's part of the design. Like the World Trade Center, they actually move. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone in the audience have a question? MS. BONDARCHUK: I am Sheryl Bondarchuk. I am the neighbor to the fire department, and I do have concerns about the safety issues of the proposed tower. My first concern is the radio frequency. Living so close to a cell tower at 450 megahertz, this is going to be projecting right at my house, right at my kids' bedroom window, and I'm concerned more for my kids' safety in the long run. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 e 25 The aesthetic value of it, my property is right next door to the proposed location. It's going to affect the resale value of my home. The pollution issues, I mean, we have a lot of light pollution from the fire department now. There's a lot of -- the halogen bulbs are very bright. They shine in my house at night, which we don't have to have night lights, thank you. But the pollution, the siren going off, but I grew up in Orient, I know what the Slren is for, that's a good thing. I'm concerned about having the flag at the top of the pole. Is there going to be noise from the flag flipping in the wind? The light lighting on the pole, the pole itself, with the wind, is there going to be a constant hum from the wind or from the transmitters on it that I'm going to be hearing a low level of humming noise from this? I mean, I have concerns. I certainly don't want to get in the way of expanding on the fire department or communications. I understand the need for it, but I also have to look out for my family too. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Perhaps the experts could answer some of your questions. MR. BOYD: We certainly hope it doesn't hum because that would mean something's wrong. The lights that are going to be illuminating the flag are going to be pointing up in the air. They shouldn't be affecting anything down on the ground at all. 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 November 30, 2006 140 1 7 About the radio frequencies and emissions there, we are so far below the federal standards that it truly is not a subject of concern, but I would like to explain it in a way that was explained to me once. Radio frequencies are really just the same as light waves. It's just a different spectrum. We're gOlng to have a 100 watt out put. The radio frequencies that you're going to be receiving at your house will be the equivalent of 100 watt light bulb on that tower. A 100 watt light bulb on a tower that's several hundred feet away from you is -- MS. BONDARCHUK: But constantly on. And 100 feet or 86 feet off my property line. MR. BOYD: It's still a 100 watt light 2 e 3 4 5 6 8 9 bulb. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not constantly transmitting at -- it's only transmitting when you key the mike. It's only when they talk on that radio will you receive that energy. MR. SCHEIBEL: Unlike light, what actually happens with radio waves is the energy lS actually the square foot of the distance, so it actually falls down at a much higher rate than light. Light transverses open space way easier with way less resistance than air represented. The other thing is the FCC rules changed a decade ago already that you're not allowed to construct anything within these limits the FCC established that's in any way dangerous. And every tower site has to be registered with the FCC regardless of what it is. And that very registration is how the FCC knows to keep tabs on, and they know what equipment is there, who the carriers are, what they call the AERP, which is another way to measure our energy. It's not really the power that comes out of the transmitter or the power that comes out at the end of the cable what actually gets off the antenna has the potential to be -- and those numbers are far under anything that's even relatively dangerous. MS. BONDARCHUK: Do you have studies? MR. SCHEIBEL: Actually there's whole web sites I could actually point you to. MS. BONDARCHUK: I would appreciate that information. Because I know as an x-ray technician, I know that there is no level of radiation that is considered safe. 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 141 1 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That's because that lS high frequency and radio is low frequency. High frequency means high energy and that's the relevant difference. It's all exponential whether it's light, whether it's UV or whether it's x-ray, it's all exponential if the relevant thing is the frequency and the wavelength. Radio is low frequency and therefore low energy and x-ray is high frequency and high energy. No wonder you have to watch out for x-ray, it's the other end of the spectrum. MS. BONDARCHUK: Actually x-rays are ionizing radiation whereas radio waves are not. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. Exactly. They're ionizing because they're high energy. MS. BONDARCHUK: However, the studies that have been done with x-rays have been based on atomic bomb survivors that have gotten mega doses of x-rays. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. They're dangerous. MS. BONDARCHUK: Yes, they are. But now they're coming to find out that radiation workers, people in my position over the last 50 years, they're coming to find out that the low levels of radiation that we're exposed to at work are now -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But those are still pretty high energy radiation. Radio waves are on the other end. MS. BONDARCHUK: But is this going to be a problem down the line for my children? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I'm saying is x-ray isn't that far from the kind of heavy duty radiation you have associated with bombs. That's the UV, past the UV side of the spectrum, on the other end, past the infrared down where the radio and the microwave are, those are relatively harmless. So that's the issue. MS. BONDARCHUK: So they say now. My concern is what's gOlng to happen to my children and their children. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: We don't regulate that. MR. SCHEIBEL: The only thing I can tell you is that current standards are way tighter than the amount of leakage that you're actually allowed to receive from your microwave oven. So what comes out of your mlcrowave seal lS way greater 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 142 1 9 than what you get off the waves generated by the cell phone tower. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: May I ask you, should additional carriers be added to that monopole, would that in any way increase the potential dangers? I mean, let's assume in time Verizon wants to get or Cingular or Nextel, they want to rent and collocate, what impact, if any, would there be that would be beyond what would be there just if the fire department's equipment was there? MR. BOYD: What I can only do is relate to you the testimony that was given on the Orient application where the wireless carriers came In and they made a very convincing argument as to the federal requirements of a very small percentage of the federal requirements that they were actually using, and the fact that available data presently shows that it is certainly safe. I don't have those figures in my hand, and, quite honestly, I'm not competent and fair to give you specifics on that. I represent the fire district In an application for a public service antenna. But you would have -- if it comes to pass that there is an application to collocate -- every opportunity to question the engineers from those companies about exactly this point. And I think it's without prejudging the matter or prejudicing it in any way those engineering studies have passed muster in just about every place they have been questioned. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In our deliberations for the Orient tower, we made a kind of decision among ourselves that a decommissioning bond would be a reasonable thing to attach, as you know, on the granting of this permit, special permit. Information is required from you or from your engineers for us to write that for our engineers to write that. Is there a problem with providing any of those things? We have a list now of questions that need to be answered from the previous one, right? Linda, don't we have Jaime Richter's questions? Can we proceed with that? MR. BOYD: The decommissioning costs will be something that will be done really, you're asking the fire district to post a bond that they would take it down. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: What they're asking is that in the event that they decide to go 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 November 30, 2006 143 1 9 to another technology and the pole is no longer needed, then this Board may wish to have the tower come down if it's not needed. MR. BOYD: I would have absolutely no problem with that. It could certainly be a condition in there that if it were determined by the fire district that the tower is no longer necessary for the fire district use, they would remove it. I would have no problem with that whatsoever. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes, this Board should consider whether this Board wants to require that of another municipality or to wait for a collocator and impose that on a collocation instead. MR. BOYD: As far as the fire district is concerned, I would have no problem ln advising you right at this moment that they will agree to take it down if it's no longer necessary. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: A way to do it is maybe to make it a condition on the first approval, and then require a bond if there's any later approval. MR. BOYD: That would not be a problem for the district. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could we ask you for some calculations for the coverage at let's say 100 feet and 80 feet so we can compare them? MR. BOYD: Bill, can we do that? MR. SCHEIBEL: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you have that to us before we have to deliberate? MR. BOYD: I think that depends on how well Mr. Scheibel's computer lS functioning. MR. SCHEIBEL: Yes, we can do that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just wondering what would be the reason for that. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think there's a couple reasons. I think if you want to approve the 120 feet, you could show that you need the coverage that you get at 120 feet and the coverage you get at lore is not sufficient. And if you wanted to require less than 120 feet I think you're going to be able to show or argue that it is sufficient at those lower numbers and be prepared to defend that decision. So it's prudent either way. Unless you wanted to approve the 120 you could just look at this picture, and 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 November 30, 2006 144 1 2 if it were obvious to you that that's what you needed, you could approve that 120 as well. But if you have any doubt in your mind, you could ask for more information. MS. BONDARCHUK: Can I ask one more e 3 4 9 question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. MS. BONDARCHUK: In July, when they had the crane up there for the survey, was that the proposed height? MR. BOYD: I do not put it at. I was in Orient thing up. I don't know how was. We can find out. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think it was 120 feet because I stopped for visual testing. I stopped by while they were actually hoisting the crane up and dropping the plum line, and I asked them if this was what was being proposed, and I believe the gentleman who was putting it in place said, yes, but there was nothing that said this is exactly 120 feet. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I spoke to him too. It wasn't in the location in which you're proposing now. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: farther. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it was over like 50 feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the height was about right. I think they're bringing it closer to the building and farther away from your property. MS. BONDARCHUK: I know exactly where it It's right in direct view of my house. You can put up big trees, huh? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, we can make that a condition. know what height the day they put high the crane they the 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 It was over 15 16 17 18 19 is. 20 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The Planning Board has an entire schedule of selected trees that have been approved for hardiness, fast-growing capacity and for not being brittle. What you don't want to do lS put up a tree that dies, breaks off and becomes a maintenance problem. So that's a whole list of approved species, different kinds. MS. BONDARCHUK: Another silly question about the potential for this to fall down, 125 foot tower, if things blow off of it there lS 21 22 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 145 1 9 potential for them to hit my property, to hit my house, to hit my people. What kind of protection do we have from that? Is this fully insured? Again, I know it's a silly question, but again, I'm looking. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: question at all. MS. BONDARCHUK: MR. BOYD: It's not a silly question. come to pass. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: These things generally -- in my earlier life I worked for Cablevision and part of my job was climbing these towers, and I can tell you as a general rule with the exception of probably like you said, a Category 5, things fall pretty straight down. mean, if you're in a tornado, that's a problem, but you're probably going to have more problems to worry about -- probably a 10 pound piece of aluminum that might come off that tower. If you climb the Greenport tower, if anywhere there was a tower that toppled, at one time when I was a kid, those pieces are still there, the top of that tower -- and that tower was 300 feet -- landed probably about 70 feet away from that tower. Granted it was a guide tower, a little different from this monopole. But like the gentleman said, the base of that tower, if that base goes, that probably four foot round hunk of cement, we're all in trouble. But they're putting these sheets of metal on there. Quite honestly to my mind, I think you're better off without them, but people want these things, they're welcome to them. MS. BONDARCHUK: This is the picture that you gave the people at one of the fire department meetings that it was going to be a flag pole. And this picture shows a flag pole with all of these projections. What is the final plan on this? MR. BOYD: The one that was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MS. BONDARCHUK: So it's no longer a straight flag pole? MR. BOYD: No. It's going to now have the cross arm on there to allow the lights. MS. BONDARCHUK: And again, there has to be a flag on there because I'm concerned about listening to this, hearing more rattles. It's not a silly 2 . 3 4 5 6 I want to be protected. fully insured, yes. It's I hope that would never 7 8 10 I 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 November 30, 2006 146 1 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, I'm concerned about that myself. I mean, does there have to be a flag there? MR. BOYD: I can't speak for the Board. I can say that in many ways the monopole without cross bars, without a flag, is less noticeable, but you see you've all seen the large flag pole, the one that's in Riverhead. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you stand next to that on a windy day, you can hear it. Is there a reason -- what is your reason for the flag? MR. BOYD: The reason very simply was to try and make this as presentable to the community as possible. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Does the community feel like they need a flag; can we not have the flag? MR. BOYD: I cannot answer that. There has not been to the best of my knowledge a survey done to the entire community. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What if we say you can't have a flag; is that acceptable? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's llnconstitutional. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it is. MR. BOYD: I don't think the fire district would be upset if you told them they could not have a flag. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What about lighting; is it essential from a navigational point of view that the top be lit? MR. BOYD: No. It's only lit because the flag is there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Because quite frankly if the flag were eliminated and the lights were eliminated, it's less costly and it's less maintenance. You don't have to change bulbs. 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. SCHEIBEL: Well, we do have the issue of having the antennas are split based on the license. 22 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which means what? MR. BOYD: Well, we're still gOlng to have some form of cross arm. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What would the diameter be, the span? MR. BOYD: Very similar to what we have on the Orient tower. 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 147 1 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So 10 feet across. MR. BOYD: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That's very small relative. What is the diameter of the actual pole at the base; does it taper? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, it tapers, it's pretty thick. MR. BOYD: Okay. Going to guess at the base it's four, four and a half feet, the diameter. We're talking these sand lots around the 38 foot level, something like that, and each one of those sand lots is going to have a whip on it to give us additional communication if it's necessary. This is all for the fire district stuff. This has nothing to do with anything else. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Did this go before the Architectural Review Committee? MR. BOYD: Yes. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And they're the ones that said -- MR. BOYD: It was the Architectural Review Committee that wanted us to put the deciduous trees along the north side of Route 48. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, boy. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 25. MR. BOYD: 25 . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In East Marion or 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 Orient? e 25 MR. BOYD: This particular application, the East Marion application. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I could certainly see buffering the side yards of the property and the rear yard to mitigate the views to the residential properties. It's placed in such a way now that it's not going to be as productive to put those trees there on 25 anyway. I mean, it Loterferes also with the whole point of putting up, to me, putting some tree line around some residential properties, removlng the flag and removing the lights. If you don't need it for navigational purposes, and so there's less potential light pollution of any kind, less potential noise, flapping around, and possibly making the thing more blue-gray is going to do the trick mechanically. It will blend more with the firehouse and essentially is going to address some of your concerns. There's a time in which kitsch doesn't work, really trying to camouflage 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 November 30, 2006 148 1 9 something is worse than letting it be what it naturally needs to be. MR. BOYD: If I can take from this you don't want a 120 foot palm tree? MS. BONDARCHUK: As long as you don't have the corresponding size coconuts up there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the diameter at the top of the pole? I'm trying to get a sense of the tapering. MR. BOYD: At the top, something like 18 inches, something like that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So it diminishes from 4 to 1 over 120 feet. Because the height of your fence is six feet with the screening around? MR. BOYD: I believe so. It's a cyclone fence with the interwoven. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The lattice. MR. BOYD: And then on the outside of that there's going to be the staggered row of plantings to fill in the gap between those. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Something like arbovitae that will go to what, 10 feet high? MR. BOYD: I don't know. Whatever the Planning Board has specified. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Trying to figure out what diameter at that height would be, what you see. In other words, you're not gOlng to see the four feet. If you get screening of 15 feet or so of evergreen, how wide is that pole? It's probably going to be about three feet, maybe three and a half feet. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is where a section through the site would be very helpful to show where the road bed, is to show the height of the firehouse, the back building of the firehouse, the height of the monopole and then the height of a mature tree line. I'm not suggesting that you need to submit that now. I'm simply saying in future applications that's the kind of information which is enormously useful for everybody to be able to see. If I'm standing here what do I see; if I'm here what do I see. If I'm back there from my house what do I see. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You can get a real sense of what those vertical relationships are. MR. BOYD: We do In this instance have computer generated photographs that merge a projected tower with the surrounding area, and 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 November 30, 2006 149 1 8 with the exception of one photograph that was taken at a place where there's nothing in the way of vegetation right in front of the photograph, there's absolutely nothing that can be seen of this particular tower because it's all screened by the plantings that are around it. And I think what you were talking about earlier in terms of putting the deciduous trees on the northeast boundary of the property would pretty well take care of this whole thing. We could just give the trees a little bit of time to grow. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything else? Yes, do you have something else? MS. BONDARCHUK: Item 11 on the general note says that the total area of disturbance under this proposal is plus or minus 370 square feet; is that what you're considering the base of the tower? MR. BOYD: That's the area around the tower. The area inside the fence line. MS. BONDARCHUK: Thank you for hearing me. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're welcome. Thank you for coming in. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you feel any better? Do you feel like we addressed some of your problems? MS. BONDARCHUK: I've had questions answered, but I don't feel comfortable with this gOlng up in my backyard, but I don't think that my VOlce alone is gOlng to be the thing to move it to another perhaps more ideal location for the community. It sounds like we need it at the firehouse, and I certainly don't want to be the one to be the impediment to getting this at the firehouse. But when we built our house in East Marion, it was a nice, quiet neighborhood; it was green. There was none of this tower construction -- there was none of this there. We want to keep a quiet, peaceful home. And I really don't want to live next door to a cell tower. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Where do you suppose you could put that in East Marion? MS. BONDARCHUK: That's a good question. The church steeple or I was under the impression that the original plans were to be the cellular company that was going to put up the tower with the intention of having all the receivers, the transmitters for the cell phone industry, which to 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e 25 November 30, 2006 150 1 9 me would be a better location in a less residential area like the golf course, but I know that they need to have this at the firehouse. And agaln, I don't want to be the one to say no, don't do it, but I also don't want to be living under the shadow of a radio tower. And agaln, my concerns are for the health and safety of my family, my children. I mean, we're going to be living there for a long time. MR. BOYD: Hopefully the fire district is gOlng to be there for a long time as well. We have considered so many of these things that you brought up. And you realize that we need proximity to the scene of the action. We have to be close to the emergency tower for our generator. All the stuff that's right there. MS. BONDARCHUK: How does this affect the helicopter that's coming in for emergencies? MR. BOYD: Not at all. MS. BONDARCHUK: It's not going to be In the way of that; they're not going to be landing in my yard? They're pretty close sometimes. MR. BOYD: I certainly hope not. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir? MR. PETER: My name is George Peter, I'm a resident of Gardiner's Bay Estates, and I don't know how this compares to the rest of the north fork, but we have almost one hundred residents and and I would estimate that at least one-third of them are full-time residents, and almost everyone lS a senior citizen, some of them widows and widowers, for the overall safety down the road and all these zones interconnect it is to the benefit of everyone's health and future. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You know you have a 65 foot tower In your neighborhood? MR. PETER: Where? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How long have you lived here? 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 years years. MR. PETER: I've been on weekends. I've been Where's the tower? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: house. You haven't seen it? MR. PETER: I've been haven't noticed it. 65 feet? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 55 feet now. I'm just kind of out here for 28 permanent for five 24 Tommy Apgreer's It's there. down there. I 23 e 25 It's probably about pointing out where November 30, 2006 151 1 9 you could live in a neighborhood with these things and you don't notice them. It was used when Mr. Wexler was alive. They did ~~ well, Mr. Wexler was there and we used to go down there quite often. He would take us out in the boat but the man Tommy who owns that now was the captain of the boat, and they used to fish and whatnot, and he got the tower so he could radio at the time. And that tower still exists. Well, Tommy doesn't live there that often. MR. PETER: He's there BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean Shirley used to have a radio, she'd talk to him and dispatch him. None of that goes on any longer. I wanted to just let you know. Next time you go in you'll go and see it right next to the driveway. MR. BOYD: We have nothing further. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir? MR. ACEBO: My name is Mike Acebo, I live in High Point also. I'm a businessman in town. One thing I'd like to offer is that as a businessman and as members of this board, we all know how difficult it is to get employees. I think the fire districts are also having difficulty in getting personnel to be volunteers and be members of the fire district. With that in mind, I think communication lS the key element In having businesses and fire districts operate with limited resources. The better they can communicate, I think the better off we all will be In our emergency services, and the same thing is true in my business. I moved to High Point just beyond the firehouse. I can see the firehouse from my house. I've been there for 18 years. I having sat through the conversations of flooded basements, and now realize why when I moved here I looked for a place called High Point. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very smart. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I moved into low 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 point. 24 MR. ACEBO: I feel very sorry for you. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She has a much better Vlew than you do. MR. ACEBO: On removing the flag and painting this pole gray, I think that's a key element. As far as the noise elements, again, I run a boat yard, I probably stick possibly 150 masts In the alr that reach up to the point of 22 23 . 25 November 30, 2006 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e . 152 probably 75 or 80 feet in the air. The round ones never make any noise. The ones that make noise are the ones that have the sails that slide into a slot. When the wind blows across you get noise. I'm one of the largest noise polluters in the town of Southold with the boats that are stored with the masts inside in the boats left out there in the winter, very, very annoying. Those masts are horrible. The round ones don't make any noise. We've got several boats that have round masts that are basically light poles, aluminum light poles that are tapered from about two and a half feet to 10 inches at the top. Those masts have no stays, they make absolutely no noise when the wind blows. So I think we're in good shape with this tower. I think the noise is not going to be a problem. The flag would be a problem; it would be noisy. I'm not sure what the controls were on the flag, but I know the fire district has to put it at half-mast quite often. So it gets to be a complicated procedure; we'll save them some effort. We can get rid of the light so it doesn't stand out so much. I think you did a great job in your discussion with that point. I hope you go through with that. I'm in favor of this. I do live very close, and I think -- I'm not worried about the microwave or the radio problems with my children or with myself. I think I'm comfortable with that, but I think you've done the right thing. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution.) November 30, 2006 153 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 e 25 C E R T I FIe A T 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 30th day of November, 2006. 0/ November 30, 2006