HomeMy WebLinkAbout4544
Office Location:
Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank
54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue)
Southold, NY 11971
Mailing Address:
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
http://southoldtown.northfork, net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765.9064
COVER SHEET WITH ZBA FII,E
STATUS OF FILE
ZBA#
Tax Map #: /z_/. / ... 3 .~ /~
Location: 11
[ ] Refund issued: CANNOT activate or reactixiate file (Applicant has withdrawn
application).
[~.] NO :REFUND DUE, based on time spent for Town to process application and
tfearings.
[.~ ] Obsolete & expired; CANNOT reactivate this file: NEW APPLICATION
NECESSARY:
Extensive time has passed; Zoning Code changes are now in effect and this application
expired. NOTE: Applicant may apply for a new application with Building Inspector for
a new Notice of Disapproval and submit NEW application with all documents and
current maps to ZBA, or modify plan to conform to the current code. This Town file
based on applicant's previous year requests has expired.
[ ] No forms to be scanned; FILE # VOD: APPLICATION RETURNED. (All
forms were returned to applicant early in process, as requested by applicant.)
BOARD OF APPEALS DETERMI'NATt'ON
MEETI'NG HELD OCTOBER 27, 1998
Appl. No. 4611 - Building Tnspector's Request for Town-Wide Tnterpretation
under Article XVT of the Southold Town Zoning Code.
Date Building Tnspector's Request Was Received: August 19, 1998.
DATES OF PUBLTC HEARTNG: September 24, 1998; September 30, 1998;
October 15, 1998.
FINDINGS AND DETERf4INAT~ON
1. Zoning Code Article T, Definitions of "Wireless Communications" and
Telecommunication Tower" read as follows:
WTRELESS COIVlIqUNTCATTONS. Wireless communications shall mean
any personal wireless services as defined in the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, which includes FCC licensed commercial wireless
telecommunications services including cellular telephone services,
personal communication services, specialized mobile radio, enhanced
specialized mobile radio, paging, and similar services that currently
exist or that may in the future be developed.
TELECOf41~UNICAT~ONS TOWER. A telecommunication tower is a type
of wireless communication facility designed and constructed specifically
to support an antenna array, and may include a monopole, self-
supporting tower, guy-wire support, and other similar structures. A
wireless communications facility attached to an existing building or
structure shall be excluded from this definition.
2. Section 100-163 of the Code provides "Standards" for the above uses and
towers. Sub-section "B" states that the application must be a "public utility."
Tn this application, a "public utility use or tower" is not the issue. Tnstead, the
applicant, Building Tnspector has requested an interpretation with respect to a
tower "intended for the private use of an owner who operates a VHF Radio
under a Licensed issued to him/her by the FCC for the purpose of
communicating, all as part of his/her business."
3. The Board heard testimony, and received a memorandum of law f~om an
interested party who contends that a private VHF radio transmission tower is
not subject to the Federal Communications Act of 1996 or the telecommu-
nications provisions of Article XV! of the Southold Town Zoning Code because
these laws relate to public utilities and telecommunications commerce.
4. The Board heard testimony by the Town Building Inspector that in his view
a private VHF radio transmission tower is not subject to the telecommu-
Page 2 - Appl. No. 4611
Request for Interpretation (Pri~ Radio Tower)
October 27, 1998 ZBA Meeting
nications provisions of the Town Zoning Code because that law relates to
public utilities. The Town Building inspector also stated that he believed that
there was an application before him which prompted this request for an
interpretation and that that project does not fall under the current
telecommunications laws.
$. The Board received into evidence a statement from the Federal
Communications Commission that VHF radio transmission facilities are not
subject to the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Article XVT
of the Town Zoning Code states that it is intended to regulate "wire
communication facilities, and particularly telecommunications towers."
The definition of "wireless communications" in the Code is tied directly to the
types of communications that are subject to the Telecommunications Act of
1996.
6. This Board heard testimony from an individual Town Board Member that
stated that she was involved with the drafting of the law and stated that it
was the intention of the writers of Article XVT of the Zoning Code that all
towers be included, however, there is no written or other evidence to support
her testimony.
WHEREAS/the Board has reviewed the Wireless Communication
Facilities Law, Article XVT, of the Southold Town Zoning Code, and all other
provisions of the Zoning Code, and after completing this review, on Motion by
Member Dinizio, seconded by Member Collins,
TT TS HEREBY DETERMZNED that the Answer to the question in this
application is: A private radio transmission tower and communication use
does not fall under the Provisions of Article XVT, Wireless Communications,
when it is intended for the private use of an owner who operates a VHF Radio
under a licensed issued to him/her by the FCC for the purpose of
Communication~ ail as part of his/her business~ within the Light [ndustrial (IT)
Zone District."
VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS DlrNTZTO, COLLTNS and
HORNZNG. NAY: CHATRMAN GOEHR~NGER. ABSENT: TORTORA. This
Resolution was duly adopted (3-1).
Interpret~tion/AFtide XVI APPROVED FOR Ft'LXNG 10/28/98
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCYIIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request
Dear Reviewer:
The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental
Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR
Part 617 the following:
1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below;
2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and
3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated.
Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response.
Project Name: ~/~4¢:~//-/ 1~o5~',/? - L~ ~FI~.~ nL ~10 1~ ~
Requested Action:
SEQRA Classification: ( ) Type
(j/.~ Unlisted
Contact Person: '~.'~--_2-' /~"~'/~S-~"~
(516) 765-1938
Page 2
Lead Agency Coordination Request
The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (ELS)
on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in
writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency.
Planning Board Position:
()(,) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action.
( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency
status for this action.
( ) Other (see comments below)
Please feel free to contact this office for fu~her information.
Sincerely, / / /
Bennett Orlowski, Jr. "
Chairman
cc:~)~Board of Appeals
> Building Department
Southold Town Board
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
NYSDEC - Stony Brook
NYSDEC - Albany
n o u licWorks
.ILL $. Arm,,..d~.or.~:Le.f E~,.gir:.ccrc
~ gt a~
~-~y;TiG;';~ ......... ,, ~..,, ~, ,l.~, t v ~,,a~[~ ~u[ [[u [tau ~tuI
Suffolk County Water Authority
*Maps are enclosed for your review rev. 4/94
FORM NO. 3
TOWN OF SOuT~OLD
BUILDING ~EPARTHENT
SOUTHOLD, N.~.
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
To .C.h.a.r. le.s' .g:.c..u.~.~, .......................
445 Griffing Ave.
. RiYerbead ,. ~ev. York.. J .19D.1 .............
PLEASE TAK~ NOTICE that your application dated . .J..aq..u~.r~..3.0.,. ....... 19.9.8....
for permit to construct a telec~unications tower
............. Sound Ave. Mattituck
Location of Property I 1780
Nouse No. Street Hamlet
Cou.nty~Tax Map No. 1000 - Section ...].4.] ...... BLOCK ...3. ....... LOT 44
Subdivision ............................... Filed Map No .......... Lot No ........
is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds .!)....T~.e..p.r.o. po.s.e.d. ...........
telecuuaaunications tower being located on a non-conforming lot in an LI District is mot
per~i~ed, acco~dipg. ~p. ~.e.c.t.i. oA .I.0..O~. 1.6.5..B. :..2.)....~qe..pr.o. pgs. e.d.. t. o.¥e. r..b.e.i.n, g .t.h.e.. pr. i. 9c. i. pa. 1..
op. ~be. 10[. ia. reqpiN~d. ~p. have .q rear ~.ard setback of 70 feet pursuant to Article XIV
100-]42. 3) The proposed tower is required to be located at least one hundred (]00) fee
.f.r.o.~...t.h.e.nearest dwelli.~g unit .p.u.r.s. uant to Article XVI 100-]62 C.3. Action required by.
the. Zoning. Board. of. Appg.al.s... ......
1/01~;.. $ i~e. Pla~. ~pp.rp.v.a.1..r.e. qu.i.r.e.d..bI .t.h.e..P. 1. a.n.n.i.n.g.B. 9.a.r.4: ................................
RV 1/80
FEB 6 199
TO'~vI! OF 5OI1'1'1101.1), jIF. NV
^I'PFAL. I:IT(.)M I)I:'CISIOH OF IH..III-I~II'I(; IIISI'FCIOII.
YOnK
l'O I'l IE ZOIIII'I(~ IlO^ill) I.']l: API'EAI.% I ¢3~,~/I I (}F SO! I I I I()1 l), I I. Y.
MARTIN ROSEN 0~,~,,~ .... ~4~2 .~.~.~.~9C ~Y~n~.~ ...........................
}, {~V(O ............................................................. ~lleel m~d Fh.nb.r
I'lomu of
Oc~an~ ~. ......................................... N e.~..Y~.~.k ............. I IEfTEI1Y ~I'PI~AI.
................................ ~Uni(tpolily ~t~l~
lllE ZOHIFI(; IIOAIH) OF ~I'PE~I.S I:ITO~ Illl~ [)I~CISIOI,I (.)F '11 I1{ llUIt.{)ll.l{; II,IS['l~(~ I'(.)lt OII
[)~ I Er) .....................................................
APPI.ICA'I'IOH FOIl I,l~lT~lF I-I() .....................................
WIII~RI~IjY TIlE IjUII.DII'.I(; 11,151q~(71Oll I)EI.III~I) '1
ArTI ROSEN
3472 ~e~dne~ Avenue~ 0ceans~de, New Yo~k ..................................
( X ) pERMIT 'to USE
( ) i,ER~rr FOR OCCUPAI,ICY
201 S0u~d ~v~n~e, ~at~tu~.~ ~ ......
i. LOCATION Or-rile
I) str (:t lO00 Section 141131ockO31.ot: 44 Cm'renL ¢)wm:r Ollie Booker~ Clarence Bo_o__k~r, et al
i~;,;;'i;i;,~"' ' ' --' ;i.,,~ Ho. ' Prior Owne,'.Walter Williams
2. PItOVlSlOl'l IS) OF TIlE ZOI'IIHG OItl)ll'lAl'lCF- APPFAI..EI~ (Indlcot~ the A~ltcle
sectlo~l and I~mog~oph of lira Zonlno ()~din¢.~ce by ~,d)l~r. I)o Ilol qlJolo the
^rtlcl~ 100 5ocLJon 162-C-3 and 244
TYPE OF APPEAl. Appeol Is mod. he~ewiH~ f()* (please check apl~ropriaL~ A VARIANCE I~ the Zo~l~g Ordh~a~ce of Zo~d~O Mop
A VAIIIAI'ICE due Io luck of occes~ (Slain of Hew yolk Tow~ Law Chop. 62 Co~s. I.aw~
Afl. 16 Sec. 28OA S~d)secllo~l ]
(~ Jnte~pre(a(~on and ~f ~egu~red.~ a se~ back va~ance
REASOl-I FOR APPEAL
( ) A VoHo~co lo 5ectlm~ 2BOA S~d)secllo,~ :1
(X) ~ V(Irl¢lnce Io the Zo~dllg
(X) That Sec(ion ~00-~62 C (Wireless Communication Facili(ies) is
ix~.~ix~a~d~x~x#~,x~K written a~ paragraph 3 (o sugges't ~hat a 100'
(0wer.mus~ be located at a dis(once of 100' from the ne'arest dwelling
unit withou~ giving c0nsidera(ion ~o (0wets of reduced height, eg 70,
BO or 90 fee(. Understanding that safety.is a c0nsideration an
tower.located at least ~5' from the neares~ dwelling unit would meet
~he requirement and comply wi~h the apparent in(ent of the Code.
The set back from the rear line, while minimal, should no( affect the
adjoining owner, the Long Island Railroad.
Literally the Code prohibits towers of more than 100' but ignores
the consequences oftowers less than 100'. The set back requirement
should correspond to the height of the tower and the applicant
requests that this Baord interpret the Code accordingly.
If the interpretation is denied, the applicant requests an area
variance permitting an 85' tower a distance of 87' from the nearest
dwelling,
REASONS FOR AREA VARIANCE ONLY (to be completed by applicant):
Do not use these standards for "use variance" or "special
exception." (Also attach sheet~ if nec%ssary, with signatures.)
I. An undesirable change wi. iL NOT be produced in the character of
the neighborhood or a detrimer~t to nearby properties, If granted
BECAUSE: Neighborhood is industrially zoned and towers are permitted
use in this zone. The height of the tower is ]ess than the distance
to the nearest dwelling.
2. The benefit sought by the appL.ica~tt CANNOT be achieved by some
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other titan an area
variance BECAUSE: The configuration of the 10t does not permit a
greater distance between the tower and dwelling units.
3. The amount of relief cequested is not substantial BECAUSE
the setback wi]] be more than 85~ of the required distance from the
tower.
4. The variance will NOT have an advecse effect or impact on the
physical or environmental condltfons in the neighborhood oc district
BECAUSE the p~opert¥ is in an industrial zone, the southerly line of
the ro ert~ ~s the Loqg Island Rai)road and in.the vicinity of the
P P ildin sano other commercial or
site there are a number of storage ou g
~u:~e~p:f~ ~ ~? :~h~ence 0~ a w~reless %0wet 00es
5. Has the alleged difficulty been self-created?
( ) Yes.
(X) No.
6. This ks the minimum ti%at ks necessary and adequate, and at the
same time preserve and protect tl~e character of the neighborhood and
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF N~SSAU )
Agent must attach written consent
Sworn to before me this
:xtlk/form.'zar/tem.p
da~Jan.U .~.1998
~otary Public
QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION
A. Please disclose the names of the owner(s) and any other
individuals (and entities) having a financial interest in the
subject premises and a description of their interests~
(Separate sheet may be attached.)
Contract Vendee: Martin Rosen 3472 Wied.ner Ave.. Oceanside,
B. Is the subject premises lasted on the real estate market for
sale or being shown to prospective buyers? { } Yes-
{X } No. (If Xe~, pl,,~, at~h c~p3 of "condut~nns" of mmle.)
Under contract
C. Are there a~¥ p~uMosals tn change u~ alt~r land :untcu~?
{ } Yes ~} No
2.
3.
4.
Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? No
Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with
this application? No
Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands area and
the upland building area? No
If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have
you contacted the Office of the Town Trustees for its
determination of jurisdiction?
E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of
proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea
level? N.A. (If not applicable, state "N.A.")
F. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fenc~
which -~ Et and are not ~hown on the survey map that you are
submitting? None If none exist, please state "none."
G. Do you have any construction taking place at this time
concerning your premises? No If yes, please submit a copy
of your building permit and map as approved by the Building
Department. If none, please state.
H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this
parcel? No If yes, please explain where or submit copies
of deeds.
I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this
parcel vacant old buildings and
proposed use c0mmunlca%~0ns ~0wer
3/87, 10/901k
NY
PART 1--PROJECT INffK..tATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determinin§ whether the action proposed may have a significantef
on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be consid~
-as part of the application for aporovai and may be subiect to further verification and public review. Provide any additic
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that comoletion of the full EAF will be dependent on. information currently available and wdl not inv,
new studies, research or mvestigadon. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and spe
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION
Martin Rosen - Site Plan ApprOval
NAME OF APP'.[CANT/SPONSOR
Martin Rosen
AOORES~
t GU$INESSTELEPHONE
(516) 369-8200
A~orney
3472 Weidner Avenue
0ceanside NY 11572
~ aUStNESS TELEPHONE
NAME OF OWNER (il Uifferent) )
Ollie Booker, Clarena Booker, et al. I ~ ~
AOORE$S
CITY/PO ) STATE I Z)PCCOE
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Approval of site plan for business office and radio tower
Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable
A. Site Description
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: I-IUrban I'~lndustria[ ~Commercial
[-'J Foresl; I-1Agriculture ~Other
2. Total acreage of prelect area: .;~§ acres.
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural}
Forested
A~riculturaJ (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.)
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 2.5 of ECl.)
Water Surface Area
Unvel]etated (Rock, earth or fill)
Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces .06
Other{indicate type} Lawn & brush .20
3. What is predominant soil type{s) on proiect site?
a. Soil draina~,e: ~Vel) drained % of ~,ite
~Poodv dram(,d % (~i s~t(!
C]J~.esidential (suburban)
Abandone(l' Residence
I"~ Rural (non-f;.
PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETIOt
acres .06 acre
.20
[][Moderately well drained 100 % et site
b. If any agricultural JJ~d is involved, how Tn.my a(:rt,s of stol are ('l,tssiiit'(] ~vithin ~od ~roup 1 throu~sh 4 of the
Land CIassdication System! J~/A acres (See 1 NY(](R 370)
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on prelect site? ~Yes E~No
..,~. What is depth to bedrock? I~bPl~ T~H~Jt ~0' (in feet)
2
3. Appfoxm~atepercentag posed prolect~tewithslope~ ~ . ]00 % ~1()-15% o
~5% or ~reater ~
6. Is proiect substantial[t contiguous [o. or contain a building, site. or district, listed on the State or the Natlon~
Registers of Historic Pl:ces~ ~Yes ~No
~ 7.-is proiect substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Remster pt National Natural Landmarks? ~Yes ~N
8. Wha~ is the depth of the water table? 1~ (in feet)
9. Is si~e located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquiier? ~Yes ~No
10. Po hundng, fishing o~ shell fishing oppo[tunides presendy exist in the project area~ ~Yes ~No
1~. Doe~ project site contain any species o[ plan~ or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangerec
According to
Identify each species
12. A~e there any unique or unusual [and forms on the prolect site~ (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formation:
Describe
13. [s the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open soace or recreation area
If yes, explain ,
14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? I-rYes I~No
15. Streams within or contiguous to prolect area: Nolle
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name None b. Size (In acres)
17. [s the site served by existing public utilities? ~Yes
a) If Yes. does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~,Yes i-No
b) If Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connection~ I~Yes ~.No
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and ,Markets Law. Article
Section 303 and 304~ I~Yes ~No
19. Is ~he site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 I-lyes r'4No
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wast"~?, r-lYes [~No
C
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor ~76 acres.
b. Project. acreage to be developed: .06 acres ini(i~llly; acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped .20 acres.
d. Length o~ proiect, in miles: N/A (1[ appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate per{'~'nt of ~xpan~i<~n proposed None
f. Number of o~f-s~reet parkin~ spaces exlSPlll: ~ propelled
g. Maximum vehicular tr~ps generated per bohr ] (upon comph~ion pi pro~ect)~
h. If residential: Numb(~r and Wpe of housinl~ ,mits:
In,liaily N/A
Ultimately
~. Dimen~.ons (in (eet) pi largest pfo[)o~ed sm~ctute 20 I~eight: 27 ',v,dth: ~8 length
j. Linear ieet of /~ontage along a ~ublic thornugh~are ~rolect will occupy is? 78 ft.
3
- 3. Wile disturbed areas be reclaimed? C]Yes ENo F~NfA ·
a. If yes. for wl~at intend.._ purpose is the site beim: reclaimed? N/A
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? II, Yes i-'No
--- c. will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? EYes ~mNo
None tons/cubic yarc
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, 8round covers) will be removed from site? None acres.
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
t-lYes I~NO
6. If single phase proiect: Anticipated period of construction 3
7. If multbp~.ased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated N/A (number)
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 . month
c. Approximate completion date of final phase month
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? I-~Yes
8. Will blastin~ occur durin~ construction? ~]Yes !~No
9. Number of jobs §enerated: durin~ construction 4
10. ,Number of jobs eliminated by this oroiect None
11. Will project require relocation of any proiects or facilities?
months, (including demolition).
year, (includin~ demolitio~
year.
[]No
after prelect is complete 1
EYes ~No If ves explain
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? I--Yes '~No
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage. industrial, etc.} and amount ---
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged ---
13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? EYes I~No Type
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal?
Explain
EYes ~No
15.
16.
Is project or any portion of proiect located in a 100 year flood plato?
Will the project generate solid waste? ~]Yes I ~No
a. If yes. what is the amount per month 1~ tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~Yes ~No
c. If yes, give name S0uth01d Town T~'~n~f~ RtRt{nn; IocaT[b~
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
e. If Yes, explain
r-lYes [UNo
Cutchoque
f~Yes
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste?
a. If yes. what is the anticipated rate o~ disposal?
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? ---
Will project use herbicides or pesticides? I-iYes
NYes ~JNo
Will project routinely produce odors (more dian one hour per day)/ ~Yes I~No
Will project produce operatin~ noise exceedinll the local ambient ~o~se h:vuis? ~'~'e~
Will project result in an increase in en,tf~y tt~e~ ~Yes ~No
If yes , indicate type(s) ~JnJ~u~ Jn connectJon with radlo transmlsslon
CgNo
22. II water supply i,, from w,d{',. ,ndicai*r ~U[ll;llll~ capacity 1~0
23 Total anticipated water usage per day 100 galhmsldav
24. Does prelect invo[ve Local, St,~te or lederal lending? ~Yes
I[ Yes. explain
g,d lu n si'~v~pe r s o n / d ay
~No
.C
2S. Approyals Require
City, Town, Village Board I-iYes
City. Town, Village PJannin~ Board ~Yes F-INo
City, Town Zoning Board I~Yes [:]No
City, County Health Department I~lYes
Other Local A~encies F-lYes I-]No
Other Regional A8encies {]Yes
State A§encies ImYes FlNo
Federal A~encies Il, Yes [:]No
Submitto
Type Date
Town Planning Board-Site Plan 2/12~9E
Town 7onlno Board - Internr~tation 1/?q/QF
- yari~ ce
~Olmt¥ H~nlth D~pt.-~t~ P~an
C. Zoning and Planning Information
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision~ []];Yes I-~No
· If Yes, indicate decision required:
I'-Izonin8 amendment []]zoning variance ~]special use permit [:]s4~bdivisio~ _ ~sitel;rian .
~o e e 1 .
~new/revision of master plan []]resource management plan mother ~)~P~a~ ~ ~f~fl .~pr~'ova
2. What is the zoninB ciassification(s)of the site~ Light Industrial
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning?
30% c0veraqe
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Light Industrial
$. What is the maximum potential development Dig the site ii: developed as permitted by the proposed zonin§¢
30% coverage
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? F~Yes I'-
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a % mile radius of proposed
Comm~r£~al and re[_~idential .
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adioininBlsurroundin8 land uses within a % mile? [~Yes
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? N/a
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed?
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of'lea, er or water districts? ~Yes
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, poll
fire protection)? aYes I-]No
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle proje'cted demand? OYes ~]No
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? [:]Yes
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? (]Yes I-1No
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be n~eded to clarify your proiect. If there are or may be any adve
impacts associated with your proposal, plnnse discuss sucl~ impacts and tile measures which yot~ propose to rmdgace
avoid (t]em.
E. Verification
I certi[y that the information provid~,d 4how, is true to the [)est o[ my knowledge.
Applicant/Spo~ame , Mar~n Rosen Date ~ '~-
APPLICANT: MARTIN ROSEN
OWNERS:
Ollie Booker
Clarence Booker
Joseph Booker
Geneva McDaniel
Mary L. Booker
Patricia Iverson
1142 East Main Street, Riverhead,
3000 Maxwell Ave., Oakland, CA
755 Rogers Ave., Brooklyn, NY
3000 Maxwell Ave., Oakland, CA
755 Rogers Avenue, Brooklyn, NY
2418 Loyola N. Way, Baltimore, MD
NY 11901
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS~IENT FO~4
~NSTRUCTIONS:
(a) fn order LO answer the questions in this short EA~ it is assumed
that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the
project and the likely impacts of th~ action. It is not expected that
additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken.
(b) ff any question has been aeswered Yes the project may he sig-
eifioant and completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary.
(c) rf all questions have been answered No it is likely that the
project is not signifioa~%t.
(d} Environmental AssessmeAt
1. Will project result in a large physical change
to the project site or physically'alter more
than l0 acres of [and? ~es: X NO
2. Will there be a major cha~ge to any unique or
unusual land form on the site? Yes X No
3. Will project alter or have a large effect on
an existing body of water? __Yes X No
4. Will project have a potentially large impact on
groundwater quality? __Yes X No
5. Will project significantly effect drainage flow
on adjacent sites? ~Yes X No
6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered
plant or animal species? Yes X No
?. Will project result in a major adverse effect co
air quality? Yes X No
8. Will project have a major effect on visual char-
known to he important to the community? Yes X No
9. Will project adversely impact any site or struct-
ure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological
importance or any site designated as a critical X
environmental area by a local agency? Yes No
10. Will project have a m~jor effect on existing or
future recreational opportunities? Yes X No
ii. Will project result in major traffic problems or
cause a major effect to existing transportation
· systems? Yes X No
12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors,
noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturb-
ance as a result of the project's operation? __Yes X No
13. Will project have any impact on public health
or safe=y? Yes X No
14. Will project affect the existing community by
directly causing a growth in permanent popula-
tion of more than $ percent over a one-year Yes X Ne
period o_~r have a major ,egative effect on the -- ~
character of the co,unity or neighborhood?
15. ~s there ~t~,~s~ing the X
e=eparer,s S£~neturm, Charles-~j Cud~'y~, ' SQ.
~e~rs=.nting: Marti n Rgsen Date~J~.? /~-~ ~
AI~I~'I. [[;ANT
'['11 ~ N,II ;~ [;'l*.l. O N A l ,
The Town of $o~bhold'$ ~ode el F. bhioa prohibits eon[licks o£
inbersab on ~he pa~ el hewn o[~[~ slid employees. Ths
purpose of ~hie ~orm is ~ ~-de ill~orn~~' celt
ib to ~ake whatever 8c~ion ie necessary to '~ eame.
MARTIN ROSEN
NATIJi{I{ OF AI'PLICATI]OFI: (Chr3ck nl I. I;hnl; npl~.l.¥. )
Vaeianee X
Change oE ~,one
Approval 'of plat
Other
(I~ "other," nnm. t'[~."nctl, vll:~. )
Name off p{a~gott gmpJ. oyod I>y I;h~ 'l'ow~t oF ,golttho.t.d
altd tile ~owIt offflc~r or ~mpI. r~y~. I~lth~ chemic hh~
~ppropr[ate line A) thro~h I)) n~l~]/or rl~l.t)~ 1~ th~ .pnc~
provided.
cocpor~tion)~
nppl [~ttt: ~
I~) tls~ *c~unt
I)F. SCR.TP'['ION 017 I{I.3[.,A'['It)M?,IITI'
NOTARY PU~U~ ~ Of NeW
I"0 RH NO.
TOWN OF SOllTIIOl. I}
IlllILl}] NO DEPA R'I1dENT
'~O~N II~I.L
SOU'I'IIOI.I)~ N.Y. 1197 I
1'El,: 765-1802
Ex~'~ni necl ................. , 19 ....
ApprovJ~l ................. , 19 .... Pen.il: No .................
I) isapprc~ed a/e ..................................
~ETS OF PLANS ...............
-d~VEY ........................
SEPTIC FORH ...................
NOTI FY:
CAI.i ...................
HAIl. TO: ....................
1
TO ,':q C~- SOUfHOI~
(l~ildin§ ]nslx~ctor )
APPI.ICATION FOR IHlll.I)lNC PEIIHIT
]NS'FRUCTTONS
a. ']his nppllcat[c~ mint be conpletely filled in hy t:yl~rlter or in ink n~] malmltt~l I:o the ~ilding Tnsl~clor
3 ~ts of plans, ~co~rate plot plon to ~nle. F~ acco~ing to
h. Plot plan ~mi~ l~ati~ of lot ~ of I~ildliRs m prmi~s, relati~ip to ~joining pr~i~ or
struts or areas, a~ Bivi~ a ~toil~l ~:ripti~ of layo~l: of pro~rty mint ~ dr~ m tie dlagr~ ~Hch i~ i~rt of
this nl~)l
c. 'lhe s~rk cmr~l by this o~dicflti~ ~,~y t~t I~ con~l Imfore ismmme of l~)ildi~ Pemlt.
d. IJl~T o~r~nl of this al~licati~, the lkHld{~ lns~etor ~ill ismm n HOildi,~ Pe~it to the nppllcnnt. ~]ch
I~mit fl~all I~ ~pt m tl~ ~i~s ~vail~le for ins~tim [tsro~tt the
e. HO Ix~ihli~ flmll ~ ~o~pi~l or u~ in ~g~le ~ in i~rt for ,ny ~n-~)~ ~mtever untila C~rt~flcnle' ' of
~CUl~u~y droll h~e I~n grnnt~l hy tim Ik~ildiz~ lns~tor.
~[~IC~'I'I~ IS IEI~IIy ~E to tl~ I~ildis~ ~rtmnt for the [emm~e of n Ik~ildi~ Pemdt ~rmmnt to tl~
li~ildlnO ?~ Ordinance of tl~ T~ of ~tl~ld, ~lffolk (~mty, ~ York, m~ other n~ltcnble l~s, ~di~m~es nr
l~llntlq~s, ~or tl~ c~stn~tim of I~Hldt~s, ~[ti~m or all:erati~s, or for r~al or ~1 iris,
~seril~l. 'Hm applic8nt n~s to crawly ~ith nil 8~Hicnble l~n, ordl~tmee, I~dldlng ~, Ioming e~x~,
re~doti~x~s, n~d to ~it m~tl~riz~l inq~tors ~ prmd~s n~ in IxHlding for ~cessaU ins~ti~ss.
(ffig~ture oE a~he~, or ~, ~ [ n cor~r~ion)
~ar~in ~0sen by Char]es R. Cuddy, h~s agent, c/0 Char~es ~. Cuddy,
(~tllnll ~lress of n~l icant)
State ~ther a~licnn~ is ~r, les~, ~gent, nrchilect, en~h~r, ge~rnl cmtrnetor, eleetrietnn, pl~nt~r or I~llhler.
.~ar.~.~0s~.n.j~. qgR~.~.YR~ ~nd ~9~R~.fRE.~R~.O~r ............ · .......................................
~ of ~r of pr~i~n 0]]i~ Booker, Clarence Booker, e~ a~.
(ns m Ihe tax tx)ll or I~test
If a~)licnnt la o cor~rati~, si~al:~re of ~l~sly m~tl~)ri?~l officer.
(l~sne ar~l title of corporate officer)
lk~ilders License HO ..........................
Phml)ers ].icen~e Ho ..........................
Electricians l,icen~e ~ ......................
Oiler '~ l.icen~ ~) .....................
I. l~ati~ of la~l~ ~idl pr~l ~tk will I~ ~ 201 Sound Avenue, Mattituck
I~ ~mi~r Strut IL~n] et
Comt~ ~p HO. I~ ~ti~ ..J.~,O~ ...... IH~k ..Q~,RQ ........ lot ~4~,~00 .......
~*l~livisi~ ...................................... Fil~l ~q, ~ ................ l~t ...............
(~**~)
2. State existing ~ m~ ~o~y off l~i~s ami inte~l~l use aTxl ~o~r~ of propel c~stn~l:i~:
a. Existi~ u~ taxi ~y [X~S~n~ abandoned house at the s~te
~l~ript i~l)
Ili.e~ssi~ss of existi~ strictures, if a.y: ffr~t ................ ~ar ............... ~ptls .................
I~i~lt ......................... ~id~r of 8tories ......................
~l~e o~ firdlit~t .................................... ~klress .............................. ~ ~ ...............
~am of C~tr~tor ................................... Nklress ................. ' .............. lt~ ~ ...............
Iq.OT l)lfiGIlfiH - Survey at~ached ,
la:ute clearly a~ disth~tly all ~ihlis~s. ~tler existing or prOl~l, al~ il~licate ali ~t-I~k dimensions
~tl~r ieterior or cor~r lot.
[;I'A'IE (Ir tl,.~l
ux~Nl~ t~ ..SJ~E.FOLK ............
(g~m of i~Klivi(h~,l sig~li.g ccAstract)
()f re,id (~l~,' ()r (~K~,'fJ. t.xl if~ duly t. Jth()ri~l Lo I~rlo~.l of IJ~ve I~rh~f.~l Ihe I~;litl ~)[k taxi lo .slke taxi file Ihi.
~llJi)l i(:aLii.i; Ihlll: nil fltaLOlellt8 (:(aitais~l i,s this nl~)licat'io, lire l I1~ to the I~t of Itl. ktx~lc~lge nl~ Ix~lief~ nlxl
(hlit tile ~),k ~ill I~ I~rforu~l iii the .i,,.~r ~t l'orLh i~ the al~)li(ti~l.i(.I fil~l tl~r~iU~.
o../y/.,~_~yTOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD .?
/oo .'
OWNER STREW' ! I V ged VIL~GE D~S~. SUB.. .~:OT ,
FORMER OWNER N '~0U/d 0 /~V' :. ) L ,'~
S ' ~P~ OF 'BUILDING ....
~E~ O S~.S. .VL. FARM CO~. CB. MICS Mkt..value' · · / ........
~ND ' .IMP. ' -TOTAL 'DATE RE~RKS .......
. ~ o ..... /2oo . /7.0 o v
"AGE BUILDING CONDITION
N ~ NORMAL BELOW ABOVE
FA~ Acre Value P~r Value
Acre
Tillable ~ FRONTAGE ON WATER
Wo~.a FRONTAO~ ON ~OAg ~ ~ ~
Meadowland DEPTH
Ho~ P~ BULKH~D
Total " ~ DOCK
COLOR ~-J,,V/ j~ ,<~
M. BId~
Extension
Extension
Extension
5'-,~ L ~ ~
Porch
Bath
Floors
Porch /~ ,5 ~ · Interior Finish
Breezewey /t/a' Heat
Garage Rooms 1st Floor
Basement
Ext, Walls
Fire Place
Type Roof
Recrootlon Room
/'~E Dormer
3zz
Patio
Oo B,
Total '
Rooms 2nd Floor
'Driveway
OFFICE OF
BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
(1-516) 765-1809 tel. (1-516) 765-9064 fax.
February 20, 1998
Charles R. Cuddy, Esq.
445 Griffing Avenue
Riverhead, NY 11901
Re: Appl. No. 4544 Rosen/Booker Variance
Dear Mr. Cuddy:
This will confirm that a Notice of Disapproval has today been issued in the above, and
your variance request is presently under review by board members. In the interim, the
following is requested:
a) Confirmation of all setbacks and dimensions for the tower, its base m~d fence,
on a survey or similar map (7 prints).
b) Confirmation as to the purpose and description of use of the tower and
whether or not a public utility is an interested party and proof of same.
c) Sketch of the layout of the building and design of the tower, as well as the use
and proposed occupancy of the building.
d) Confirmation as to whether a site plan application has been submitted to the
Planning Office, or a preliminary conference on this project, and an update as
to the result of the sub~nission or conference.
If the above reformation is received by Thursday, March 5, 1998, it is possible that the
Board will add this application for a public hearing to be held in March. A resolution on
February 26, 1998 (or later) will be necessary before confirmation of your request (for
March 23rd).
Very truly yours,
Gerard P. Goel~ringer
Chairman
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO: SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: - . . , $OUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
RE: ZONING APPEAL APPLICATION #~5q~
DATED: February 6. 1998
Transmitted is an application of Martin Rosen, together with
Transactional Disclosure Form, Questionnaire for filing with ZBA
application, Short Environmental Assessment form , and survey of
property.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
{]]HAl/LES Itt. ~UDDY
~.TTOHNEY AT LAW
January 29, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Martin Rosen - Interpretation/Variance
SCTM 1000-141.00-03.00-044.000
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is an application together with the supporting papers. A
building permit application has been filed with the Southold Town
Building Department. The applicant, Martin Rosen, anticipates a
disapproval from the Building Department and, therefore, has
prepared an application seeking an interpretation as well as a
variance. We wish to pre-file this application to permit you to
review it and advise us of any additions or changes which should be
made to the form of the application. Upon hearing from the
Building Department we will then be in a position to proceed before
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and your courtesy in
reviewing the application.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Cudd~
CRC:JML
Enclosures
GHAttLES R. GUDDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Martin Rosen - Interpretation/Variance
SCTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Gentlemen:
In connection with the application of Martin Rosen for a
Telecommunication Tower at an industrial site on Sound Avenue in
Mattituck, we enclose the following:
1. Application
2. Copy of denial of the building permit application
3. Environmental assessment form
4. ZBA Questionnaire
5. Seven (7) prints of survey with the location of the towner
6. Check in the sum of $400
Please note that the applicant seeks an interpretation with regard
to the tower being set back from the nearest dwelling unit, or in
the alternative a variance based on being less than 100 feet from
the nearest dwelling unit as well as a variance set back for the
rear yard.
As noted in the application the applicant is the contract vendee
and a consent form will be forwarded signed by the owners of the
parcel. However there are multiple owners who are out of state nad
the consent form will be submitted prior to the hearing date.
Please advise us when this application will be scheduled for a
hearing.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Cuddy :]
CRC:ejc
Encs.
(~I-IAltLES 1~. (~UDDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
March 19, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Martin Rosen - Interpretation/Variance
SCTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Dear Board Members:
For your records I am enclosing a copy of the elevations of the
frame building which is to be renovated by Mr. Rosen. The rear
part of the building is to be demolished and the balance will be
refinished as shown. The building will be appropriately
landscaped. The building will in part be used to store equipment
in connection with the radio tower to be operated at this site and,
also be used as an office in connection with Mr. Rosen's business.
Very truly yours,
CRC:ejc
Enc.
March 23, 1998
Town of Southold
Building Department
53095 Main Road, P.O. Box
Southold, New York 11971
1179
Attention of Gary Fish, Building Inspector
Re: Martin Rosen - Radio Tower
SCTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Dear Mr. Fish:
My client, Martin Rosen, desires to erect a radio communications
tower for his business (he has a private FCC radio license) at a
site in Mattituck. He has made application to the Planning Board
for site plan approval and also to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
a set back variance as well as a interpretation/variance for the
height of this 85' tower.
Initially the application was based on the new provision of the
Town Code relating to telecommunication towers (Local Law 26-1997).
Having reviewed the Federal statute referred to in the Town Code
and the Code of Federal Regulations it would appear to me that any
reference to the Federal Act is directed towards public utilities.
Thus, the application as made and the determination set forth in
your Notice of Disapproval of February 18, 1998 may not be correct.
I am doubtful that the Town Code provision (Local Law 26-1997)
applies to a private radio tower. This has significance because a
determination must be made as to whether the tower is a primary use
or simply an accessory use to a building at the site. Would you
please review this matter and indicate to me whether a private
radio tower used in connection with the applicant's trucking
business falls under the provisions of the Town Code regarding
telecommunications towers or is, in fact, to be considered as an
accessory to the office building at the site.
Very truly yours,
CRC:ejc
Charles R. Cuddy
cc: Town Attorney
HAR 11 "98 12:05 TOWH OF
P.2/?
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, NewYork 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1802
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
Forrester, Building Department
Edward
March 11, '1998
RE:
Martin Rosen, Radio Communications Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
Zoning District, LI. ( Light Industrial )
SCTM//1000-141-3-44
The proposed use is a permitted use in that zone pursuant to Sec 100-162C.3 of
Town Code. Please be advised that the project must conform to the design
standards outlined in Sec 100-165.
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard E Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Homing
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064
Telephone (516) 765-1809
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
EHzabeth A. Neville
Town Clerk
Jerry Goehringer
ZBA Chairman
2 2
Filing of Application
The above application is transmitted for filing under the above
assigned number pursuant to the Bcardts Resolution adopted
/q/~¢~ .~3~ /~t]17 which calendared the public hcatqng.
Thank you.
Enclosures
(1-516) 765-1809 tel.
OFFICE OF
BOARD OF APPEALS
53095 Main Read
Southold, NY 11971
(1-516) 765-9064 fax.
March 27, 1998.
Re: ZBA Application
Hearing Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998
Dear Sir or Madam:
For your records, please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice
which will be published by our office in the next weekly issue of the L.I.
Traveler newspaper.
Under the ~equirements of Chapter 58 of Town Law, we are
requesting that you send a copy of this Notice with a copy of a sketch or
map showing the area involved, at thig time by certified mail~ return
receipt requested, to the aH surroundin~ property owners. Please include
your name and telephone number with the nmilinows. The nmilings must be
postmarked by 4/2 if possible, and be forwarded to all owners, as listed on
the Town Assessment records, of vacant or improved lands across streets
and along aH boundaries of the subject lot.
Please also post the enclosed Poster in the location described by
Ch. 58 of the Code (that is, within ten (10) feet of the front property line
facing the street, for a period of not less than seven days). The sign may
not be posted later than 4/9. If the sign is torn or removed due to
adverse weather conditions, let us know and we will previde another.
The Affidavit of Mailing and Posting, with certified mail receipts
(postmarked by the post office) attached should be returned not later than
the hearing date. The return receipt green cards should also be rsturned
at the hearing.
Pag~e 2 - Instruction
Meeting of April 16, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeals
If you have questions, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
Enclosures
Linda Kowalski
AS400/lnag.98/al~Pl.ln
BOARD OF APPEALS:TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Application
of
AFFIDAVIT OF ~ POSTING
MARTIN ROSEN
(Name of Applicants)
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
STATE OF NEW YORK)
I, CHARLES R. CUDDY , residing at Marratooka Lane, Mattituck, NY
New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that:
by certified mail, return receipt requested~ a true copy
attached Legal Notice, addressed to each of the
persons at the addresses set opposite their respective that
the addresses listed below are those shown on the assess-
ment rolls of the Town of Southold; that said N, were mailed at
the United States Post Office to each certified mail,
return receipt requested (attach post ars here):
Name of S
Mailing Address
Alice Funn & Gregg Alease
Mattie Simmons
PO Box 422, Mattituck, NY 11952
Box 926, 11700 Sound Ave.. Mattituck. NY 11952
Lonq Island
~7{1 Hnld~. a~m.,,~ r,,+.h ..... uv 11935
SutDhin Blvd.. Jamaica; N~ ~1436
2) On the ~ day of April 1998, I personally posted the
subject property identified as District 1000, Section 141.00 ,
Block 03.00 , Let 044.000 , by placing the To~l's offieiai poster
ten (10) feet, or closer, from the property line facing the street or
facing the right-of-way, and that I have checked to be sure the
poster has remained in place for seven full days prior to the subject
hearing date, which is Apr. 16, 1998.
Sworn to before me this -- (~ignatui
/~ day of April
~' ,x -- '~'7'~u, ~at~ oi ~'~
;'/. /I/ O ..... ,,o: 4604'188 "'"~
C,C,c4.,~-1.,,~: ~ Cnmm:- ¥o,,ned In Suf[olk C ....
Notary Public ....... "' ~-~p r~s '~ ~
**Please return to the off£ce of the Boar~i bf Appeals when completed.
(Town Hall hours a=e 8 - 4 p,m. ) Thank you.
BOARD OF APPEALS:TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Application
of
MARTIN ROSEN
(Name of Applicants)
APR I 6
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
STATE OF NEW YORK)
I, JOAN M. LUCA , residing at 795 Albo Drive, Laurel, NY
New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that:
1) On the 2nd day of April , 199 8 , I personally mailed,
by certified mail~ return receipt requested~ a true copy of the
attached Legal Notice, addressed to each of the following named
persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names, that
the addresses listed below are those shown on the current assess-
ment rolls of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at
the United States Post Office to each name below certified mail,
return receipt requested (attach post office receipts here):
Name of Surrouncling Property Owner
Mailing Address
Alice Funn & Gregg Alease
PO Box 422, Mattituck, NY 11952
Mattie Simmons Box 926, 11700 So,nd Ave.. Mattituck, NY
F~th~r ~i9~nl~ rio. Y~*h~._ ...... Badenhep, A~ Ridge r__~, .... *., ~'--"~-..~,~, FL--~33963
Lonq Island Ra~r6ad Su~phin Blvd.]'22ma~62:"~--~l~§6
11952
and,
Block 03.00 , Lot 044.~acin~ the Town's official poster
ten. (10)~.ro~~ t~h_e street or
faemg th~ that I ha_ye cheeke _~-.~_ su~ _the
poster has remained in place for seven full days prior to the su
Sworn to before me this
~ da, y of April 1998.
Notav~r Phblib /
(s~gnature)
CHARLES R. CUDDY
Not~ry Public, Slate of New
No. 5872225
Ouslffied ~n Suffolk County
Commission E~ires December 31, 19
**Please return to the office of the Board of Appeals when completed.
(Town Hall hours are 8 - 4 p.m.) Thank you.
[ ] RINGr
NOT!CE IS:'HEREBY GIVEN ~a
Sou~OLD TO~ ~D OF AP~LS
Southold, New Y~, con~rning this prope~.
DATE OF PUBLIC
If you have ani~e~t in ~is prolect, ~d~v~ to view the Town fil~s)
which am availab~ ~ ins~cUon prior to t~ d~of the hearing during nOrmal
b in ~ ~ h° rs f 8 a.m.
BOARD OF APPEA. LS · TOWN OF s0U~OLD · (516) 765'1809
APPLICANT: MARTIN ROSEN
APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Attached are the receipts for the certified mailing to surrounding
property owners:
--m · Coml~etePlete itemsitern~ 3,r and/or4a, and2 4b.f°r add~onal sen/ices. I also wish to receive the
i following services (for an
, ........ I. [] Addressee's Addr
3. Arlicle Addressed to' COnsult pos~a~ier for fee.
' 14a. At,cie I Jmber
M - ~' '-" "' ] 4b. Service Type
B;~L;~§31rnmOns [r-1 Reg,stered [g~cortifted
![] Express Mail [] Insured
~l:~c°~?dNyAVe;;~52 L[] Return ReceipUor ~rchandise E1 COD
l~' 17 Date of Derive
L '
5~. ~eceived By: rP/inl Name) I '~J~/Z'"~ / ~ S
18. Addressee's Address (Only if r'eqJ~sted
I andfeeiepaid)
6. S gnature- ~Addresse~ ~-~ .....
PS Form 3 ece pt
670 Heedeo Avenue ~[] Expressaail [] Insured
Cutchogue, NY 1:/.935 J[] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] COD
7. Date of DeUv ~o
Received By: (P,'int Name) iS, Addressee s ,a~ldress ~Only if requested
I and fee is pawl)
Signat~s: (Addressee or~Agent) [
/
P~ Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt
dal~o~d. ~ Consult postmaster rot ms.
Article Addressed to'. 4a ~A~cle(~,~_ENumber ~'-~ *~'~7
14b. Service Type
Esther Digiola [] Registered [:~Certified
c/o Esther Badenhop 1[:3 Express Mail [] Insured
423 R1dge Court I[] RetumR.ec~..ip~forMerchandise [] COD
Naples, Ft. 33962 I" Date
ReceNed 8y:,[P)~nt Name) 18. Addrss~eFAd-dr;ss (Only if requssted
x __ I .....
Ps F~:m'~3811, December 1994~ uomestic Heturn ~eceipt
P 458 585 294 (
US Post.al Service ·
Andrew C. Fohrkolb
670 Holden Avenue
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Pos*age
0ertified Fee
Special Oeliyery Fee
Resldct~d Delivery Fee
TOTAL Pos*age & Fees
ATTOIt/qlgY AT LAW
February 27, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Martin Rosen - Interpretation/Variance
SCTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Dear Board Members:
Supplementing our letter of January 29, 1998, we enclose the
Consent of the five owners of the above property which is the
subject of an application made by Martin Rosen for an inter-
pretation and/or set back variance for a radio communications
tower.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. CuddyU
CRC:ejc
Encs.
BOARD OF APPEALS:TOWN OF SOUTIiOLD
In the Matter of the Application
of
(Name of Applicants)
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING AND POSTING
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
STATE OF NEW YORK)
I, CHARLES R. CUDDY , residing at Marratooka Lane, Mattituck
New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that:
b~r ........... ' .... ~ ........ ' ..... ~-- '
t~ied mail, ~eturn receipt requested, 'a true copy of th~
attache~ Notme, addressed to each of the follo~ng named
persons add~sses set opposite their ~spec~ve names,
the below are those shown on the current
merit rol~ of of Southold; t~t s~d Nonces at
the U~ted States Office to each name below m~,
~turn receipt post office
Name of Surroundin
Owner
Mailing Address
Alice Funn & Gregg Alease
22, Mattituck, NY 11952
Mattie Simmons 926 NY 11952
Lonq Island Raill
2) On the 16th day of Sept. 1998, I personally posted the
subject property identified as District 1000, Section 141.00 .,
Block 03.00 , Lot 044.000 , by placing the Town's official poster
ten (10) feet, or closer, from the property line facing the street or
facing the right-of-way, and that I have checked to be sure the
poster has remained in olace for seven full days prior to the subject
hearing date, which is 9/24/ 1998.
Sworn to before me this
~,~.~ day of Sept. ,1998'.
~ry Public
(signature)
~ In Suffolk County .~0
**Please return to the office of the Board of Appeals when completed.
(Tow~l Hal~ hours are 8 - 4 p.m.) Thank you.
GHARLES R. GUDDY
September 14, 1998
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Enclosed is a Legal Notice concerning a public hearing which will
affect the application of Martin Rosen to construct a radio tower
at premises known as 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY.
CRC:ejc
Enc.
Very truly yours,
- L,agal
LEGAL NOTICE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY. SEPTEMBER 24. 1998
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 7-67 of the Town La~
and the Code. of the Town of Southold, the following applications will b~e
held for pubhc hearings by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD O.F_~pPEALS, ~t
the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Ro&d, Southold, New York 1197q,
THURSDAY. SEPTEMBER 24. 1998 at the times noted below (or as sool~
thereafter as possible):
8:10 p.m, Appl. No. 461 !. BUILDING INSPECTOR. This is a Reques~on
Town-Wide basis for an INTERPRETATION submitted by the Buildin
Inspector for a Determination answering the question: "Does a radi
tower and antenna fall under the Provisions of "Wi~ele~
Communications" Article XVI of the Southold Town Zoning Code, when
is intended for the private use of an owner who operates a VHF Radi
under a License issued to him/her by the FCC for the purpose
communicating, all as part of his/her business, when located in a Lighl-
Industrial (LI) Zone District?"
The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all
or representatives desiring to be heard in the above applicatP~or~°
desiring t.o su.b, mit written st.atements before the .e. nd of the heari.n~.
Each heanng will not start earher than designated. Fdes are avallabie fdjr
review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have
questions, please do not hesitate to call 765-1809.
Dated: August 26, 1998. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
BUILDING DEPARTME5
o:
MEMO
TO: All members of the Z.B.A.
FROM: Gary Fish, Building Inspector
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1802
RE: Request for interpretation of a private radio tower. At
Martin Rosen property, tax map #1000-141-3-44.
In light of past and present questions raised regarding the
proposed radio tower at the Martin Rosen property located in an
LB District, let this memo serve as a request for an
interpretation.
This request is for an interpretation as to whether this radio
tower, intended to be used for the private use of the owner for
his trucking business, falls under the Provisions and
Requirements of Article XVI, Wireless Communication Facilities.
From what has been explained to me by Mr. Rosen and his attorney
Mr. Cuddy, the radio tower will be used solely by and for the
proposed trucking business office. The office will be located
in the existing building on the lot. Mr. Rosen proposes to
alter and renovate this building to office space, a permitted
use in an LB District, acquiring all the proper permits and
approvals ie Building Permit, Planning Board Approval and
possible Health Department approval.
It is my understanding that the board has tabled an
interpretation on this matter until it has received a request
from the Building Inspector. I trust you can now go forward
with your interpretation.
~ ~ New York State ~ffi~'of p'arks, R~creation and Historic Preservation
~ ~ Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau
NEW YORK STATE ~Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189
Bemac~ette Castro
Commissioner
Robert G. Kassner
Site Plan Reviewer
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
August 17, 1998
A, UG 2, 4 199U
Southold Town
Planning Board
Re= FCC/SEQRA (98PR1448)
Rosen Property/Radio Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituek
T/Southold, Suffolk Co
Dear Mr. Kassner=
Thank you for your letter of July 10, 1998, by which you submitted
addit£onal information about the Rosen Property and the surrounding
neighborhood. As the designated State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO),
we have reviewed this material in accordance with Section 106 of the
National Historic preservation Act of 1966 and relevant implementing
regulations.
From prior documentation of the hamlet of Mattituck prepared by the
Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities (SPLIA) and others,
it appears that a potential historic district exists in the vicinity of the
L.I.R.R. crossing of Sound Avenue. The existing documentation is,
admittedly, out of date and this opin£on is subject to review based on more
current information.
Until further survey £s conducted to verify the potential for an
historic distr£ct in the vicinity of the Rosen property, we would view this
proposal as having an Adverse Effect on resources in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The applicant should
be encouraged to explore "co-location" of the antenna on an existing
structure, perhaps within the steeple of a nearby church.
~ hope to v£slt the Mattituck area in the near future to verify the
historic integrity of the Sound Avenue area and will contact you with my
impressions. Zf you have any questions regarding this review, please call
me at (518) 237-8643, extension 283. Please refer to project number 98PR in
any future correspondence.
S£no~rely,
~/ames Warren
~lstor£c Preservation
· Program Analyst
AnEquslOpp0~un~/A~rmaaveActlonAgency
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Homing
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064
Telephone (516) 765-1809
Transcript of Continued Hearing
September 30, 1998
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings)
7:15 P.M.- Appl. #4611 - BUILDING INSPECTOR'S REQUEST FOR
INTERPRETATION (Generic Interpretation, Town-Wide for Radio
Towers for Private Use under FCC).
Reopen Appl. #4611. I have to tell you that we are the Building
Department less again, Mr. Fish is still ill and he will not be
here. If anybody would like to add anything to this interpretation
please raise your hand. Mr. Cuddy? By the way Mr. Cuddy I just
want to point out for the record, that we did receive the information
that you had prepared for us, and we will make it part of the file.
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ: I had as Mr. Goehringer points out
delivered some additional information. The information that I
delivered was nothing more than what had previously been before
this Board and I just want it to be public. I delivered the
statement by Mr. Oshin what I did is I took our certain excerpts of
his testimony and to read it non-site specific so there are no
references to any particular site. I have again another copy of
that but tonight it's signed by Mr. Oshin. I took the Memorandums
I had previously prepared and also en-sized any site specific
references there. So, we're talking simply about Radio Towers and
Telecommunications, and I offer that again, Mr. Chairman, into the
record if I may.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To answer your question, I have
discussed that with counsel, and there is unanimity.
MR. CUDDY: So that is an acceptable practice then to adopt those
previous statements and -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They were really never scraped. I just
wanted to consult counsel.
MR. CUDDY: So we have it both ways. We have with or without.
Mine is no different. In other words I didn't change the words. I
simply took it and took out those words with any site specific
references.
Page 2 - Special ~g/Public Hearing
September 30, 1998 - Board of Appeals
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can I mark that as 'received,' please.
CHAIRMAN: Sure.
BOARD SECRETARY: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's very rare that we're on the floor like this but
we were making decisions, and sometimes it's difficult to discuss the
decisions with each other when we're up on the dais, so.
MR. CUDDY: We thought that way we had a complete level plain.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pardon me, Mr. Cuddy we always have
been. completely level plain.
MR. CUDDY: Thank you. After coming here six times, I didn't
want to say it again. There's just one question that I had.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok.
MR. CUDDY: And that is,
the Building Inspector that
particular hearing?
does the record contain the letter from
certainly promoted if not caused this
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We discussed that last, this tonight with
counsel and I have to tell you that as you know, that letter was
shortened, OK. That letter included your applicant's name and the
specific situation that concerned this hearing. I at this particular
time am not particularly happy with including that letter only
because we chose to deal with this on a town wide basis. OK, that
does not mean that it's only restricted to your applicant, ok.
I will have to discuss that with counsel.
MR. CUDDY: The reason I asked that as to whether it's appropriate
is because we don't have the Building Inspector tonight, and we
didn't have the Building Inspector last week. (Inaudible statement).
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We could.
MR. CUDDY: But even that, if he doesn't come certainly his letter
is explanatory and the reason for doing this. If he does put it in
terms of site-specfic, or non-site-specific, I would hope that maybe
you would consider having that letter as part of the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. I have to tell you that we haven't
decided if we're closing the hearing tonight or not. Alright.
That's an issue that we really have not decided and I'm not speaking
for Mr. Dinizio. Mr. Dinizio has quite honestly told me that he
still wants to discuss this with it with the Building Inspector. Is
that not true?
Page 3 - Special ~g/Public Hearing
September 30, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, and I don't mean to hold you up. Quite
honestly I find that we can't seem to get someone
here. Because I know if I called one of my employees With
that set aside I think that Mr. Fish can provide me with answers to
questions I have as to how we got here. I think that you know,
when a person works 8 hours a day, five days a week, supposed
to be 2 hours a week - I want to know, I want you to know, maybe
there are questions that he can answer for me that might help me in
making my decision. Certainly we(re talking about a decision that
we make and I'm truly embarrassed that the Building Department
cannot send a representative, and whether it has to be that
particular person or not, I'm not so sure that it has to be. That we
can't discuss it with anybody. Certainly he can discuss it. I don't
want to go down there and say, hey, Joe - because then it's not
fair to you, it's not fair to anybody else. My preference would be
that you know, certainly, Mr. Cuddy we will take your particular
comments into consideration if you so choose. If you have a
different thing you want to try it.
MR. CUDDY: I don't want to do anything that would prejudice my
client but, certainly there has to come a time when it comes to an
answer. I think everybody agrees on that. On the basis that
Mr. Fish is ill, which is certainly an excuse, any time, and I would
understand that you might put it on again, would you please put it
on for a specific date so that we will have some hold on this thing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Well I think we- I think we've
done that you know, to the best of our ability.
MR. CUDDY: I mean again, would you please so we have a special
date and we know when we're coming.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. And you know, you certainly
don't have to hang around tonight if you don't want to. I don't
mean that in a trite sense. You can call us tomorrow, and we'd
certainly be aware of that issue, alright.
MR. CUDDY: But what I'm saying is, is the Board in a position
now to say that we're going to do something, next week or another
week?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's going to be at the next hearing.
Notice which would be October 15th.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It seems that's a pretty long time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'd get the next meeting.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, but I mean the gentleman could be well
tomorrow. We could do this next week.
Page 4 - Special 'Public Hearing
September 30, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Bearing in mind what he has and what
he's suffering from, and I don't want to get involved in that
situation, he could be out a week, OK, which would mean that we
would then have to have another meeting next week at the same
time. I suggest that we very simply just put it on for the 15th and
put it to bed at that particular time.
MEMBER COLLINS: We also want our Fishers Island member to come
over here when we meet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. The
other issue is that, you know, that I in - all due respects to the
Building Department understand these things, these things
happen. I think that there was a fluke on their part where one
member thought that the other person was going to come to the
hearing, and that's basically what happened. As you know, I hate
to use this phrase and I've only used it twice in 18 years, but we
do have power to subpoena, and if Mr. Dinizio feels that it is of
importance this is a democratic Board, and we'll vote on it. But,
you know, there are other people who want to speak. Thank you.
Anybody else want to speak regarding this?
COUNCILWOMAN ALICE HUSSIE: So, I'll have to assume that your
keeping the hearing open?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
really voted on that situation.
the hearing, OK.
At this particular point we haven't
I think there was a feeling to close
COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: That's why I asked the question.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I have to tell you that I have great
feelings for these Board Members, we work very closely and a I
would be so inclined to permit this to stay open until October 15th.
I have no idea if I have the vote to do so, but we'll see. So Jim
why don't you make the motion.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't want to make a motion. I would like
to assure this gentleman that this gentleman will show up at the next
meeting. To me that's the utmost -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's tantamount, yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, whether it has to be him or anybody
from doing this, I'm not so sure.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, he isn't -
MEMBER DINIZIO: But if we're going to subpoena somebody then
that's the gentleman that we subpoena. How do we go about doing
that?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Town Attorney will do it.
Page 5 - Special Mee~g/Public Hearing
September 30, 1998 - Board of Appeals
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We can do it by resolution.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Resolution.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, you know, I don't think that's of
necessity at this point as long as he tells us that he is going to
show up.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I've got to tell you though, Jerry, I mean,
because the record is full of indecisions on their part for the past,
you know, six months since that because noone seems to want to
make a decision on this. So, I mean, my purpose is that, put the
thing to bed, you know, and grant it if measures have to be taken
today. Now is the time to take these measures. You know, no one,
knows for sure but we need to be sure that we can employ people
and that Mr. Rosen hired people to come here and represent him
that you know, as a town, you know, and trying to run an
organization. You know, have some information for them. I mean, I
cannot make a decision unless I know how it came about and if I
can't, you know, even though I won't say how I feel, personally I
want to say, it looks to me in the record that there's some real
hemming and hawing going on. That there's a person who doesn't
want to make a decision and doesn't want to stand by
I need to speak to that person. I want to know, I want to
understand how he came to this point so that we can make a
decision. If I have to make a motion to subpoena him, then that's
my motion.
MEMBER HORNING: Are you making such a motion?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
BOARD MEMBERS: AyeS.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is anyone opposed?
MEMBER COLLINS: Opposed? I mean, it can rather suddenly.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I tend to move motions rather fast
and I apologize.
MEMBER COLLINS: I guess I would vote on it. I'm not sure I care
for the because procedurally, OK, I vote on it.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Chairman voted aye, also?
Page 6 - Special Me,g/Public Hearing
September 30, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: You're adjourning the hearing with a date.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well now we have to make a motion for
that and I suggest that we do it on October 15th, which is the
regular meeting date and we'll adjust the time accordingly and at the
same time I just wanted to mention the other thing. Well yes,
because you already advertised it, did you not?
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well the time, the first hearing is at 6:30
and the last hearing is scheduled for 8:35. I don't know if Mr. Fish
will be here that late.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm concerned about George.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George is staying overnight.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You're staying overnight? Oh.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
MR. CUDDY: I don't
Board, just set a date.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
SECRETARY KOWALSKI:
at 6:00 o'clock?
What time would you like on that?
know, I'll discuss that with
you and
right.
It would be at 6:30 or after,
Yes. We will discuss it.
Is it possible that it would be earlier,
Yes, that's possible. It depends.
So in that motion are we saying after 5:30?
No, no. Just say from 6:00 p.m.
So, you're making that motion?
I'll second that. All in favor?
the
CHAIRMAN:
SECRETARY:
CHAIRMAN:
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
BOARD MEMBERS: Ayes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
made a resolution recessing
say
thank you again, ladies and gentlemen for coming here.
See Minutes for official Resolution and vote.
OK, so at this particular point we've
the hearing for October 15th. We
Page 63
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
Public Hearing Reconvened from the last Regular Meeting regarding
the Application of MARTIN ROSEN, Appl. No. ..
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we would like everyone's attention.
We want to open the Rosen application. Mr. Cuddy, wonid you like
to make any preliminary statements?
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: I would like to say several things, but
basically since we have been here on several occasions that I would
hope that the Board is at a position now where it has sufficient
information to make a decision. But I indicated that last time, and
I didn't have Mr. Olshin speak. He and my client are sort of
running out of time and money to keep coming back, so I would like
Mr. Olshin to address the questions so it is emphaticaliy in the
record as to the Town's Code provision, that is, Local Law 1997 and
have him address the question of whether or not the definitions
include "radio tower" that we put in before you as the question we
want you to interpret.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you put that on hold for one
second? I did want to mention one thing. I did have a discussion
with Mr. Forrester today who is the person in charge in the
Building Department, and he has indicated to me that they have still
not given you the Notice of Disapproval that we have requested, and
I believe Member Collins would like to address one issue before we
get involved with Mr. Olshin, if you don't mind. Ms. Collins?
MEMBER LORA COLLINS: Well, on the basis of the discussions,
informal among members of the Board, informal but very serious,
about various aspects about this application, it has become clear to
all of us on the Board that the thresholds question is they would
like to say, is whether the Wireless Telecommunications Law in our
Town Code, Article XVI of our Code, whether in fact that is the
applicable law. That was not really the question that was put to us,
we were presented with a Building Department denial that presumed
that that was the applicable law and denied it on that basis. Mr.
Cuddy has asked the Building Department to reconsider on that
question and they have not. And there is difference of opinion that
has become clear among members of this Board about that issue - of
whether Article XVI of our Code is the applicable law. I know I
have said publicly that I don't think that it is, but I!m not here to
argue that now. It seems to me that issue has to be addressed -
that it has to be addressed head on and squarely, and not on kind
of an adjunct to our deliberations, and we are governed by the Laws
of the State of New York regarding public notice, public hearings
and being public in our deliberations, and my proposal to my
colleagues bas been that since it's become clear that we are not
unanimous on this, and it is a critical question, that we undertake
to address it publicly with proper notice to the public, and that we
are going to address the question of whether the appropriate law for
judging this tower is the law the Building Department invoked,
Page 64
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
which is Article XVI, or ~vhether that is not the appropriate law,
and that we do it with the formal hearing process.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
adjunct to this hearing.
During this hearing. I mean, as an
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes- procedurally, Mr. Chairman, I don't have
a clear grasp of exactly what, how, you know, how you do it, but
in principal I think it has to be, and I know Member Tortora agrees
strongly that -
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
MEMBER COLLINS: - that question: (1) has to be addressed and
(2) has to be addressed with due notice to the public that that is
what we are addressing, which we really have not had occasion to
tell the public.
BOARD SECRETARY: I was just wondering how does the recent
Legal Notice read?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The original Legal Notice? In the interim
would you like Mr. Olshin to speak, or do you want to address that
issue?
MR. CUDDY: I understand, I think, precisely what was said, that
is, we should have a Notice to the public at large so that they are
aware that the Board is interpreting that crucial question. I don't
know that the Notice has said that, I can't say that it has or
hasn't. But certainly it could not have said that because that was
not originally that was not the application that was made. And I
agree that that's illustrated. As to the power to you, I think you
have the power, but you raise a different question and that is
whether Notice was given, and I can't argue that it was. I
understand. Yes, and I have Mr. Olshin ready to speak.
BOARD SECRETARY : I just wanted to ask if the Notice that you
are talking about, is that the Notice that there is an Interpretation
on file and that the Board is addressing an Interpretation? Could
you teli us what the Notice was, or is, to say?
CHAIRMAN: We'll be talking about it.
MEMBER COLLINS: Slow down. Let me just say, I went through -
we all have been thinking very hard about this, and I went through
the file paper by paper. And your application and the Legal Notice
to the public about our hearing your application was based on the
Building Inspector rejecting an application and citing three things:
two of them are in Article XVI and have to do with the 100 ft.
setback from the dwelling, and also a principal use setback, and
that it what we told the public what we would be hearing, and we
certainly did not tell the public that we were going to find
ourselves in the situation where we weren't sure ff the Building
Inspector was citing the right law, and I, what I am saying, Linda,
Page 65
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
is I am not sure exactly how we do this, and we obviously are going
to have to discuss it, but I think that if we are going to formally
address that question, we have to tell the public we are addressing
it because we haven't told them that.
MR'. CUDDY: One thing I don't know, and that I know the original
notice, but whether there was a subsequent notice? That it did
indicate that some where?
MEMBER TORTORA: No, there wasn't.
MEMBER COLLINS: You, Sir, wrote to the Building Inspector back
in March, March 23, I think, saying on reflection that "I feel that
Article XVI doesn't apply to my client's tower and will you please,
Building Department, re-consider this," and they never did. You
certainly mentioned it here in our hearings, but not - I think in a
formal sense you were asking the Building Department to do that,
and I think in your Memo of Law that was the position you took, and
I think entirely correctly. You said, "I am here for a variance but
at the same time I am asking the Building Department to tell me I
don't need the variance because the law doesn't apply." So I really
do think that our deliberations have never noticed the public that we
might very well decide we have to fact this question, and I think we
do.
MR. CUDDY: I understand. I have Mr. Olshin -
CHAIRMAN: Surely.
DR. OLSHIN: I guess you know me by now.
the bone of contention is whether or not the
wants to erect comes under the provision -
It seems to be that
structure Mr. Rosen
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Fred, you can't.hear? You want to
sit right up in front? Bill, see if you can pnil that mike a little
closer?
FRED BOUFFARD: Thank you.
DR. OLSHIN: As I was saying, whether or not the structure which
he wishes to erect, the radio tower would be governed by the
provisions of the Town Code as written which seems to reflect on the
Telecommunications Act of 96. OK. How can I start?
I guess you get involved in semantics and definitions to a
certain extent. There's a difference between communications and
telecommunications. Communications is merely an activity such as
what we're doing now. It also can be done a lot more complicated if
we're very far apart by utilizing electronics, either wire or
wireless.
Telecommunications as defined is the process. And the
process would be as simple as two cans and a string to accomplish
what you want to do which is communicate, or it can be vastly
Page 66
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
complicated such as the existing public service telephone network
which is in place of this Country. OK? Telecommunications refers
to the ability of one individual to send you voice or data to any
other individual in the world, and that's what the existing System
does regardless whether it's wired or wire]ess.
Because of the advance in technology, wireless communications
have come to be a better way of doing things than plain wire.
There's certain advantages having wireless communications mainly
because you're not tired to a wire in any one location. So
technology advances, and as technology advances our FCC responds
because they are the buffer between the manufacturers, the sellers,
and the popniation, right? And it is their mission to organize
things so that things will work, right, so that nobody steps on your
toes. AIright, so I have to give you a certain amount of history.
There always has been wireless communication. It goes back
many years. Perhaps all the way back to the thirties, at least I
rated, OK? But because of technology, it was limited right?
Not too many people were able to have a phone, right? It was
limited. Technology advanced into the eighties where the concept
which we call 'Cellular' was developed, and the FCC saw fit to go
ahead with this plan, and what they did was they assigned two
companies in every Metropolitan area to deliver cellular service to
the public. Right? Wireless communications, and the two companies
they picked at that time happened to have been NYNEX and Cellular
One in the N.Y. area. Today, these two new merged, and buying
combined those two companies now happen to be Bell Atlantic and
AT&T. OK.
A bunch of people got together at a company called Qual-Com in
the nineties and they said, "OK, we have found out a way how to
deliver wireless communications using the existing frequencies which
were set aside for that purpose in a different way because you won't
interfere with the existing cellular service." And because of that,
and because it worked, the FCC was forced to rewrite the rules in
1996. And using the Q~lal-Com technology, right? - a whole new set
of cellular devices became available and that's why now you have
companies like Omni-Point, Sprint PCS, and NEX-Tel, who are
offering you cellular service but they have to be regulated also
which is why they wrote the Act of '96 and which now allows them to
aiso put in their networks which also is tied to the PSTN so that
you can pick up your cellular phone and talk to somebody in China,
or even send them some computer data if you wish.
What Mr. Rosen has is a wireless radio communications system.
It's only commonality with a PSTN is the fact that his is wireless.
It's a system that goes back before cellular. It's a system that's
in common with the original police radios that you see, or the taxi
services that you see. It's a radio communications system, alright?
It has nothing to do with the public service telephone network as
defined. You can't take one of Mr. Rosen's instruments and do
anything except talk back to the radio in his office. That's it.
Or, talk to another, radio in another one of his trucks, that's it.
Page 67
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
It has nothing to do with the Public Service Telephone Network,
OK? And that briefly in a nutsheli is why I say what he wants to
do has nothing to do with Telecommunications Act '96 and as written
in your Town Code, OK?
That's what I can offer you based on my background. I'd be
happy to answer any questions that you may have pertaining to your
code, you know, the Telecommunications in general - which also by
the way is one of those new words, I think they just added to 9.,000
more to the dictionary. You go back a number of years you never
heard the word Telecommunications.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The word was telegraph.
MR. OLSHIN: Well, yeah.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask you a quick question.
There came a time when there was some apprehension regarding this
tower and its ability to reach to Mr. Olshin's business in Oceanside.
MR. OLSHIN: Mr. Rosen's business?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I said Mr. Rosen. Did I say, Mr.
Olshin, pardon me, I apologize. Is there a need for another tower
in between or will this -I had this mike turned down before, I
apologize.
MR. OLSHIN: Oh, there's no doubt in the world that Mr. Rosen's
tower in Oceanside will be able to talk to the Mattituok tower.
He won't be able to get, can't get vehicles on the ground but he'll
be able to get that tower easily. No problem.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, how will be be able to get
vehicles on the ground?
MR. OLSHIN: Well, you get vehicles on the ground from Oceanside
only as far as perhaps the Riverhead area. Once the vehicles go
beyond the Riverhead area, they would have to come under the
cognizance of the Mattituck tower. But, they can talk to the
Mattituek tower. The Mattituek tower can talk back to the Oeeanside
tower the way it would work.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, what's the story on the South Shore
in reference to that question?
MR. OLSHIN: The story on the South -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How far could he go on the Mattituck
tower to the South Shore?
MR. OLSHIN: About the same distance. If you drew an arc from
Oceanside to Riverhead, just draw that arc, that's his coverage.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
Page 68
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. OLSHIN:
trucks.
Once it gets behind the arc, he starts to lose the
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so in other words, what you're
saying is that a truck in East Hampton can talk to the Mattituck
tower.
MR. OLSHIN: Sure. Sure. At an 80 foot tower with a gain
antenna or an antenna which is actually a movable type of antenna
so we can direct his vehicle is no problem at all.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK.
MR. OLSHIN: Very easily.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
questions of Mr. Olshin? Jim?
Thank you. Anybody have any
MEMBER DINIZIO: I would just like to know, what exactly is the
weight of this antenna?
MR. OLSHIN: The weight of the antenna?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Just the antenna, that's all.
MR. OLSHIN: The antenna is very light. They're made out of
either plastic or aluminum.
MEMBER DINIZO: 100 pounds?
MR. OLSHIN: Pardon me.
MEMBER DINIZIO: 100 pounds?
MR. OLSHIN: Oh, no.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ten pounds?
MR. OLSHIN: It's possible that the actual antenna which we use
which will be, we call a yagi beam which looks like a version of a
TV antenna, the whole thing would approximately weigh about 3 or 4
pounds.
MEMBER DINIZIO: How many elements does it have?
MR. OLSHIN: How many elements? It depends upon how much
gain. We would decide that -
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well we're talking about your specific -
MR. OLSHIN: Yeah, it would be perhaps 6 or 7 elements.
MEMBER DINIZIO: They would be how long?
Page 69
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. OLSHIN: The elements?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
MR. OLSHIN: At his wee great length, we're looking at an element
of approximately three (3) feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Three feet. They would all be three feet? In
other words they wouldn't look like a TV antenna. It would all be 3
feet?
MR. OLSHIN: Well the size of the element is referenced to what you
call the wave length which is a function of the frequency right now.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Which is 159 mega bites.
MR. OLSHIN: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, and then you're going to have a rotor on
there to turn this thing?
MR, OLSHIN: You must have a rotor to turn the yagi if that was
the way to go. The main problem is to get the power up. Whether
or not you suggest a fixed gain antenna which would radiate in all
directions, or whether you use the yagi has to be decided.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I don't think we're in a position to regulate
what gain antenna to use but all I'm looking for is just the size of
this thing.
MR. OLSHIN: Oh, you're looking at a few pounds. These things
aren't heavy.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But more than likely, you would want to be able
to turn that antenna in some fashion, you know, to hit East
Hampton, Southampton, whatever. That's all.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins?
MEMBER COLLINS: No I have no questions of Mr. Olshin.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: I just wonder what the height of the tower
would be from the base to the tip of the antenna?
MR. OLSHIN: Well, if the yagi antenna is to be used, it doesn't
exceed the height of the tower. It would go on the side of the
tower so it wouldn't increase the height of the tower. If you put an
antenna on top of the tower, antennas vary in height, and it would
be as short as three feet which would be a metal antenna sort of the
type that sometimes are installed on roofs of ears, or it could be
more of elaborate affair going to perhaps 10 or 12 feet, if it was a
Page 70
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
fiberglass type of antenna which is similar to the types you see on
boats.
MEMBER TORTORA: Is there any chance that we could know that
so that we know what the total height is?
MR. OLSHIN: Well if it's going to help you make a decision we can
simply tell you, yeah this is what we're going to use. It may be
that he puts more than one antenna on this tower, also, so that he
has the ability to switch off from one to the other depending upon
whst he wants to do.
MEMBER TORTORA: It would be helpful if we did know. I know on
that on the other tower application -
MR. OLSHIN: Well the other tower in Oceanside we use a yagi
antenna. So the chances are on this antenna we would go the same
way. It makes for a good communication in which case the tower
height wouldn't be exceeded, you know, wouldn't be exceeded,
although we would probably put as a backup a small, what we call a
small 5 DB gain antenna made Out of metal which would be about
3-foot high which would be on top of the tower.
MEMBER TORTORA: And that the base of the tower is how deep?
MR. OLSHIN: How deep? How do you mean deep?
MEMBER TORTORA: From the ground level?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Above grade, she's talking about.
MEMBER TORTORA: Above grade?
MR. OLSHIN: The tower as I understand is 85 foot tall,-
MEMBER TORTORA: The base of the tower?
MR. OLSHIN: Right from the ground level, the base of the tower to
the top of the tower.
ME~.~.BER TORTORA: Two feet in the foundation in other words?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. OLSHIN: Yeah, each leg of the tower is set in concrete.
MEMBER TORTORA: OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So appreciably what you're telling us is
that the weight and the mass of the antennas are absolutely nothing
in comparison-
MR. OLSHIN: Negligible.
Page 71
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, in comparison to the actual size in
the magnitude to the top. Yes, negligible. OK. Lets see what
develops. We thank you, that was very helpful Mr. O]shin..
Anything else you'd like to say Mr. Cuddy, no? Anybody else like
to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Yes,
Mr. Forkholb?
MR. FORKHOLB: Good evening. Has anybody looked at Mr.
Olshin's credentials, I mean, it seems that he's speaking as expert
testimony on communications. We got the whole rundown of history
communications which I didn't think that was -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was my understanding from my
conversation with him and please don't take it as the conversation
was quite a- that the gentleman basically is involved in physics and
his expertise in communications was something that he became very,
very familiar with. OK -
MR. FORHKOLB: OK, so, so what I mean -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I mean, I mean he can, why don't
you tell us right now, Mr. Olshin.
ME. OLSHIN: My main reason for being an expert is that I have
had my own communications company some 30 years. That's the
truth of the matter. As far as credentials are concerned, I got into
the business because I have a Bachelor's Decree in Electric
Engineering and a Master's Decree in Physics plus qualifying for the
Doctorate in Physics. I also teach the subject, Telecommunications
at different institutions which I say but having proved to you
tonight I have only () with me, you know cards from the
institutions. Beyond that, I don't know what else to tell you, you
know, experts, you know, are experts.
MR. FORHKOLB: OK, so basically what you're saying, you don't
have a degree in telecommunications? I don't know that one is ever
offered.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have to
here, Andy. OK?
MR. OLSHIN: I teach students that
telecommunications.
MR. FORHKOLB: Right,
telecommunication.
I believe
ask those questions up
try to get a degree in
there is a degree in
MR. OLSHIN: Yes there is.
MR. FORHKOLB: Which which you do not have I assume?
MR. OLSHIN: No, I don't. It wasn't offered when I went to school.
Page 72
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. FORHKOLB: OK. That's all.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Olshin.
MR. FORHKOLB: So basically we're having, it appears to be a
physicist with a degree talking about communications. I must admit
he is knowledgeable about communications. Probably a little bit more
than I am, OK. I'm knowledgeable too. Maybe I'm not in the
business, but I do know a bit about it, OK. I must say that, and
I've said it before, the VHF frequency that Mr. Rosen tends to
transmit on does not have the range of Oceanside to Mattituck, it's
got to be 50 mlies, I assume?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 80.
MR. FORHKOLB: It does not have a range of 80 miles and if you go
back to the minutes -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, this was the issue, Andy though.
Excuse me for referring you by your first name, but this was the
issue that was brought up and that's the reason why I asked the
question of Mr. Olshin. That was my ultimate concern because I
have spoken to people, I've tried to do my own homework to a
certain degree, OK.
MR. FORHKOLB: OK, if you go back to the minutes of previous
meetings, OK, you'll find that they've stated that the perfected
range of VHF is, I don't know for exact, I think they stated 20 to
25 miles, something to that effect.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think your brother said 23 miles.
MR. FORHKOLB: Yeah, in fact, if you go back to the minutes, I
believe that, Mr. Olshin or Mr. Rosen said that aiso was 20 to 25
miles, OK. Now, tonight I don't know what has changed since the
last meeting or the one previous to that, until tonight, but now they
say the transmitter can go back and forth from Oceanside to
Mattituck.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think they always said that, but I
don't think we understood it to be the case and that was the reason
why I asked the question tonight. I do have (interrupted).
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Having spent 18 years working for Cablevision,
and another four years working in Telecommunications, if I put an
antenna up in Orient Point and point it towards Manhattan, I can
get, snowy, but I can get Channel 7 which is a higher frequency
than 159, which is Channel 19, Discovery Channel on Cablevision.
MR. FORHKOLB: UHF frequency -
Page 73
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, now, hold on a minute- I'm looking at a
band with of 6 megahertz, OK. This particular antenna is looking at
a very narrow, probably 3 kilohertz, I don't know, 5 kilohertz, I
don't know what exactly it is, but certainly not 6 megahertz, which
is hundreds of times wider than 3 or 4 kilohertz. So I can imagine
that antenna, OK, that's specific to that, tuned to that particular
frequency on the receive end and also on the transmitting end,
could conceivably go to Montauk on a good day. OK? Now,
considering all the interference that's in the way between Oceanside
and here, I can't imagine that you can tune out all the interference
that's going to be in there, OK. Certainly side bands. I mean
you've got other things to worry about. You've got, you know, a
co-channel, you've got cross modulation. You've got a lot of things
that can involve that, but certainly to stand up and say that 23
miles with VHF, Sir? If you're questioning this gentleman's
credentials, you've got to come to me with some credentials also
that's going to tell me that, OK because what you're saying to me
and I'm like, I say, backed up with 22 years in the business, OK,
is an unfair statement. OK so if you want to stand by that
statement, fine. Offer me something in writing that shows me that.
MR. FORHKOLB: Let me put it this way. I've operated VHF. I
operate VHF pretty much on a daily basis, OK. And I've also
operated VHF in very close to 159 megahertz. OK. I know on a
daily basis what it wili do, OK, different wattages, truck to base,
truck to truck, so I am very familiar with it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Give me something in writing that says that.
159 point whatever it is, OK, cannot transmit more than 23 miles
with ().
MR. FORHKOLB: Well let's not say that. Let's say the effective
range, OK.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I contend that the effective range of 159
megahertz in a 5 to 10 kilohertz span is much, much further than 23
miles. Now, if, certainly if you can, if you can somehow show me
not just standing there, but, show me somewhere in writing that,
OK, then I'm willing to consider that. OK?
MR. FORHKOLB: I'll have to do some homework, but, one thing you
neglected to mention is wattage, OK. How many watts, that has a
lot to do with distance, OK.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree.
MR. FORHKOLB: And DE gain on that antenna and I -
MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree. All that is taken into consideration.
Certainly that's regulated by this gentleman's license.
MR. FORHKOLB: Absolutely.
Page 74
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER DINIZIO: Which is not something that we are really
concerned about in this instance in what we're trying- what we're
trying to do here is determine whether or not this gentleman you
know, passes the test that the Town has set forth concerning a
tower. Not even 159 megahertz, but rather just a question of the
height of this tower and the need for it.
MR. FORKHOLB: I'm just, I'll go back at the meetings from a prior
meeting. I can recali them saying, the effective range was about 25
miles, OK. I could be mistaken. I'll go back in the meeting minutes.
MR. ROSEN: Mattituck. From Mattituck. Mattituck to East
Hampton, how far does a crow fly?
MR. FORHKOLB: Probably about 20-25 miles.
MR. ROSEN: About 18 miles.
MR. FORHKOLB: Yeah, but, what I stated, you stated tonight, Mr.
Olshin stated tonight was that he can talk from the transmitter in
Oceanside to the transmitter in Mattituck and that's where I'm saying
it's not going to happen.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, but I'm wondering what relevance would
that have? (Testimony interrupted for tape change.)
MR. FORHKOLB: Well it's no secret all along you've known that my
issue is, not really that we object to the antenna going up, but a
cell phone antenna is going up, OK. Now, some of the discussions
tonight have been about a yagi antenna, OK. The overwhelming
majoring of people that operate VHF use omni-directional antennas,
OK. If you look at any municipality, fire departments, police
stations, service companies, oil delivery companies, you don't see
yagi, you see an omni-army directional antenna. Fiberglass pole is
about 22 feet high, a DB gain, 11 DB gain, whatever it is, OK, -
MR. ROSEN: 16 DB gain it is.
MR. FORHKOLB: That is usually what's used on VHF, OK. Yagi
antennas are usually used for UHF and also cell phone. Now, this
is what worries me, OK, using co-face yagi antennas together and
you could put seven of them on there, OK. You go down to the, I
think the tower, the cell-phone tower on Elijah's Lane, Mattituck,
has yagi antennas, all mounted in each direction. It gives him great
gain all around. This supposed VHF tower goes up with all these
yagi antennas around, OK, are you going to go in there or anybody
else and see if that's transmitting cell phone or VHF? Who's going
to know. Then, at that point obviously it falls under the
Telecommunications Act, but are we going to know what's up there?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Weli, that's an interesting point that you
bring up because in prior applications of not necessarily antenna
applications, we have requested inspections on a yearly basis. That
in all situations could still exist. What we try to do in these
Page 75
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
decisions is limit it to the specific source of what the person is
looking for. So if it requires, you know, a technica! evaiuation
sort of speak, I assure you that, you know, that we are empowered
to do that on a yearly basis, or a monthly basis if we have to, but I
mean that would be an extremely costly operation.
MR. FORHKOLB: It sure would be, and it doesn't (hesitation).
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'd like to explain something else to you?
MR. FORHKOLB: OK.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, the line of my questioning tonight
was, you know, I wanted to know just exactly, I wanted in my mind
to somehow put together why we need an antenna with an 8 foot
base, to carry 10 or 12 pounds of antenna with a rotor. I mean,
that's the questioning that I was asking. Simply the way our
discussions have been going, we've been considering that and
certainly it seems a like a little overkill, and I think that you've
commented on that.
MR. FORHKOLB: Yes, and if I was to erect a tower, OK, and it
was a flimsy tower and I approached Beli Atlantic or AT&T, OK, and
said, "hey, you know, you guys can put, you guys can lease this
hero space for $3,000 a month, do you want to put your antenna on
here?" They'd laugh at me and say, "Hey forget about it."
But I put a Roam 85 up, OK, that was super structure, OK, they'd
probably say, "yeah, here's the check."
MEMBER DINIZIO: I tend to agree with you in that respect.
MR. FORHKOLB: So I want to mention one more thing. I know that
the last meeting Mr. Rosen stated that he had a house in
Jamesport. Now, he's obviously spent a lot of time and a let of
effort and a lot of money, et cetera to try and make something fit
where it ehouldn't he. I don't know - if it's 1~4 acre lot whatever
he's in, it's a real small piece of property. I don't know what he's
got in Jamesport. I've never seen his home in Jamesport but
wouldn't it make sense that he put it up in his backyard? I mean
from Mattituck to Jamesport, it's only, it's got to be 4 miles,
maybe? So, I just want to bring that point up and leave it at that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Rosen?
MR. ROSEN: What's your first name?
MR. FORHKOLB: Andrew.
MR. ROSEN: Andrew and Ladies and gentlemen. Andrew just
stood up hear and mentioned a lot of good points if you don't have
the right answers. The reason that I'm putting up a Rome 85 and
not a two foot tower is for a safety factor, for those two ladies
right there - and yes it's a lot moro money, OK, it's an overkill.
Page 76
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
What Andrew has forgotten to mention to you, and I've become a
nut, I've become a pro at this since I've been coming here. I mean
talk about being bounced around you have to excuse me, cellular
doesn't use yagi antennas. They use directional antennas, and I
apologize I don't have the right name for them, maybe Mel does. Do
you know the right terminology for antennas?
MR. OLSHIN: Panels.
MR. ROSEN: Thank you. It's called a panel antenna, not a yagi,
rarely up on cellular, but they are not yagies. And yes if there
was a cellular company on this tower, any imbecile would be able to
tell there was a cellular company because he's right. You've got
three this way, three this way, and three another way, to achieve
what he calls Omni-directional. Weli I'll tell you I said any
imbecile could tell. I'm going to have one, two, three, maybe four
sticks, Omni directionais for my frequency. That's for me and this
Board is welcome to come in everyday of the week and check out my
radios. OK? I said before, this whole problem is over cellular and
Bell Atlantic. I told you they won't go on my tower. I'm not here
for them. He thinks this is in disguise. I'm telling you, this is
getting crazy with hearing this. You people have the decision to
make where they're going.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what you're saying is that you have
absolutely no objection to the issue of an annual inspection.
MR. ROSEN: Absolutely none. Absolutely none because whatever is
going in my tower will not be cellular. There may be a ham oper-
excuse me, Mr. Chairman. It's very possible down the line that the
fire department may want to go on there. Would you like me to turn
to the Mattituek Fire Department and say, "No, Andrew doesn't want
you on there?" Or maybe, maybe the Police Department may be,
although I don't know. Andrew can you explain to the Board why
out of the clear blue sky there's a cellular tower on the Police
Department now, if your so ooncerned about cellular? I look at the
Board, maybe he can come back up and address it. Now that tower
has got a lot of cell panels facing all directions and yes, believe
me I'm not here to give you a hard time. I know it's a
municipality. So be it. I don't care. You've already got from what
I've check into NEX Tel is out here already. Omni-Point is out here
aiready. All the cellular companies you have granted different
locations except NYNEX. I don't know what's going on. I don't
want to know what's going on with that. My application stands
alone. I've aiready told you NYNEX is not going on this tower
without your OK, and I'm not putting it up for them, I'm putting it
up for me. And Andrew is 110% wrong when he tells me that the
Tower of Oceanside won't taik to Mattituck, which brings me to
another good point. For 10 years I've lived in Jamesport now. I'd
like to know how Andrew knows I have such a smali piece of
property? Andrew can you come up and tell me why?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wait. This is becoming
counter-productive here.
Page 77
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MR. ROSEN: OK, he's right. I do have a small piece of property
and apparently he's been checking into it. I have nothing to hide.
I'm lost for words to really understand why I am being pushed
around like the evil one. I am going along to better a piece of
property between these two houses to where it would be a difference
in night and day; and yet I feel like I'm the bad one instead of
being commended for the monies that I'm going to put out. True,
it's for my business. And if the day ever comes that I give up my
business, I don't know what's going to happen to the tower.
Somebody once asked me that question. But you know something?
That tower is going to be mine. That property is going to be
mine. I'm paying taxes and if I decide to get out of the trucking
business, don't ask - I don't know what'll happen. Maybe I'll sell
it to somebody who has a trucking business. Maybe Andrew, he
said he's familiar with trucking. Or I may open another type of
business. It's my property and as long as it's legal and OK with
the Town of Southold, I may open up a welding shop. I'm very
good at welding. OK. I apologize, I know there's a sense of
arrogance tonight. I guess I'm getting upset. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Rehm?
CHRIS REHM: Chris Rehm, Mattituck. I really, just a question to
the Board. It's neither for nor against, but when there's a public
hearing for the ZBA, isn't there suppose to be a posted sign saying
the date and every time there is a meeting?
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, we don't require that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's only on the first one and then
it's Notices in the paper and we continue it from date to date. Only
if there's no continuity. If we were to close the hearing without a
date, then we would be required to Notice it in the paper again. In
this particular case, we have had continuity in the dates so
everything has been pretty much (hesitated).
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, it's was recessed it with a
date, with a new date.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We recess it with a date.
MR. REHM: Right, because quite often I have a hard time finding it
in the paper when the next ZBA hearing is. I was just curious
about it because the Planning Board brought it up to Town, a
Councilman brought it up about bigger posters and all that stuff and
I just thought maybe there's suppose to be a posted hearing every
time. But that's only when it's not continuous.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Only the first hearing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Only the first hearing.
MR. REHM: OK.
Page 78
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, it's really encumbered upon
the citizen to continue that continuity either through calling the
office if you don't see it in the paper, and, you know (interrupted).
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well it's posted on that Bulletin Board out there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it's posted on the Bulletin Board.
MR. REHM: Right it's posted on this one.
- did the Building Department ever come
they could cut the building in half and
construction of this office?
And one other question
with a decision whether
go on with the building
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no. It has not been done.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's part of the problem. We don't have a
Notice of Disapproval or a proper application before us for the
office so that's one of the problems that we've had on this.
MR. REHM: OK. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think you walked in late Chris, but I
mentioned that. That was one of the first things I mentioned to
Mr. Cuddy.
MR. REHM: Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
please state your name for the record?
Yes, ma'am? Could you
MS. ROBBINS: My name is Joan Robbins. I live in New Suffolk,
not Mattituck, but I've lived here for over forty years and I know
that part of Sound Avenue, Mattituck. It is usually my route to the
A&P and over the last oh, quite a few years, the neighborhood has
changed, with the decline and the agricultural use of the properties
a lot of the home properties have been upgraded by the owners,
homes and buildings. And I just feel very strongly that the Town
has an obligation to be concerned about the property values of the
residents of that neighborhood as well as other neighborhoods, and
in spite of what Mr. Rosen says, somehow I do not see how an
85-foot tower between two homes on a small lot is going to do
anything but decrease the property values. I think that the Town
Government as a whole has ought to being more proactive than it has
been in determining how it wants this Town to look and how it
doesn't want it to look, and saying too that one happens and the
other doesn't. I don't think that most of us want to see a lot of
towers, 85 foot or otherwise, and I don't care what kind of a tower
it is or what kind of antenna. I just think that that's the business
that is proposed is not one that would enhance the neighborhood,
the hamlet or the town. It would be degrading to the neighborhood
and ought not to be allowed; and I hope that if there is an issue as
to why their proposal falls within a certain law that there wili be a
Notice to the public at large so that it can be discussed further.
Page 79
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I guess we've arrived at
the point of a the first beginning statements to council, and that is
we will Notice this is a public hearing on the basis of what Ms.
Collins has stated.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I have a question. It was
re-noticed and I wanted Lora to look at that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Let's let -
MEMBER COLLINS: You want my views, OK.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, while we're
Forhkolb?
discussing this, Mr.
MR. FORHKOLB: Jerry, may I for a minute?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. FORHKOLB: I'll make it brief. I just want to make a point
that I'm here not to attack Mr. Rosen. OK? I do not know the
man. I do not know where he lives, OK? I don't care, OK. I am
the adjacent property owner. I have interests. My adjacent
property is why I'm here. That is why these two women are here,
OK. We're not hero to attack him. OK. We're not here to put him
down, OK. We are concerned about this, OK. And this is not a
personal issue and just want to say that for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Cuddy?
MR. CUDDY: I just want to complete the record, I'm not going to
speak. But Mr. Olshin, Professor olshin is humble. Besides having
degroes in Electrical Engineering and Physics, he teaches. He's a
Professor, a regular professor at New York Institute of Technology.
He teaches classes each semester. When the Bell Company wants
somebody to teach them about Telecommunications, it's Mr. Olshin,
Professor Olshin who does that. Those are good qualifications.
I haven't heard qualifications from anybody else.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you again, Mr. Cuddy,
that my discussions with Professor Olahin have been and of course
in no way am I saying a person to critique anyone in this particular
area. But I have felt not really a terrible need to swear this
gentleman in because I know this is expertise after my discussions
with him. He ranks very simply with one of the engineers that Bell
Atlantic brought in to explain in my opinion and this is no-one
else's opinion, this is just my opinion. I have felt that my
discussions with him have been easy to understand. He's brought it
down to lay person's terms and I do appreciate that. In no way
has he tried to sway me in any way toward anything other than to
Page 80
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
explain to me the specific questions that I've had, you know, that I
posed to him. And I do appreciate that as a Member of this Board.
MR. CUDDY: I just wanted the record to be clear as to his
qualifications.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MEMBER TORTORA: I just was reviewing this. As a practical
matter, Mr. Cuddy, to get over this issue of the Notice-
MEMBER COLLINS: I have some views, too, Lydia.
MEMBER TORTORA: The proper thing to do at this point is to in
order to get the application before us, you can't apply directly to
us. You do need that Notice of Disapproval for your omitted
application. There's no question about that at which time then we
can advertise it for that application.
MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman could I suggest, oh, excuse me, I
know, that's why I was following on what Mrs. Tortora said.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, go ahead.
MR. CUDDY: I'm just not sure if I'm following what you are asking
us to do. You're saying there should be a Notice of Disapproval,
but the Notice of Disapproval normally comes from the Building
Department.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're waiting for it.
MR. CUDDY: We can't, I mean I guess I could mandamus the
Building Department.
MEMBER TORTORA: We can't make them move. You do have some
recourse through a Writ of Mandamus.
MR. CUDDY: I would point out to the Board that I don't think it's
powerless to do an interpretation. I beLieve that the Board always
has ( ) jurisdiction right to interpret the code and I think you can
do it Sua sponte, "on your own motion," and I think if you look at
the Code, the Code itself has a very specific provision for
Interpretations. It has one for variances, it has one for special
exceptions,it has one for interpretations.
MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Cuddy, I agree with you but we can't do
it, to be very candid with you however. I think you know that if
we did it and it was not properly noticed, and there was a court
challenge to that decision, I think you know where the challenge
would come.
MR. CUDDY: No I want it Noticed. What I was saying is that I
think the Board can direct to give me a Notice, that's the only
Page 81
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
difference because it may be next to impossible to move the Building
Department when they haven't moved in five months. I will try and
I think at this point I will go directly without a question but then
I would get back to you because then I may say to the Board that
you're really forcing Mr. Rosen to go to Court to ask us somebody
to give us a Notice of Disapproval.
MEMBER TORTORA: We're in a very bad position because we can't
in this instance, we cannot, you know, initiate a re-advertising of
a hearing without a Notice of Disapproval, beside the point you've
cut off half of the application which is the "Office."
MR. CUDDY: You don't have any objection to me going to the Town
Attorney and also suggest it to him that we can save ourselves some
effort in it?
MEMBER TORTORA: If you can coordinate a legal method of getting
this to go forward through the Town Attorney's Office, I personally
endorse that.
CHAIRMAN: Lora.
MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cuddy, I think that the
only difference between the original building permit application many
months ago, and the one that you submitted at our request, an
amended one recently. The only difference in substance is that the
second application mentions the office building --
MR. CUDDY: And radio tower.
MEMBER COLLINS: Weli and uses the term 'radio tower' indicating
that you're asking them to judge which law, it was very suttle and I
don't think that they are likely to pick up on the fact that that was
a request to judge which law applies. But the point is the office
building is like an added starter as it were from the original
application, and the original application was clearly denied on three
bases. Under Article XVI the lot is not big enough, Article XVI the
tower is too close to the nearest dwelling, and under Article XIV
which deals with that use district, the setback is wrong. Those
were the three grounds for denial and that is what we were holding
hearings on, correct?
MEMBER TORTORA: Correct.
MEMBER COLLINS: It seems to me that we can, it would be very
nice if the Building Department would act on the revised Building
Permit Application, but if they don't I think we can notice a hearing
that says much more clearly this hearing was advertised as foliows:
"Applicant is requesting an Interpretation regarding a proposed
tower in the Light Industrial District and/or variances under Article
XIV which is the use article for that district, and then it just
cites sections. It's -
BOARD SECRETARY: General.
Page 82
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER COLLINS: It does{~'t give you any of the blood. I think,
this is my feeling, Lydia, that if the Building Department doesn't
budge on this that we can re-notice a hearing, on the denial that we
have in which we say that the Board has concluded that in order to
handle this application it must directly address the question of
whether it was proper to cite Article XIV in denying the original
application. And that we are going to address that question and I
think that tells the public what we are up to and I don't think we
need the Building Department to act. That's my sense.
MEMBER TORTORA:
I'll-
I'm not 100% sure, Lora. I think, you know,
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will you ask the Town Attorney that
question tomorrow, Lora?
MEMBER COLLINS: Sure. I was going to talk to the Town Attorney
today but I didn't have a chance.
CHAIRMAN: Let's get to him, tomorrow or Monday and get that
issue resolved.
MEMBER COLLINS: We do know informally that he certainly agrees
we need to give notice.
MEMBER TORTORA: That still would not take care of the Office.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no. Let's clear up the Office issue
at this particular point, and that is that I did discuss this again
with Mr. Forrester this morning. He says you are on-line and you
will get your Notice of Disapproval, but there are a variety of
people before you. And that is basically the issue. It has
absolutely nothing to do with anything other than the fact that there
are other people before you, and they are writing Notice of
Disapprovals based upon when they get the requests. And that's
it. And that is what he has informed me.
MEMBER TORTORA: It's funny, because we heard another applicant
earlier this evening who was really saying in essence I am hear
before you, just speed up the process because I couldn't get my
application reviewed by the Building Department in so many words.
So there must be some ( ) to that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I think - I mean, Mr. Forrester and
I have very good dialogue, and I think that that was an issue that I
dealt with him this morning, and we are going to get it. OK. I
mean, you are going to get it. But I think they prioritized it in
reference to the date of the receipt, and I think we'll get it when
they get to the point of getting it. And there is no other reason.
I don't think it's necessary for you to go any farther on that
basis. Let's deal with this issue and see if we can Notioe it so
that we can deal with that specific situation and then hopefully by
that time, you will have gotten it, and then we'll complete it.
Page 83
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
BOARD SECRETARY: I was just wondering, are
two additional Notices then? A Notice for this,
Notice when he gets another Notice of Disapproval?
we going to have
and then another
MEMBER COLLINS: I wouldn't think so.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's why I said, you - even
your way, you're still out the Office.
MEMBER COLLINS: I agree, you are out the Office.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
Office.
MEMBER COLLINS: Some
this.
if you do it
So you re-notice the next one with the
how the Office is not at the center of
MEMBER TORTORA: Only if you are looking at accessory
principal.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it's very relevant to it, but I - can I?
or
MEMBER COLLINS: Ok.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Something seems to be going on in this particular
application I don't know, something underlying here that I don't
quite understand, but am I to understand here, I guess I should
ask you, Jerry because you are the Chairman, that the Inter-Office
Memo of August 3rd explaining a conversation which was in the ZBA
office and Gary Fish - it is no longer the position of the Building
Inspector that --
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no it should --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
I'm not reading it.
I don't know if this should be public, that's why
I testified in Federal Court, I
everything is public. I said
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Every -
will go down on the record that
everything is public.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It is him saying that "he is not going to issue
one because we've taken a straw vote" is now something that is not
SO?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What happened was exactly what you
said, OK. .I had no idea how they found out that we were
anticipating a vote on the issue, does this -- (interruptions by
several voices and inaudible). Pardon me. They found out before
the newspaper hit, that's it. Now let's get down to basics here.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, then will you let me ask this again, Jerry,
to get this straight? I wanted to just follow through now, you
Page 84
Hearing Transcril~
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
have written a letter of August 5th requesting that they give us a
new Notice of Disapproval?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of course, because it is exactly what we
asked Mr. Cuddy to do. That's continuity.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So in writing do we have from them now
concerning that? In other words, we don't get anything in writing
then? This is an Inter-Office Memo, Linda's usual efficient self.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before the telephone line was even cold,
OK, my conversation with the Board's Secretary was: "Draft that
me~o" and that memo went out so fast and went down that end of
the building, OK, that it took I would say probably 14 seconds for
the l~rinter to act before that Memo went down that side of the
building, because I was not going to hear the possibility of a vote
stopping a Notice of Disapproval that an applicant in good faith
requests from the Building Department, all right? This was a
request. We asked him to amend his application. He did so. And
based upon some, will reduce it to a writing situation, OK. Let's
assume it was read in the paper or it was hearsay, sort of speak
OK? It happened, OK. But today we still have not taken a vote.
So that has absolutely nothing to do with the request for the Notice
of Disapproval. And it doesn't. OK. And so therefore, that's
what precipitated me to write that memo.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
back from them?
And so we haven't received any correspondence
(Chairman Nodded Affirmatively.)
MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, if I read the Suffolk Times correctly, this
week, where four to six weeks away from night, or from whenever
he put his application in (interrupted).
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. If my memory is correct, on July
10th he requested it. We are now past August 10th. So I would
assume that if they are talking four to six weeks, he shonid get it
in fourteen days.
MEMBER DINIZIO: All right. I guess that was my --
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I try to be as above board as I possibly
can, all right. And that precipitated me to ask Mr. Forrester today
if he had seen the Notice of Disapproval, and he has indicated to me
that you are in the rack prioritized and they are going to you
know, it is going to happen based upon that particular situation.
That's all I can teli you.
MR. CUDDY: I will check.
BOARD SECRETARY: My question is, when you get the Notice of
Disapproval will you authorize me to advertise that for Mr. Cuddy if
he amends our application to include that?
Page 85
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure.
BOARD SECRETARY: And also the additional Notice that Lora is
talking about that she wants to do so we can have both of --
MEMBER COLLINS: Excuse me, I am not talking about an additional
Notice. I think we are hearing Mr. Rosen's appeal.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not amended.
MEMBER COLLINS: Right now Mr. Rosen's appeal is the original
one, based on the original Disapproval, and I said I think we can
address this important question of which law applies based on the
originai Disapprovai. I don't think we need the revised. (Change
of Tape). If the Building Department had stopped beating around
the hush and has assured our Chairman that they are indeed
treating the amended application in order and that they will come up
with another Notice of Disapproval in due course, that's terrific.
That's just fine. When we get that Disapprovai, then we notice a
hearing that reflects the wording of that Disapproval and that brings
out what it is that we are going to taik about. And since we have
decided this evening to make our next regularly scheduled hearing is
going to be later in September than originally planned, we have a
big window of opportunity here.
BOARD SECRETARY: And so if there is no Disapproval, then the
Notice is to read how?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll ask the Town Attorney that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, and we can take care of that when we meet
the next time though, right?
MEMBER COLLINS: We'll have another meeting.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean we have to make a decision, in my
opinion. I agree vrith Mr. Cuddy that we can, I believe right now
we can make a decision on this, certainly in the interest of fairness
and certainly in the interest of openness advertise what we have
become, what I have become convinced of as to how this application
should go. And I've become convinced or should say, I have become
of the opinion, which I will not say now, because of the testimony
that I have heard concerning this application. In other words we
got the Notice of Disapproval, in my opinion it turned out completely
different than that Notice of Disapproval, and I guess that's why we
are saying now. We have heard the application. What we heard is
not the same as this Notice of Disapproval. Now we are asking for
one more that matches the information that we have received. Am I
correct?
MEMBER COLLINS: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, do we after we now advertise this, do we
have to hear that information against?
Page 86
Hearing Transcripts
August 13, 1998 - Board of Appeals
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
MR. CUDDY: I would ask you to permit us to incorporate all the
entire record.
CHAIRMAN: Of course. Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: In fact I beg you that you don't do it again.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So at this particular point, we have no
other option but to recess without a date. We will then speak to the
Town Attorney. We will incorporate what Ms. Collins has just
referred to as a situation which we probably can deal with on our
own based upon the first Notice of Disapproval. In the interim you
will get yours, and we will incorporate it all into one if that
hearing doesn't exist at one time, we will have two separate hearings
and incorporate them together. OK? All right. So I make a motion
to recess without a date.
MEMBER COLLINS: Second.
Motion carried. See Minutes for formal Resolution.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And we will get back to you to let you
know exactly when we are going to hear that based upon the original
Notice of Disapproval.
MEMBER TORTORA: Well, Lora is going to talk to the Town
Attorney tomorrow.
MEMBER COLLINS:
from the hip.
Sure
I was somewhat reasonable but shooting
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, for
coming in, and safe home to everybody.
06,'10/98 11:07 '~'2024181411 FCC-ASD [~006
TECI" ~'CAL INFORIMATION CONCERNING CELLULAR, SPECL~LIZED MOBILE
[L~D~ ~_ND PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
April 1996
Cellular In form______ation
The FCC established rules and procedures for licensing cellular systems in the Un/ted States and its
Possessions and Territories. These roles designated 306 Melxopolitan Statistical Areas and 428 Rural
Service ~ teas for a total of 734 cellular markets and spectrmn was allocated to license 2 systems in each
n, arket. ,~ellular is allocated spectrum in the 824-849 and 869-894 MHz ranges. Cellular licensees are
generally required to license o~dy lhe tower locations that make up their outer service comour.
Licensees desirkng to add or modify any tower locations that are within an already approved and licensed
'service area do not have to submit an application for that location to be added to their cellular license,
atthough tV may need FCC approval if the antemm would constitute a major enviror2mental action
(See qucstt, _ 2, below) or would exceed the criteria specified in Part 17 of the FCC's Rules
("Co:~snz:ztJon, Meriting and Lighting of Antenna Structures"). Part 17 includes criteria lbr
wheh construction or placement cfa tower would require prior notification to the Fede~a!
Admh~islxation (FAA). (See question 3, below.)
A ceilulaz system operates by dividing a large geographical service area is.to cells and a>sizninz
fi'eqt;encies to multiple, non-adjacent cells. This is known in the industry as £requencv :e'd~e.
>abs~:ribcr travels across the service area the call is transferred (handedSoff) ~'cm on~ cell
.~ i~i~oa: t~oticeab!e imermption. All the ceils in a cellular system are comne~tcd to a 5,!chile
<v, ;tct~ ~:~. t)fi :cc (MI'SO) by land!ina or rmcrowave links. The MI SO contrel, tl~e sx~ ~:cbin.~
i~e P~b}~c S~i;cqed Telephone Network IPSTN) and the cell site for all wireiine-to-mobile
4~vi~:~e<o-xvireliue calls.
· .3~5~_ecialized Mo_bile Radio (SMR} Information
Spec,~l!zed Mobile Radio (SMR) sen'ice licensees provide land mobile commumcatio::~ c.n a
com~nercial t i.e.. ?or profit) or private basis. A traditional SMR system consi~r.s of one ~:r ~nc~re
:'~uqqm~e~s. one or more antemlas and end user radio equipment whit-', , !}~n =,,r~sist>
radio unit either provided by the end user or obtained fi-om ~e SMR =.:>cr~tor. I'i-~e base ~ation
re= either telephone ~ansmiss~ons from end users or Ica poxker signals ~5:: c::d user
SMR systems operate in two distinct frequency ranges: 806-821/851-866 MHz (800 MHz) and
,896-901/935-940 MHz (900 MHz). 800 IX{Hz SMR services have been licensed by the FCC on a
siC-by-site basis, ~o that th~ SMR provider must approach the FCC and re, calve a license for each and
every tower/base site. In the future the FCC will license this band on a wide-area market approach. 900
MIt7 SMR was orighmlly licensed in 46 Designated Filing Areas (DFAs) comprised of only the top 50
markets in the country. The Conmnission is ba the process of auctioning the remainder of thee United
q,ates and il~ Possessions and Ten'itories in the Rand McNallv defined 51 Major Yrading Area~
PLANNING BOARD
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JP...
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
.. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
1¥1 3
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
Riverhead Building and Supply
Mnin Road, Greenport
SCTM# 1000-45-1-1
April 1, 1998
The Planning Board has reviewed the above application with the
applicants agent and has reached agreement to move the building ten feet
to the south and add ten feet of landscaping to the front yard landscaped
In addition, the applicant's agent has agreed to place an evergreen
landscaped hedge across the entire length Of the north parking row to
screen the cars from view.
The Board feels that with these changes they can proceed with the
processing of this application.
Chsi~an
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCH1E LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOVfN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Zoning Board of Appeals
G. Kassner, Site Plan ReviewerA
Robert
Request for comments
Empire Service Station
Main Road, Laurel
SCTM# 1000-122-7-1
DATE: March 10, 1998
This will update our memo to you of December 29, 1997, on the above
request for a variance.
The applicant has, of this date, not submitted a site plan application as
requested by this Board for the proposed canopy. Instead, we have
received a waiver request which this Beard has denied.
The attached papers show:
1. A preltminAvy site plan was submitted to the planning Board on
12-29-86.
A variance was granted for the convenience store on April 23,
1987, with findings that a site plan application was presently
before the Planning Beard. (The Planning Board had only a
preliminary plan, not an application and fee).
The Planning Board coordinated this preliminary site plan with
the New York State Department of .T~ansportation, and received
recommendations for curbing and eight other safety items. This
DOT requirement was sent to the applicant for compliance.
4. The applicant did not continue with the site plan.
The BuiJding Department received a letter from the DOT on
February 28, 1995, requesting that a Certificate of
Occupancy not be issued for the Convenience Store until the
DOT recommended safety improvements were made.
On February 13, 1998, the Planning Board received a waiver
request for a proposed canopy.
On February 18, 1998, the Planning Board sent a letter to the
applicants agent denying the waiver request because the intensity
of use at the site had been increased by the convenience store
thus requiring site plan review.
In its February 18, 1998, letter, this Board requested that the
applicant continue with the site plan application and DOT
safety hnp~ovements.
AS previously mentioned, to date the Board has not received the
requested site plan.
Edward Forester, Director of Code Enforcement
Laury Dowd, Town Attorney
Garrett Strang, R.A.
)~,PLANN~NG BOARD MEMBERS
~,~ BENNETT'(ORLOWSKI, JR
5 X Chairman '
· l~?~ WILLIAM J. CREMERS
~l) K~NNETH L. EDWARDS
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Gerard P. Goehringer
Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer~~--
Request for comments:
T. Petikas
Riverhead Building & Supply
M. Rosen Radio Tower
Nextel Communications
AMAC/ Former Empire Service Station
T. Petikas
· Recommend that Suffolk County Department of Public Works be
notified as we understand that road work is planned for Route
48.
Riverhead Building & Supply
· See attached memo dated April 1, 1998.
~'l~osen Radio Tower
· Board feels that Town Code Article XVI, 100-160, Wireless
Communication Facilities applies to this use.
Nextel Communications
· Board favors this collocation of antenna.
AMAC/former Empire Service Station
See attached memo dated March 10, 1998
Attachments
SOUTHOLD TOWN OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK:STATE OF NEW YORK
In the Matter of the Appl±cat±on
of the Southold Town Bu±ld±ng
Inspector (G, Fish) Requesting
an Interpretat±on under Appi.
No. 4G11 (Rad±o Towers for Pr±vate
Use).
AFFIDAVIT OF
PERSONAL
SERVICE
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) SS..'
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
Edward Forrester, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That deponent is not a party to the action and is over the age of 18
years, and resides at /I/~/ fit/~/o ~4~-, /3/~t~/~oC5(, NewYork;
That on the 6", day of October, 1998, deponent personally served
the attached Subpoena upon Building Inspector Gary Fish at ~ J ~ O
a.m. which requested that Mr. Fish, the applicant making a request
for an Interpretation, appear at 6:15 p.m. on October 15, 1998 at a
Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals, 53095 Main Road,
Southold, New York.
Sworn to before me this
9"' day of October, 1998.
/A~dward Forrester ~
UNDA £ KOWAL~(I
52-4524771
In the Name of the People of the ,¥tate of New York
TO - Building Inspector Gary Fish
SUBPOENA
You are hereby commat~ded to apl)ear before the Southold Ibwn Board of
Appeals, County of Suffolk, at a Public Hearing under Application No. 4611, at the Town
Hall, Assembly Meeting/Court Room, 53095 Main Road, Southold, Suffolk County, New
York, on Thursday, the 15th day of October, 1998 at 6:15 o'clock in the afternoon, as
the Applicant requesting an Interpretation which asks the Question: "Does a radio tower
and antenna fall under the Provisions of"Wireless Communications" Article XVI of the
Southold Town Zoning Code, when it is intended for the private use of an owner who
operates a VHF Radio under a License issued to him/her by the FCC for the purpose of
communicating, all as part of his/her business, when located in a Light-Industrial (LI) Zone
District?"
Dated at Southold, Suffolk County, New York, the 6th day of October, 1998.
BRING THIS WITH YOU
Report to: Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall Meeting/Court Room
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
Telephone: 516-765-1809
(~HA---1;tLE$ R. GUDDY
April 9, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Martin Rosen - Interpretation/Variance
SCTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Gentlemen/Madam:
Enclosed for the Board's file in this matter and to be made part of
the record at the time of hearing are the following documents:
1. Single and Separate Search
2. Letter from the Long Island Railroad, the property owner on the
south, dated April 1, 1998, consenting to this application.
3. Letter from the Personal Communications Industry Association
dated April 7, 1998, regarding FCC frequency and use of
license.
We also enclose the Affidavit of Mailing.
Very truly yours,
Char R. C~ddy~
CRC:ejc
Encs.
ATTOI:tNIEgY AT LAW
March 16, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Martin Rosen - Interpretation/Variance
SCM 1000-141-03-044.000
Dear Board Members:
With respect to your letter of February 20, 1998 please find
enclosed:
A. A revised survey showing the base of the tower, the fence
around the base and set backs from adjoining buildings. Please
note that the tower will only be set back one foot from the rear
property line. This is to assure safety with regard to the
adjoining homes. Although the tower is constructed so as to bend
and then break in the event of extraordinary pressure, nevertheless
we have provided a fall distance greater than the tower and the
nearest building.
B. The tower is a private radio tower used by the applicant
in connection with his business. Mr. Rosen has an FCC license for
use of a radio frequency assigned solely to him. I am enclosing a
copy of the FCC license. Please note that this is not a public
utility.
C. Mr. Rosen is in the process of completing a design profile
or elevation of part of the building which will be restored
(approximately 600 sq. ft.). The retained part of the building
will be in the front and the rear of the building will be
demolished and removed. We are enclosing a site plan showing the
building as it now stands. As indicated this will be changed and
the profile of the building will be forwarded to you within the
next week to ten days. Also enclosed is a design of the tower
which, again is to be used in connection with the applicant's
business. Equipment for the tower will be stored in the renovated
office building and will permit Mr. Rosen to communicate with
drivers who are operating delivery trucks on the east end of Long
Island. Mr. Rosen is in the trucking business and delivers goods
and materials, basically furniture, throughout Long Island.
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
March 16, 1998
Page 2
D. The site plan application has been submitted to the
Planning Office and a preliminary conference has been held with the
Planning Board. There has been no formal communication from the
Planning Board after the preliminary conference.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Cuddy~
CRC:ejc
Encs.
April 16, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen:
I, Alice Funn, am owner of property which borders S CTM 1000-141-3-44, the property where
Mr. Martin Rosen wishes to construct a communi cations tower. I reside at 11850 Sound
Avenue, Mattituck, otherwise known as SCTM 1000-141-3-43. I do hereby request that the
zoning appeal application # 4544, Martin Rosen's application for a variance to construct a
wireless communications tower on a non-conforming lot be denied.
Very truly yours,
Alice Fuxam
State of New York, City of : ss.:
Onthe /:-"~da~ of ~"-3 1998 befir
^ ~ y xv'~/~t.~.-c , , o e me personally came
/--pt..t,' ~ c~-o,~,vr to me'known to be the individual described in and who exectued the
foregoing instrument and acknowledge that (s)he executed same.
MICHAEL T. BURKE
t,'OTARY PUBLIC, State of New York
Residing in Suffolk County
No, 4742712
[xpire~:~u,,..&30, 197~
April 16, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen:
I, Andrew C. Fohrkolb, am owner of property across fxom SCTM 1000-141-3-44, the property
where Mr. Martin Rosen wishes to construct a communi cations tower. I currenly own the
vacant property at 12345 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, otherwise known as SCTM 1000-141-3-40.
I do hereby request that the zoning appeal application # 4544, Martin Rosen's application for a
variance to construct a wireless communications tower on a non-conforming lot be denied.
Very truly yours,
State of New York, City of : ss.:
On the /~ . day of//,~/~ , 1998, before me p~rsonally came
/~r-~tc~r~, C, Coil ~, ~o/~-- to me known to be the individual described in and who execmed the
foregoing instrument and acknowledge that (s)he executed same.
MICHAEL 1'. BURKE
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York
Residing in Suffolk County
Apfil16,1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen:
I, Mattie Simmons, am owner of property which borders SCTM 1000-141-3-44, the property
where Mr. Martin Rosen wishes to construct a communi cations tower. I reside at 11700 Sound
Avenue, Mattituck, otherwise known as SCTM 1000-141-3-45.1. I do hereby request that the
zoning appeal application # 4544, Martin Rosen's application for a variance to construct a
wireless communications tower on a non-conforming lot be denied.
Very truly yours,
Mattie Simmons
State of New York, City of : ss.:
On t~__~m_~ day of Y~/h~ ,1998, before me personally came
~7-z'7~ · >r~,45 to me known to be the individual described in and who execmed the
foregoing instrument and acknowledge that (s)he executed same.
t~OIARY PUBLIC, State 0t New York
Residing in SuffoJk County
No. 4742712 ~
£xpire~30,. ~.
RADIO STATION El
TRUCKING CORP
NSE
BsdlO ~$rVle*: LJ INTERURBAN PROPERTY
~equ~!i~.y Advisory ~o. IServ~ee Ares: 94652
9502280374
LIcan,e I,sue Oat,: 06/28/1995
Cleen,. Exp;retlo. De{e: 06/28/2000
MARTYS TRUCKING CORP
MARTY ROSEN
3671 OCEANSIDE RD
OCEANSIDE NY
'11572
950713S 124 1 lB
REGULATORY STATU~
FC~ ~e~hciei Si~ii6A klo. of Eml~gfon Oulput
1! ].59.79500 ~FE 20KOF3E 75.000 60.000 3 78
~ ~0-37-23 b73-38-10
~ 159.79500 MO 0 20KOF3E 75.000
fRANSMITTER ~TRE
~[~ AD ~RESS CITY t~OUNTY ~1 STATE
, ~XT~{ 1{ 80 KMRN{{ 40-37-23~{ {' 073-38?10W{, OCEANS I DE,{ NASS~U NY
~AI~ING AND LI~{TINq SP~IFICATIO~S ~ 1 3
CONSOL POINTS, ~3671 ~CE~sIDE RD ~CEANSiDE ~Y
CON OL POINT PH]NE, 516- 78-1900
TR¢ La%i~Ud¢/10~gi~U~ ar~ authori~ea in No~h American Datum 192~ tNAD27~i
SETpUT IN PART , = .~ orate ~OMMISSlO~'S, RULES.{
~ FEDERAL PAGE 1 OF
COMMUNICATIONS "' .o, .i.~.d ,. o..,.,io, wi,bio .,eh,
mon,h,, unles, an ,xten,}on of time
Rules 3) There ate no me m rations for placing GMRS Itatlons I. ope,atlon.
BOARD OF APPEALS : TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Application
of
MARTIN ROSEN
MEMORANDUM
I. The applicant is contract vendee for a parcel of land of
approximately 13,000 square feet located in the Light Industrial
Zoning Use District of the Town of Southold. The parcel is on the
south side of Sound Avenue at Mattituck, 258.00 feet west of the
intersection of Sound Avenue and the Long Island Rail Road.
southerly end of the parcel abuts the Long Island Rail
Presently there is an abandoned house in disrepair
dilapidated garage on the parcel.
The
Road.
and a
At this site the applicant intends to establish a small
business office of approximately 600 square feet by converting the
existing frame house into an office building, demolishing the
remainder or the rear portion of the building and removing the
frame shed garage located at the rear of the property. At the rear
line of the property bordering the Long Island Rail Road, the
applicant proposes to construct a radio tower to permit him to
communicate with delivery trucks operated by his trucking company.
The questions presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals include
interpretation of the Town Code, or in the alternative, a variance
to permit a tower within 85 feet of a neighboring dwelling instead
of the required 100 feet, as well as an area variance permitting
the setback of the tower as it adjoins the railroad property. In
addition there is an issue as to the application of the bulk
schedule.
Initially,
Building
the application was made, after consulting with the
telecommunications tower and was subject to the recently enacted
Local Law No. 26, "A Local Law in Relation to Wireless
Communication Facilities". Pursuant to this law, the
telecommunications tower may be located in industrial districts,
including the Light Industrial District, provided that the
applicant obtains site plan approval and meets certain
requirements, including not being located within 100 feet of the
nearest dwelling~ Section 100-162 C(3).
The applicant has requested an interpretation that the
location of an 85-foot high tower more than 85 feet from the
nearest dwellings complies with the Code provision on the basis
that the provision requiring a 100-foot distance from the dwelling
unit is predicated on safety factors. Where the 85-foot height of
the tower will not cause any part of a falling tower to strike a
dwelling, distant 87 feet away, that provision is satisfied. We
request that the Code provision be interpreted accordingly. In the
alternative, the applicant requests a variance of 13% to permit an
85-foot tower to be located a distance of 87 feet from a dwelling.
This is a modest variance and does not impact the safety of those
Department, on the basis that the tower was a
in the dwelling.
In addition, the Building Department has raised an issue as to
the applicant's lot meeting the requirements of the bulk schedule.
However, the Building Department itself appears uncertain as to
this requirement in that a further communication from that
Department dated March 27, 1998 advises that the tower is a
permitted use, implicitly recognizing that the lot size is not
contrary to the zoning requirements.
It should be noted that the bulk schedule requirement set
forth in Local Law No. 26 does not specify any square footage for
lots located in the Light Industrial District but rather refers at
Section 100-165B to "Minimum Lot Area Industrial Districts--Per
Bulk Schedule Per Zone". The Town's bulk schedule includes non-
conforming lots and there can be little doubt that a reference to
the bulk schedule must include the non-conforming schedule as well.
The authors of the Code provision could have, without effort,
included a particular lot size requirement for the lots in the
Light Industrial District. A five (5) acre lot was mandated for
residential districts. In the Industrial Districts a lot size is
not specified, instead, deferring to the bulk schedule. The
applicant submits that non-conforming lots were not excluded by the
Code provision.
The further request, under the wireless communications
facilities provision, is for a customary area setback variance.
This again relates to bulk schedule and the applicant proposes that
the rear yard is governed by a 35-foot setback. The applicant, in
order to avoid having his building too close to neighboring
property owners on the east and west, has communicated with the
Long Island Rail Road, the neighbor on the south and the Rail Road
has consented to having the applicant's tower placed along the
common property line between the applicant and the Rail Road. It
will be approximately one to two feet inside the line. While this
is a significant variance, under the circumstances and with the
neighbor's consent, it should not pose a problem. When measured
against the variance criteria, Town Law Section 267-b, that
criteria should be satisfied in that the use is permitted in the
industrial district, the tower location use cannot be achieved by
some o~her method, the tower location and the use is not an
economic detriment to adjoining owners, and while the variance is
substantial it has been consented to by the nearest neighboring
owner, the Rail Road. This is the safest site for the location of
the tower.
II. In the alternative, the applicant has requested by letter to
the Building Department, with a copy to the Town Attorney, a
determination that, in fact, the wireless communications facilities
provision does not apply to this application. While the Building
Department has not answered that inquiry (nor has the Town
Attorney), a reading of the provision of the Local Law, i.e.,
commencing with the definition section (Section 100-13), provides
the following:
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS. Wireless communications shall
mean any personal wireless services as defined in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which includes FCC
licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services
including cellular telephone services, personal
communication services, specialized mobile radio,
enhanced specialized mobile radio, paging, and similar
services that currently exist or that may in the future
be developed. (Emphasis supplied.)
Reliance upon the Telecommunications Act of 1996 takes this
application outside the scope of the Town Code provision (Local Law
No. 26). That Act defines Telecommunications Service as:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. - The Term 'telecommunications
service' means the offerinq of telecommunications for a
fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users
as to be effectively available directly to the public,
regardless of the facilities used. Sec. 3 (a) 51.
(Emphasis supplied.
A copy of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been made part of
the record. It is absolutely clear from that Act and the
subsequent definitions contained in the Town Code regarding
wireless telecommunications facilities and telecommunications
towers, which respectively refer to support structures and types of
wireless communications facilities, that the Town Code does not
embrace a privately owned and operated radio tower.
Continuing an examination of the definition portions of the
Local Law, the initial definition based upon the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, as contained in "Wireless Communications", is carried
forward as follows:
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY. A wireless communication
- 5 -
facility is any unstaffed facility for the transmission
and/or reception of wireless telecommunications services
usually consisting of an wireless communication facility
array, connection cables, an equipment facility, and a
support structure to obtain the necessary elevation. The
support structure is either a building, telecommunication
tower, or other approved structure.
Finally, "Telecommunication Tower"
definitions as follows:
(Emphasis supplied.)
incorporates the earlier
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER. A telecommunication tower is
a type of wireless communication facility designed and
constructed specifically to support an antenna array,
and may include a monopole, self-supporting tower,
guy-wire support tower and other similar structures.
A wireless communication facility attached to an
existing building or structure shall be excluded
from this definition. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is to be noted that the tower is not licensed to a utility
but to a private individual and he does not receive any income from
the radio license. There is a distinct difference between this
single frequency operator and the various personal communications
facilities operated by public utilities. The Town Code is not
applicable to this application.
The applicant seeks, as he could have sought prior to the
enactment of Local Law No. 26, the use of premises in the Light
Industrial District to store and operate his radio equipment and
include an office for his business (Section 100-141(6) together
with an accessory use radio tower. The considerations of height of
a radio tower (See Section 100-230D) and non-conforming lots do not
have any bearing. The request for a set back variance should be
based upon the same considerations earlier set forth, i.e., placing
the radio tower in the safest position with the consent of the
nearest neighbor.
The application should be approved with whatever constraints
are placed upon it through the site plan process. The neighborhood
will have a tower added to it but will benefit from the site which
is markedly improved by the addition of a small office styled as a
residence and also will be appropriately landscaped. The adjoining
properties will not be diminished in value through the addition and
improvement to this site.
It is respectfully requested that the application be granted.
Dated:
Riverhead, New York
April 15, 1998
Respectfully submitted,
Charles R. C~ddy~
H~R 11 '98 12:05 TOWH OF,~HOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O Box 1179
Snuthold, NewYork 11971
P. £/7
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1802
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OFTHEBUILDINGINSPECTOR
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
TO:
Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
FROM:
DATE:
Building Department
Edward
Forrester,
March 11, 1998
RE:
Martin Rosen, Radio Communications Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
Zoning District, L.I. ( Light Industrial )
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
The proposed use is a permitted use in that zone pursuant to Sec 100-162C.3 of
Town Code. Please be advised that the project must conform to the design
standards outlined in Sec 100-165.
March 23, 1998
Town of $outhold
Building Department
53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Attention of Gary Fish, Building Inspector
Martin Rosen - R&dlo Tower
SCTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Dear Mr. Fish:
My client, Martin Rosen, desires to erect a radio communications
tower for his business (he has a private FCC radio license) at a
site in Mattituck. He has made application to the Planning Board
for site plan approval and also to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
a set back variance as well as a interpretation/variance for the
height of this 85' tower.
Initially the application was based on the new provision of the
Town Code relating to telecommunication towers (Local Law 26-1997).
Having reviewed the Federal statute referred to in the Town Code
and the Code of Federal Regulations it would appear to me that any
reference to the Federal Act is directed towards public utilities.
Thus, the application as made and the determination set forth in
your Notice of Disapproval of February 18, 1998 may not be correct.
I am doubtful that the Town Code provision (Local Law 26-1997)
applies to a private radio tower. This has significance because a
determination must be made as to whether the tower is a primary use
or simply an accessory use to a building at the site. Would you
please review this matter and indicate to me whether a private
radio tower used in connection with the applicant's trucking
business falls under the provisions of the Town Code regarding
telecommunications towers or is, in fact, to be considered as an
accessory to the office building at the site.
Very truly yours,
CRC:ejc
Charles R. Cuddy
cc: Town Attorney
March 23, 1998
Town of Southold
Building Department
53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Attention of Gary Fish, Buildinq Inspeotor
Rez Martin Rosen - Radio Tower
BCTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Dear Mr. Fish:
My client, Martin Rosen, desires to erect a radio communications
tower for his business (he has a private FCC radio license) at a
site in Mattituck. He has made application to the Planning Board
for site plan approval and also to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
a set back variance as well as a interpretation/variance for the
height of this 85' tower.
Initially the application was based on the new provision of the
Town Code relating to telecommunication towers (Local Law 26-1997).
Having reviewed the Federal statute referred to in the Town Code
and the Code of Federal Regulations it would appear to me that any
reference to the Federal Act is directed towards public utilities.
Thus, the application as made and the determination set forth in
your Notice of Disapproval of February 18, 1998 may not be correct.
I am doubtful that the Town Code provision (Local Law 26-1997)
applies to a private radio tower. This has significance because a
determination must be made as to whether the tower is a primary use
or simply an accessory use to a building at the site. Would you
please review this matter and indicate to me whether a private
radio tower used in connection with the applicant's trucking
business falls under the provisions of the Town Code regarding
telecommunications towers or is, in fact, to be considered as an
accessory to the office building at the site.
Very truly yours,
CRC:ejc
Charles R. Cuddy
cc: Town Attorney
Ap/il 7, 1998
To: The Zoning Board &Appeals
Town of Southold, NY
From: O. E. GYLLENHOFF
" Frequency Coordinator
. Personal Communications Industt:y Association
Subj: Radio license held by Mm'fin Rosen; call-sign WNYY783.
The subject license and call.sign was granted to Martin Rosen also known Matty's Trucking
about 10 ye~s or so ago, This license is a private license and as
' ' , allows Mr, Rosen to control
his delivery vehicles, Mr.,Rosen is licensed as a private individual and does not receive any
income from his radio license, He h~ intbrmed me that he intends to expand his deliver.
business ~d needs to construct a tower in the vicinity of Southold. The radio system fl~ere
would be in the same category of private ~dio as Mr. Rosen's system in Oce~sid~, NY. -.*4',
I aisc, believe Mr. Rosen will use ~e same frequency, 159.795MHz, ~at he is presenfi~
lieansed on. v.
If there are any questions on fids matter, 1 can be reached at 703-739.0300 ext. 3213,
Respeetfolly,
stay E, Oyll~"
Frequency Coordinator
Sul(,~ 700
?~h 703-r~',0300 (~t. 5213)
F~x~ 703-~3~-1608
V~b Address: h p I,%~. ~,.~ c~,~,
rED 14:40 FAX .... 30969~12
-- 85'
Non hal Base ,~prea l: 1070'
UNR - ROHi'] ,
DESIGN LOAD
Design wind load per ANSI/EIA 222-E, 8S MPH basic wind
spaad, 1/2" radial Ice.
Antenna Type [ Elevation
ALP9212 on lS' ROtatable Leg Mounting FrameI . TOp
---' I Same [
BILL OF MATERIALS
Necessary Tower Sections
Anchor Boils
Step Bolts For Climbing
Standard EIA Base Grounding
P.E. Seal State of New York
ROHN ,
85 Self Supporting Tower
For: Rosen, M & R
Site: Suffolk Counly, N,Y,
-Fhl~ drawing is the properly of UNR-ROHN and is not to be
reproduced ;n any way without written permission from UNR-ROHN
~,.w.,y CJH ~ PRELIM'NA~Y
DO NOT USE
Appro,,ed by _~ I FOR CONSTRUCTION
MAR 11 '98 1~:0~ TOWM OF,~THOLD
Town Ha11,5,.'3095 Main Road
P. O. Box1179
So~ho~.New Yo~ 11971
P.8/7
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1802
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
Robed Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
Edward Foffester, Building Department
DATE:
March 11, 1998
RE:
Martin Rosen, Radio Communications Tower
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
Zoning District, L.I. ( Light Industrial )
SCTIV~ 1000-141-344
The proposed use is a permitted use in that zone pursuant.to Sec 100-162C.3 of
Town Code. Please be advised that the project must conform to the design
standards outlined in Sec 100-165.
Hillside Maintenance Coax
93-59 183 Street
Hollis, NY 11423
Long Island Rail Road
April 1, 1998
Charles R. Cuddy
Attorney at Law
445 Griffing Avenue
Riverhead, NY 11901
Re:
Mattituck, NY - Proposed Installation of an 85-foot Radio Tower Adjacent to the
LIRR Main Line by Martin Rosen.
Dear Mr. Cuddy:
We are in receipt of your submittal dated March 6, 1998, whereby you forwarded plans
for the above captioned installation. We have reviewed this matter and have no objection to the
proposed installation.
Given the height of the proposed tower and its proximity to the Railroad's operating right
of way, it will be necessary for the Railroad to assign inspection/protection personnel at the site
during the installation process to preserve the safety of its customers and the integrity of its
operations. As such it will be necessary for the owner and/or his contractor to obtain a LIRR
"Entry Permit", which will de~il the procedures for coordination/scheduling of the work, provide
for reimbursement of cost incurred by the Railroad and identify the required insurance coverages.
Please advise as to the name and address of the prospective Permitee, so that we may
prepare and forward the required Entry Permit. Should you have any questions, please contact
me at (718) 558-3536.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
Manager - Engineering
Contracts & Agreements
KR/
cc: F.J. Scarcello
MTA Long Island Rail Road is an agency of the Metropo#tan Transpo~lation Authority, State of New Y(xk
E. Virgil Comvay, Chairman
April 7, 199g
To: The Zoning Board of Appeals ',
Towu of Southold, NY
From: O. E. GYLLENHOFF
~,:.Frequency Coordinator
. Personal Communlcatio. ns lqdtts!i;y Assoclatiou
~RI6
Subj: Radio license held by Martin Rosen; cali-sigm WNYY783.
The subject license and call.sign was gra,~ted
about 10 years or so ago. his hcense ss a private license and allows Mr. Rosen to coutrol
T ' · to Martin Rosen also known as Marty's Trucking
his delivery vehicles. Mr..Rosen is licensed as a private individual and does not receive any
income fi'om his radio license..He has informed me that he intends to expand his deliver),
business and needs to construct a to,var in the vicinity of Southold. The radio system there
would be in the
same categor), ofprivato radio as Mr. Rnsen's system in Oceanside, NY. -"~"
I also believe Mr. Rosen will use tho sa,ua frequeucy, I59.795MHz, that he is presently, :'~'
licensed on.
If there ar~ any questions on lifts matter, I can be reached at 703-739.0300 ext. 3213.
Respectfully,
~stav 15. Oyll~-
Frequency Coordinator
'Gu~ Gyllenhoff
500 Muutg,~m,:ty Strut
Suite 100
Alcgl, lldrla, VA ;12314-1561
Fix~ 7034",.1~- 160S
Web Rddtc~s: hup://v,~,w.~la~ cnn,
ADVOCATE'S ABSTRACT, INC.
DOGWOOD PROFESSIONAL CENTER
5302 ROUTE 25A - P.O. BOX 609
WADING RIVER, N.Y. 11792
(516) 929-6686
FAX (516) 929-3708
VARIANCE SEARCH
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
)
STATE OF NEW YORK )
$s.:
STEPHEN M. RICHARDSON, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is the President of Advocate's Abstract, Inc. and has had a
search made, under his direction of the records and/or files of the
County Clerk and Registrar of the County of Suffolk for the purpose of
an application for a variance affecting the following premises:
TAX MAP DESIGNATION:
DISTRICT: 1000 SECTION: 141.00 BLOCK: 03.00 LOT: 044.000
That such search includes a chain of title as to the premises and all of
the adjoining lots since prior to 1/1/57 and such search shows, and he
does certify that, according to the names listed herein as shown by the
search of the public records, no contiguous property was owned by an
owner of the property involved since that date.
That this affidavit is made to assist the Board of Appeals of the Town
of Southold , to reach any determination which requires that said Board
will rely upon the truth hereof.
This company's liability is limited to Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00)
Dollars for negligence only.
No policy of insurance is to be issued hereunder.
ADVOCATE'S ABSTRACT, INC.
Sworn to before me this
~7~ day of February, 1998
( Notary P~lic
KAREN L. RICHARDSON
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Yo~k
01 RI4837291
Qualified in Suffolk Cpunty
Commission Expires~
By:
Steven M. Richardson
SUBJECT PREMISES
SCTM: 1000-141.00-03.00-044.000
CHAIN OF TITLE
Carrie F. Mapes
to
Loretta A. Williams &
Walter L. Williams
DEED:
Dated: 08/23/54
Rec'd: 10/29/56
Liber: 4204 cp 505
Conveys tax lot 044
NOTE: Walter Williams predeceased Loretta Williams intestate,
leavinG Loretta Williams, his wife, John Williams, GeorGe Williams
and Walter Williams, his sons. John Williams and GeorGe Williams
predeceased Loretta Williams without issue. Loretta Williams died
in 1958, leavinG as her sole heir, Walter Williams. Walter
Williams died in 1985 leavinG his widow, Geneva Williams, as his
sole heir.
North Fork Bank & Trust
Company as Executor of
the Last Will and Testament
of Geneva L. Williams who
died on 3/16/86
to
Clarence Booker, Joseph Booker,
Geneva McDaniel, Mary L. Booker,
Patricia Iverson & Ollie Booker
DEED:
Dated: 07/21/87
Rec'd: 12/09/87
Liber: 10489 cp 267
Conveys tax lot 044
LAST DEED OF RECORD
BY:
Ste~5~-e~ M.--Ri~nards0n
Sworn to before me this
c27ta day of February, 1998.
Notar~ Public
KAREN L RICHARDSON
NOTARY PUBUC, State of New Yo~k
01 RI4837291
Qualaed In Suffolk C, ounty...~
ADJOINING SUBJECT PREMISES
TO THE NORTH
SOUND AVENUE
By:
Steven M. Richardson
Sworn to before me this
c27-~ day of February, 1998
Notary Pu~31ic
KAREN t. R~CRARDSON
NOTARY PUBLIC. State o! New
01 RI4837291
Qualified in $~olk ~C,~fqc
CommiSsion Expi[es_.~.~-~
ADJOINING SUBJECT PREMISES
TO THE EAST
SCTM: 1000-141.00-03.00-043.000
CHAIN OF TITLE
Louise Adams & Grant L. Adams
to
Jefferson Stovall &
Diantha Stovall ux
DEED :
Dated: 05/28/46
Rec'd: 05/29/46
Liber: 2571 cp 99
Conveys tax lot 043
Diantha Stovall as surviving
tenant by the entirety of
Jefferson Stovall
to
Alice Funn & Alease Gregg
DEED :
Dated: 05/03/92
Rec'd: 05/20/92
Liber: 11469 cp 547
Conveys tax lot 043
Alease Gregg aka
Alease Grigg
to
Alice Funn
DEED :
Dated: 08/23/96
Rec'd: 08/29/96
Liber: 11789 c[ 857
Conveys tax lot 043
Alice Funn & Diantha Stovall
(as to a life estate)
to
Alice Funn
DEED :
Dated: 04/03/97
Rec'd: 04/16/97
Liber: 11825 cp 852
Conveys tax lot 043
LAST DEED OF RECORD
By:
Steven M. Richardson
Sworn to before me this
~q_~6 day of February, 1998.
/Notary Public
KAREN L. RICHARDSON
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York
01 RI4837291
Qualified in Suffolk Count'/
Commission Expires ~l::=t~ Iq~
ADJOINING SUBJECT PREMISES
TO THE SOUTH
LONG ISLAND RAILROAD
By:
Steven M. Richardson
Sworn to before me this
~7~, day of February, 1998.
Notary Public
KAREN L. RICHARDSON
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New ¥o~k
01 RI4837291
Qualified in Suffolk Count,/
Commission Expires ~I~ ilq~
ADJOINING SUBJECT PREMISES
TO THE WEST
SCTM: 1000-141.00-03.00-045.001
CHAIN OF TITLE
Elizabeth Jones Corey
to
Hugh Ford
DEED :
Dated: 05/24/43
Rec'd: 07/16/71
Liber: 2296 cp 499
Conveys tax lot 045.1
Irene Ford surviving widow
of Hugh Ford
to
James Simmons &
Mattie Simmons ux
DEED :
Dated: 07/06/71
Rec'd: 07/16/71
Liber: 6967 cp 461
Conveys tax lot 045.1
LAST DEED OF RECORD
By:
Steven M. Richardson
Sworn to before me this
~$~day of February, 1998.
Notary Pub~
KAREN L RICHARDSON
NOTARY PUBUC, State of New York
01R14837291
Qualified In Suffolk County
Commission Expires _~-'? ~[q9
0
1~°35'4o" ~
/V /7°47'/0'' M
175.57'
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO: SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FROM: ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
RE: ZONING APPEAL APPLICATION
DATED: February 6. 1998
Transmitted is an application of Martin Rosen, together with
Transactional Disclosure Form, Questionnaire for filing with ZBA
application, Short Environmental Assessment form , and survey of
property.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
GHA/iLES R. GuDDY
~TTOEbT]~ -~T LAW
APR I 6
April 9, 1998
zoning Board of Appeals
ToWn of southold
53095 Main Road
p.O. Box 1179
southold, New York 11971
Re: Martin Rosen - interpretation/Variance
SCTM 1000-141-03-044-000
Gentlemen/Madam:
Enclosed for the Board's file in this matter and to be made part of
the record at the time of hearing are the following documentS:
1. single and Separate Search
2. Letter from the Long Island Railroad, the property owner on the
south, dated April 1, 1998, consenting to this application.
3. Letter from the personal communications Industry Association
dated April 7, 1998, regarding FCC frequency and use of
license-
We also enclose the Affidavit of Mailing.
Very truly yours,
charles R. cuddy~
CRC: e3 c
Encs·
GH AFIL ES R. (]3 UDDY
August 10, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Application - Martin Rosen - Radio Tower
Dear Board Members:
Enclosed is an additional memorandum submitted on behalf of the
applicant. The memorandum addresses interpretation of Article XVI
of the Town Code (Wireless Communication Facilities). The
applicant requests you consider this before making your decision in
this matter.
CRC:JML
Enclosure
Very truly yours,
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter of the Application
of
MARTIN ROSEN
MEMORANDUM
The applicant is now aware that this Board is considering an
interpretation of the Town Code which effectively would conclude
that there are two versions of the Wireless Facilities law, one
version incorporating the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and a
second version applying not only to telecommunications towers, but
to other communication facilities, i.e. radio towers. We are
concerned that this approach does not interpret the Code but
actually rewrites it. In fact, there would be two Codes and this
two Code approach is fundamentally unfair to an applicant who must
decipher the Code and attempt to bring meaning to it.
In the very first instance the Code incorporates the Telecom-
munications Act of 1996. It does this through the wireless
communications definition. It does not make reference to any other
wireless communications but only to those referred to in that Act.
It is apparent that the drafters of the Town Code provision were
concerned with wireless cellular communications. This is not
surprising since the United States Congress drafted a law that was
concerned with cellular communications and not with other communi-
cations,
taxicab facilities. What generated the Town Code is
Applications were being made by cellular facilities
locations including residential locations. The Town
i.e. private radio communications such as those used by
no secret.
in various
reacted to
this and enacted a Code provision dealing with wireless communica-
tions as defined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, particular-
ly cellular phones.
The canons of construction concerning interpretation of
statutes indicate that because zoning provisions are in derogation
of the common law, the Zoning code should be strictly construed.
Moreover, the canons of construction, when there is some doubt as
to the meaning of a provision, require the interpretation to be in
favor of the applicant. And, significantly, the canons of
construction require that all parts of a statute, rule or regula-
tion be read together. (See, New York General Construction Law and
97 New York Jurisprudence 2d - Statutes.)
The Board, in making an interpretation, cannot pick and choose
those sections of the Code more favorable to a proposed result.
Parts of definitions alone cannot be relied upon as opposed to the
whole definition and all of the definitions must be considered
harmoniously. The Board cannot rely upon part of the Code, such as
a purpose clause, and exclude other parts of the Code. The law
cannot be re-made to fit the facts. Here, the facts, a radio tower
and office use, are not controlled by Article XVI (Wireless
- 2 -
Communications Facilities).
It is difficult to conceive that an argument would be made
that excludes a key definition and then concludes that the Code
refers to wireless communications not included in the 1996 Act.
There is nothing in the Town Code that indicates it is inclusive of
any form of communication other than the Telecommunications Act of
1996. Clearly that Act does not include radio towers. Yet, we are
led to understand that this Board is being urged to interpret
Article XVI of the Code and find that radio towers are regulated by
considering the definition of "Wireless Communication Facility" and
avoiding altogether the definition "Wireless Communication". This
approach is fundamentally flawed.
It is contrary to the canons of construction applied to
statutes, codes, rules and regulations, to exclude part of the
provision or Article being interpreted. Moreover, the language in
the "Wireless Communication Facility" definition relies upon the
"Wireless Communication" definition. The same term "telecommunica-
tion services" appears in each definition. It has been suggested
that reference to a dictionary for each word of this term results
in radio towers being embraced by Article XVI. The direct and
simple answer is that radio towers, although referred to in another
section of the Town Code [Section 100-230 D(1)], are not referred
to in Article XVI. Not parenthetically the Town Code, in the
section just cited, refers separately to telecommunication towers
- 3 -
to include the Wireless Communication definition in the Code. It
is quite clear they did; it gives meaning to the remaining
provisions.
The transmission of the signals utilized by the applicant is
the same as a transmission of signals for a taxicab company.
Assuredly, this Board is not taking the position that the taxicab
tower is regulated by the Wireless Communications provision of the
Town Code. The applicant before you should receive the benefit of
that interpretation. In short, the Code provision does not
regulate all towers and there are significant differences between
tower uses. A radio tower does not provide a means of communica-
tion for the general public; it is not used by the general public;
the user does not get billed for its use; and no income is
generated by its use.
In the past the Board has determined that a business may have,
as an accessory use, a communications tower. This application is
directed to obtaining that same determination. (See, Zoning Board
of Appeals decision in Metro One #4023, 1992.)
If there is some provision in the Code that the Board believes
this applicant has overlooked, we would be pleased to discuss this
with you; but, if this is your position, you should allow the
applicant to address
a one-sided debate.
We suggest to
it. Otherwise, this applicant is engaged in
We are hopeful that this will not occur.
you that a fair reading of the Town Code,
- 5 -
and radio towers.
It is not credible to assert that the meaning of a specially
used term, words of art, i.e. "telecommunications services" is
defined through segregating each word, looking up the definitions,
and then reconstructing the term in accordance with various
dictionary definitions. "Telecommunications service" is a
specially defined term, as is "accessory use" or "set back" or
"residential cluster", all of which are defined outside of the
normal dictionary definition. Telecommunications service appears
in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and is defined as:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. - The term 'telecommunications
service' means the offerina of telecommunications for a fee
directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be
effectively available directly to the public, regardless of
the facilities used. Sec. 3(a) 51. (Emphasis supplied.)
Telecommunications service does not embrace a privately owned
and operated radio tower. A finding that a radio tower is included
in Article XVI of the Town Code flies in the face of the rules of
construction and interpretation, it is contrary to the definitions
in the Town Code and in the Act, and is a result driven determina-
tion.
The Board cannot
consulting a dictionary;
extract meaning from words of art by
and it certainly cannot exclude parts of
a Code provision to arrive at the meaning of the entire provision,
otherwise the Board is faced with the anomalous position of
asserting that the legislative body, the Town Board, had no reason
- 4 -
Article XVI (Wireless Communications Facilities), when all of it is
considered together, compels the conclusion that a private radio
tower is not included in the definition or body of Article XVI and
a radio tower is not regulated by the Wireless Communication
Facilities Article.
Dated: Riverhead, New York
August 7, 1998
Respectfully submitted,
Charles R. Cudd~
- 6 -
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Homing
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064
Telephone (516) 765-1809
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMO
TO: Building Inspector Gary Fish
Attn: Ed Forrester, Director of Enforcement
FROM: Jerry Goehringer, ZBA Chalrman~ ff?~(~. ~
DATE: August 5, 1998
SUBJECT: Mr. Cuddyts Submission regarding M. Rosen
Proposed Tower/Office Use
Notwithstanding the fact that there may be a vote determining
whether or not it will fall wilhin the Telecommunications Law under
Article XVI, Mr. Cuddy on July 10, 1998 amended his building
permit application to include an office use and radio tower. Would
you please update the new Notice of Disapproval to include this new
(]ItAiILES P-~. (]]UDDY
July 24, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Martin Rosen - Interpretation/Variance
SCTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Dear Board Members:
Last night when I appeared before you, on behalf of Martin Rosen,
I requested that you advise the applicant, his expert witness from
the New York Institute of Technology, Professor Oshen, and myself
if there was a basis for an interpretation other than the
interpretation proposed by Mr. Rosen of Article XVI of the Town
Code (Wireless Communications Facilities).
We have urged the Board, on Mr. Rosen's behalf, to determine that
the radio tower is outside the scope of the Wireless Communications
Facilities Article of the Town Code. Our argument was initially
set forth in the Memorandum to the Board in April of this year. We
have had three hearings, including last night's hearing, and there
has been no indication from any of the Board Members of a basis of
interpretation other than that proposed on behalf of Mr. Rosen.
Last evening you impressed upon me the fact that the building
inspector had not made a formal determination on the request for
interpretation with respect to the radio tower and that you were
awaiting that determination. This matter did not appear on your
agenda for further consideration. I was therefore extraordinarily
surprised to learn that this matter was discussed, and apparently
a straw vote taken, during your work session following this
hearing.
If we had been apprised that you were considering Mr. Rosen's
application we would have attended your deliberations. That would
have afforded the applicant an opportunity to have received a
minimum answer to our inquiry concerning a different approach to
LEGAL NOTICE
SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY,
AUGUST 13, 1998
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN, pursuant to Section 265/
of the Town Law and the Code
of the Town of Southold, the fol-
lowing applications will be hel0~
for public hearings by the
SOUTHOLD ToWiq BOARD
OF APPEALS, at the Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,
Southold, New York 11971, on
THURSDAY, AUGUST 13,
1998 at the times noted below
(or as soon thereafter as pos-
sible):
6:15 p.m. AppL No. 4590- W.
KRUPSKI. A Variance is re-
quested under Article XXIV,
Section 100-244B for a proposed
addition to existing dwelling
with an insufficient front yard
setback. Location of Property:
315 Pat Lane, Mattituck, NY;
Parcel #1000-114-10-6.
6:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4591- A.
ROMANO. A Variance is re-
queste~--ff~er Article IliA, Sec-
tion 100-30A.3 of the Bulk and
Parking Schedule, based upon
the building Inspector's June 15,
1998 Notice of Disapproval for
a permit to construct addition and
alteration for a seasonal dwell-
ing, which states:
"Under Article lllA, Sectionsp
100-30A.3 of the Bulk and Park~:
lng Schedule in the R-40 Zone,
the lot size of 8,662 sq. ft. has an
allowable lot coverage of 20%
or 1,735 sq. ft. Proposed con-
struction will have 1,980 sq. ft.
of lot coverage of 22.9+- per-
cent." Location of Property:
1380 Leeton Drive, Southold,
NY; Parcel #1000-58-2-2.
6:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4593- Z.
Svatovic. A Variance is r~':-
quested under Article XX1V,
Section 100-244B for approval
of an insufficient rear yard set-
back at less than the required 35
feet. Under Article XXIII, Sec-
tion 100-232A, comer lot front
yards are required from both
roads, and one yard other than
the front shall be deemed a reapI'
yard and the other a side yard.
Location of Property: 12355
New Suffolk Avenue,
Cutchogue, NY; Parcel #1000-
116-5-2.
6:25 p.m. Appl. No. 4595- W.
TUFANO. Variance under
Article XXIll, Section 100-
239.4B based on the July 15,
1998 Notice of Disapproval in
which applicant has applied for
a building permit to construct
new dwelling with deck addition
NYi~ilffcel #1000-121-2-4~
tp.m. Appl. No. 458t -
JO S ~"~'P H LEBKUECHER.
This is a request for a Variance
based upon the Building
Inspector's March 4, 1998 No-
tice of Disapproval regarding the
proposed construction of a re-
taining wall up to 20 ft. in height
and fence 6 ft. in height. The rea-
sons for both disapprovals are
because both as proposed in the
front yard in this A-C District are
not permitted to be higher than 4
ft., Article XXIII, Section 100-
23 l-A. Location of Property:
935 Franklinville Road, Laurel,.f
NY; 1000-125-2-2.2.
7:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4594 - M.ff
FERRARIS. A Variance is ~
quested under Article XXIII,
Section 100-23 lB based upon
the Building Inspector's June 15,
1998 Notice of Disapproval
which states: "Fences located in
side or rear yards shall not ex-
ceed 6 V2 feet in height." The
fence is proposed for the exist-
ing accessory tenms court struc-
tare. Location of Property: 3585
Orchard Street, Orient, NY; Par-
cel 1000-27-2-2. I 0.
7:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4589- R.
SLEDJESKi. Special Excepti~
under the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-31 B- 13
for a proposed Accessory Bed
and Breakfast Use. Zone Dis~
trict: LB Limited Business. Lo:~
cation of Property: 305 North
Road at intersection with Sound
Road, Greenport, NY; Parcel ID
#1000-35-1-21.
7:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4509- E~.
TONYES/SOUTHOLD AUTO-
MOTIVE. This is an application
req~ Variances based upon
the Bu lding Inspector's August
13, 1997 Notice of Disapproval.
Applicant has applied for a
building permit to construct ad-
dition and to alter existing gaso-
line station building, and the ap-
fPollCation was disapproved tbr thc
llowing reasons:
"under Article XXW, Section
100-243A, a nonconforming box//
building with a nonconforming
use shall not be enlarged, recon.;/~'~
structed or structurally alteretl
unless the use of the building is
changed to a conforming use.
The preexisting building is lo-
cated in the Hamlet Business
District and is not a permitted use
in this district. The side and rear
yard setbacks do not conform to
the required 10 ft. side and 25 fi.
rear yard..." Location of Prop-
erty: Citgo Station, 54360 Main
Road, Southold, NY. Parcel
1000-61-4-23.
7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4544 -
MART1N ROSEN. Location of
at less than 75 feet from existing Property: 11780 Sound AvenUe,
bulkhead. 2482 Camp Mineola Mattitack, NY;#1000-141-3-44.
Road, Mattituck, NY; Parcel Applicantisrequestinganlnter-
#1000-1220-9-9.6. ' pretation regarding a proposed
6:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4587- ,,,/.tower structure in this LIO Light-
JOHN DWYER. Variance under ,~'Industrial-Office Zone District,
Article XXIV, Section 100-244,~~' and/or Variances for a proposed
based upon the Building tower structure under Article
Inspector's May 5, 1998 Notice XIV, Sections 100-165B, 100-
of Disapproval which disap- 142, 100-165B, 100-162C.3.
proved an application for a per- TbeBooalofAppealswillat said
mit to construct an addition to
dwelling for the reason that it
encroaches on the combined side
yard setbacks. Location of Prop-
erty: 2625 Bay Shore Road,
Greenport, NY; Parcel #1000-
53-4-21.
6:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4596-
BERYL CAFFREY. A Vari-
ance is requested under Article
III, Section 100-33B-4 for a cot-
time and place bear any and all per~
be heard in the above appbc~ons
or desiring to submit written state-
ments before the end of each hear-
lng. The heating will not start ear-
her than designated. The files are
available for review during Town
Hall business hours (8-4 p-m.). Ifyo~
have queslions, please do not hes~-
tateto call 765-1809.
ncr of the "as built" accessory Dated: July 27, 1998
building under BuildingPermit BY ORDER OF THE~
#22394Z issued 1017/94. The ~ SOUTHOLDTOWN~
foundation is less th~.n the ~e- ~1~ BOARD OF APPEALS
quired 20 ft. side yard setback at/~ GERARD P. 6OEHRINGER,
9395 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, Chairma~
1 X-7/30/98(240)'
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK ss:
Patricia C. kollot, being duly sworn, says that
she is the Production Coordinator, of the TRAV-
ELER WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed
at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the no-
tice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said Traveler Watchman
once each week for
/
........................................................................ weeks
successively, commer)cing on the ...~....? ...........
day/oCli ' ii ....................... ¢. ~,.z ......... 19 ..~...
Sworn to before me tllJs ....... ~.~. ........... day of~
............ .......
Notary Public
BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER
NOTARY PLIBUC, State of Hew York
No, 4806846
~ualified in Suffolk Cou_nl~' L
Commission Expires ~/31/~
(]~H ARL}~S a.
ATTOItNEY AT LAX'/
JUL 6
July 10, 1998
Town of Southold
Building Department
53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Attn: Gary Fish, Building Inspector
Re: Martin Rosen - Radio Tower
8CTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Dear Mr. Fish:
You may recall that we met on June 9th to discuss the alternative
application of my client, Martin Rosen for a radio tower as an
accessory use to an office in the Light Industrial District at Mr.
Rosen's site in Mattituck. This is in accordance with the letter
written to you dated March 23, 1998, a copy of which is enclosed.
At that time you indicated to me that you would forward a further
disapproval and request for interpretation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. However, after your discussion the following day with
Gerard Goehringer, the Board Chairman, you apparently believed it
was not necessary to forward a further notice or letter to the
Board.
At the last hearing in this matter, on June 11, 1998, Mr.
Goehringer requested that for "housekeeping purposes" the
alternative proposal be submitted to you in full so that the Board
could have your determination as part of its record. I therefore
enclose an AmendedApplication together with a combined survey/site
plan showing the existing house, the proposed office use of that
house (the front portion only) and radio tower. Would you please
forward your determination to the Board so that it will have it as
part of its record for its next meeting which is July 23rd.
CRC:ejc
Encs.
Very truly yours,
Charles
JUL 6
March 23, 1998
Town of Southold
Building Department
53095 Main Road, P.O. Box
Southold, New York 11971
1179
Attention of aary Fish, Building Inspector
Re: Martin Rosen - Radio Tower
SCTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Dear Mr. Fish:
My client, Martin Rosen, desires to erect a radio communications
tower for his business (he has a private FCC radio license) at a
site in Mattituck. He has made application to the Planning Board
for site plan approval and also to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
a set back variance as well as a interpretation/variance for the
height of this 85' tower.
Initially the application was based on the new provision of the
Town Code relating to telecommunication towers (Local Law 26-1997).
Having reviewed the Federal statute referred to in the Town Code
and the Code of Federal Regulations it would appear to me that any
reference to the Federal Act is directed towards public utilities.
Thus, the application as made and the determination set forth in
your Notice of Disapproval of February 18, 1998 may not be correct.
I am doubtful that the Town Code provision (Local Law 26-1997)
applies to a private radio tower. This has significance because a
determination must be made as to whether the tower is a primary use
or simply an accessory use to a building at the site. Would you
please review this matter and indicate to me whether a private
radio tower used in connection with the applicant's trucking
business falls under the provisions of the Town Code regarding
telecommunications towers or is, in fact, to be considered as an
accessory to the office building at the site.
Very truly yours,
CRC:ejc
Charles R. Cuddy
cc: Town Attorney
June 8, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
JUN I o
Re:
Application of Martin Rosen to
Construct a ~,~1~ Tcwer
SCTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Dear Board Members:
At the hearing on April 14, 1998, one of the neighbors addressed
various questions to the applicant. Set forth below are the
questions as noted in the transcript and following each question is
the answer:
Where is the antenna placed on the tower?
A. The antenna, approximately 3 feet in length and 2
diameter, is placed at the top of the tower.
inches in
Is Mr. Rosen going to lease out space on the tower?
A. It is not Mr. Rosen's intention to lease space on the
tower; if the Town requests that he do so he will consider
that request.
Has Mr. Rosen ever thought of leasing space on another antenna
somewhere else?
A. It is difficult to lease space on another tower because of
frequency incapatibility; it is expensive and would require
leasing telephone lines.
How will the actual transmission take place?
A. The radio transmitter may be operated manually by a full or
part-time dispatcher or by remote wireless from Oceanside.
5. What is his effective range area on VHP?
A. Based on a tower of 85 feet the range will be 15-20 miles.
6. What is the range distance for the Oceanside transmitter?
A. The range allows for transmissions to Riverhead.
7. Does Mr. Rosen have any other towers on Long Island?
A. Mr. Rosen does not have any other towers on Long Island.
Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
June 8, 1998
Page 2
How will he actually link the transmitters together?
A. The height of the Mattituck tower will allow for
transmission from Oceanside.
What is the size of the equipment? Does he need 600 sq. ft. to
house the equipment?
A. The equipment may be housed in a small area; however the
building will include an office and storage area.
10.
Does he have Health Department approvals for a well and a
cesspool? Is he going to have running water?
A. Whatever is necessary to comply with Health Department
requirements will be done. This is a matter taken care of
during site plan review. Mr. Rosen anticipates having
running water.
Please include the reponses, which are submitted on behalf of the
applicant, in the Board's file.
CRC:ejc
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Cuddy~/
W~, the undersigned, oppose thl~anting of a variance to Martin Ro,,~i,,(contract vendee) to erect a
100 foot communications towef~0 stories) on the property owned b)~ie Booker & others on Sound
Avenue between the intersections of Pacific Street and Lipco Road. The site, approximately 11,850 sq.
ft., is located between two (2) residential homes parallel to the Long Island Railroad tracks. Our
Southold Town Building Inspector, disapproved Mr Rosen's request on February 18, 1998, siting that
the tower would be located on a non-conforming lot in a L.I. (Light Industrial) district which is not
permitted, the tower would not meet the required rear yard set backs of 70 feet and the proposed tower
would be located less than 100 feet from the nearest dwelling(s). We also understand there has been a
previous application for a similar communication tower in Mattituck which has drawn opposing
signatures from over 350 residents of Southold Town. ~
zone variance request. /
If this is granted -- it will open the door to almost any /~f
NAME
We, the undersigned, oppose tha~l~ranting of a variance to Martin Ros~iil,(contract vendee) to erect a
100 foot communications towet~l[0 stories) on the property owned b~lie Booker & others on Sound
Avenue between the intersections of Pacific Street and Lipco Road. The site, approximately 11,850 sq.
ft., is located between two (2) residential homes parallel to the Long Island Railroad tracks. Our
Southold Town Building Inspector, disapproved Mr Rosen's request on February 18, 1998, siting that
the tower would be located on a non-conforming lot in a L.I. (Light Industrial) district which is not
permitted, the tower would not meet the required rear yard set backs of 70 feet and the proposed tower
would be located less than 100 feet from the nearest dwelling(s). We also understand there has been a
previous application for a similar communication tower in Mattituck which has drawn opposing
signatures from over 350 residents of Southold Town.
If this is granted -- it will open the door to almost any zone ~ariance request.
W~e, the undersigned, oppose tlll~o~anting of a variance to Martin Ro~l~(contract vendee) to erect a
100 foot communications towet~0 stories) on the property owned b~Jllie Booker & others on Sound
Avenue between the intersections of Pacific Street and Lipco Road. The site, approximately 11,850 sq.
ft., is located between two (2) residential homes parallel to the Long Island Railroad tracks. Our
Southold Town Building Inspector, disapproved Mr Rosen's request on February 18, 1998, siting that
the tower would be located on a non-conforming lot in a L.I. (Light Industrial) district which is not
permitted, the tower would not meet the required rear yard set backs of 70 feet and the proposed tower
would be located less than 100 feet from the nearest dwelling(s). We also understand there has been a
previous application for a similar communication tower in Mattituck which has drawn opposing
signatures from over 350 residents of Southold Town.
If this is granted -- it will open the door to almost any zone variance request.
INTER-OFFICE MEMO
TO: Jerry Goehringer, Chairman
FROM: ZBA Office
DATE: August 3, 1998
SUBJECT: Martin Rosen
Building Inspector Gary Fish stopped by about 2:20 this afternoon,
and said he understands that the ZBA made an interpretation
regarding the M. Rosen file. Gary said that since thers was a
~straw opinion]vote from the members at the July 23rd meeting,~
that he would prefer to wait until the ZBA acts before he takes any
other action.
The only assistance we could offer Gary was a copy of the draft
minutes and hearing.
cc: ZBA Members
NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1998
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following application will
be held for public hearing by the
APPEALS~ at the Southold Town Hall,
York 11971, on THURSDAY~ JUNE 11~
as soon thereafter as possible):
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF
53095 Main Road, Southold, New
1998 at the time noted below (or
7:30 p.m.
ROSEN (OWNER: O.
Avenue, Mattituck,
CONTINUED HEARING: Appl. No. 4544 - MARTIN
Booker & ano). Location of Property: 11780 Sound
NY; County Parcel #1000-141-3-44. This is a
the Building
request for Interpretation and/or Variances based upon
Inspector's February 18, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a
building permit application to construct a tower for telecommurdcations
use, for the following reasons: 1) the proposed telecommunications
tower being located on a non-conforming lot in an LI District is not
permitted according to Section 100-165B; 2) the proposed tower being
the principal use on the lot is required to have a roar yard setback of
70 feet pursuant to Art. XIV, 100-142; 3) the proposed tower is
required to be located at least one-hundred (100) feet from the nearest
PAGE 2
ZBA HEARINGS
FOR JUNE 11, 1998
dwelling unit pursuant to Article XVI, Section 100-162C.3 .... ~
Dated:
May 20, 1998.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman
RIVERHEAD BUILDING' oOrygarage, Article III, Section
SUPPLY CO.. (R~-opened as 100-31B(13).LueationofProp-
per Board Resolution adopted erty; 680 Midway: ROad,
May 19,1998).This isavarianc6 Southold, NY; 1000-90-2;9.1;
request hasod up0n the Building Cedar Beach Pask, LOt 111-112-
Inspecto?s Janua~ 2, 1998 No- part of 144 (as a single parcel).
ticeofDisapprovalwhichreads - 6:40p.m. Appl. No. 4575-
as follows: ".~.1) the proposed FRANKGASTON. This is a
sin~tuse being locatedin an LIO variance request under the Zoo-
DisUint is permitted to have a ingCodeArticleXXIII~ Section
maximumof60feetoffrentage 100-239.4B based upon the
on one street. The proposed .Building Inspector's Augnst 20,
building is ~oproximatbly 115 ff. 1997 Notice of Disapproval (up-
facingRt. 25. Ptu~mnt to Article datedS/7/98), disapproving a
XIII, Section 100-133C; 2) buildingpermitapplicationfora
When fences are lbcated in or deck addition to dwelling with a ·
along side and rearyards, they setback at less than 75 feet f~om
shall not exceed 6½ feet in a bulkhead, concrete wall, or
height, pursuant to 100-23 lB..."
Location of PropetVj: 74610 and
74500 Main Road, Greenport,
· NY; 1000-46-1-1 and2. l,com-
bined as a single lot.
6:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4568-
DOMINICK SEGRETE. This
is a variance request under the
Zoning Code, Article XXII, Sec-
tion I00-239.4B, based upon the
Building Inspector's April 9,
1998 Notice of Disapproval, dis-
ap. proving a building permit ap-
plication for an in. grou,nd pool
and deck addition due to its
posed location within 75 feet
from the bulkhead, concrete
wall, rip rep or similar structure,
at 4000 Wunneweta Road,
Nassau Point Club Properties,
Cutchogue, NY; 1000-111-14-
22.1.
6:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4569-
FRANK KROPF. This is a
variance r~quest under Zoning
Code Article 1II, Section 100-33,
based upon the Building
Inspector's April 8, 1998 Notice
of Disapproval, disapproving a
building permit application for
an addition which will create a
non-conformity in that the exist-
lng garage will not be located in
the rear yard at 1820 Marlene
Lane, Laurel, NY; 1000-144-2-
33.
6:15 p.m. Apol. No. 4570-
JOSEPH FRAZZITTA. This
is a variance request under the
Zoning Code, Article XXIlI,
Section 100-239.4B for permis-
sion to consh'uct deck addition
with gazebo at a setback of less
than 75 feet from the bulkhead
at 1420 Inlet Way at Cedar
Beach, Southold, NY; 1000-92-
6:20 p.m. Appl. No. 4572-
NICHOLAS METHVAN.
This is a variance request under
the Zoning Code, Paticle XXIV,
Section 100-244B, based upon
the Building Inspectors April 16,
1998 and April 19, 1998 Notices
of Disapproval; disapproving a
buildingpermit application for a
deck and addition which will
exceed the allowable lot cover-
iage 6f20% for this nonconform-
ng lot. Location of Property:'
1630 Theresa Driv~e, Mattituck,
NY; 1000-115-14-3; also known
as Lot 6, Deep Hole Creek Es-
tates.
6:25 p.m Appl. No. 4574-
PREM CHATPAIL This is a
variance request under the Zon-
ing Code A~ic!e XXIII, Section
100-239.4B based upon the
Building luspector's March I0,
1998 and January 6, 1997 disap-
proving a building permit appli:
cation for a proposed (two-story)
addition to dwelling and pro-
posed accessory g _ac~ge location
which are proposed within 75
fect ora bulkhead concrete wall,
or simila~*htrUcture~ 'Applicanf s
February 2; ! 998 Affidavit states
the ~rol~ns~d use ofgarege to be
for occepi~ble space" intended'
as a'famfly io0m, lthrery/study
with v4ct~,bar facility. Another
january 6, '1997 Notice of Dis-
approval ~garding this site was
issued df~l~p, roving a proposed
gue~st annex in proposed accas-
similar structure, at 1875
~;view Avenue, Greenport,
1000-52-5-5.
6:45p.m. Appl. No. 4571-
WALTER MILLIS. This is a
variance request under the Zon-
ing Code Article IIIA, Section
100-30A.3, based upon the
Building Inspector's April 14,
1'998 Notice of Disapproval, dis-
aEproving a building permit ap-
plication to remove ex~sting shed
and replace with accessory ga-
rege, which will exceed allow-
able lot coverege of 20% at 1800
(a/k/a 1875) Village Lane, Ori-
ent' NY; 10000-24-2-22.
6:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4576?
CHARLES D. SNYDER. This
is a variance request under the
Zoning Code, Article ILIA, Sec-
tion 100-30A.4, based upon the
Building Inspector's May 8, 1998
Notice of Disapproval, disap-
proving a building permit aPpli-
cation for an becessory garage
due to its proposed location in an
area other than the rear yard at
704 Wiggins Lane, Greenport;
1000-35-4-28.24 (formerly
CTM Lot 19).
6:55 p.m, Appl. No. 4577-
CARL AND LYNNE
FR/TSCHER. This is a vari-
ance request under Article based
upon the Building Inspector's
May 8, 1998 Notice of Disap-
proval, disapproving a building
permit.application for a new
single-family dwelling with pro-
posed front yard setbacks of less
than 50 feet. Location of Prop-
er~: 135 Pine Tree Court, and
along Pine Court Extension (a/
k/a Private Roads), Cutchogue,
NY; 1000-98-1-7.15.
7:10 p.m. Appl. No. 4578-
STEPHEN AND ANGELA
PUTZL This is a variance re-
LEGAL NOTICE
SoUTHOLD ToWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267
of the Town Law and the Code
of the Town of Southold, the
following applications will be
held for ~ubhc heatings by the
sOUTHOLD'TOWNBOARD
OF APPEALS, at the Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road~
Southold, New York 11971, on
THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1997
as notod beinw (or as soon there'
after as possible): "
5:45p.m. North Shore Yacht
Sales, AppL No. ~4547
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK ss:
Patricia C. Lollot, being duly sworn, says that
she is the Production Coordinator, of the TRAV-
ELER WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed
at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the no-
tice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said Traveler Watchman
once each week for
................ weeks
successively, commencing on the ...~.....00. .......
Sworn to before me this .......... i..~.....~........., day of
Notary Public
BARBARA k SCHNEIDER
quest under Article IliA, Section NOTARY PUBUC, State of New York
100-30A.4, based upon the No,
Building Inspector's April 28, ~ualified ioSu~o~kCou~ /
1998 Notice of Disapproval, dis- ¢0mmission Expima
a[~.proving a building permit ap-
pl]cati0n to construct addition to
an existing accessory garage in posed"t~ be rebuilt with an in- or Variances based upon the
a front yard location at 2575 (a/ sufficient front yard aethaek. Building Inspector's February
k/a 2500) Lighthouse Road and Location of Property: 420 18, 199gNot~ceofD.'.?Aoprova.l,.
Soundview Avenue, Southold, Lestere Road, Matlitock; 1000- disapproving a bui!dm~ peraut
NY; 1000-50-3-6. 114-7~8. . 44- application to constrict a tower
7:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4579- : 7'30 p.m. Appl. No. 45 . for teleeommunicafionsase, for
EDWARD AND AUDREY__ ' .... ~--~N OV~blER: tbefo~inwingreason: 1) thepro-
CIELATKA. This is a request ~L~So~ unsedteleco~munlcations tower
lishAecessory Apa~mant Use in Avanue, Mattatu~k,N¥;~,~o. ~ ing lot in an LI Distxict is not
the principal building of the pascel#1000--141-3-44. Thists permitted according to Section
owner-ap licantS as rovided a uestforInteqgetationand/ ' 100-165B 2)theproposodtower
under Amcle III, Section 100-
31B-13 (formerly 100-31B-14) '
oD. he Zoning Code. Location Or __
Property: 260 Cedax Summit - .de~h~nKtobeh ~e~_:~.~t?toa~su~~
Road, SoU~old, NY~ 1000-?~-9- ~:_~ use on tho ~t
29 (Baysine Terrace). ' being t~:prm~y'~ --- -~ard anolicaUons or o~uL~
ALBE~ A~' JANICE setback of T0 fectporS.usntt° endofcac~=~,---'~'-',~g'
RATTI. This is a variance re- Art X_W, 1.00-142;. 3)~o,~P~ Thehaaringwiltnotstart.ear.-
qu'--e'~"u~darArticleXX1V, Sec- .poSedtowar~requu_~:~_~__"~,',00~ narUum,, tm-. ..... regu-
lar Town Hall business hour~
permi~ appli~tion to rec nstru ...... lace hear any and 1809.
smd tune av.u p . Dated: May 20. 1998
dwelhng wh]cho was damaged all ersons u.~' .~r'~"resontat~ves BY'ORDER OF THE
OFAr r _r~?~
GERARD P GOE ~HI~, GEI~
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
TO:
FROM:
DATED:
RE:
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
$outhold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Elizabeth A. Neville
July 27. 1998
Zoning Appeal No. ~5~ - Martin Rosen
Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. a, SU~ - Martin Rosen -
application for a variance. Also included is Notice of Disapproval,
letter from Charles R. Cuddy dated February 27, 1998, listing of owners,
Short Environmental Assessment Form, Inter-Departmental Memo dated
July 2ti, 1998, Z.B.A. Questionnaire, Transactional Disclosure Form and
copy of survey. (Zoning Appeal Application #~SLtU, originally issued
February 6, 1998)
(~HAltLES Pt. (~UDDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
February 27, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Martin Rosen - Interpretation/Variance
SCTM 1000-141-03-044.000
Dear Board Members:
Supplementing our letter of January 29, 1998, we enclose the
Consent of the five owners of the above property which is the
subject of an application made by Martin Rosen for an inter-
pretation and/or set back variance for a radio communications
tower.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Cuddyu
CRC:ejc
Encs.
MAR- 5
Town of Southold Zoning ~
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Board
Re:
Application of Martin Rosen
Interpretation and/or Set Back variance
1000-141-03-44
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is one of the owners of property known as 201 Sound
Avenue, Mattituck (SCTM #1000-141-03-44) and hereby consents to the
application of Martin Rosen for an interpretation and/or set back
variance for wireless communications tower at the subject premises.
Very truly yours,
Ollie Booker
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: ss.:
On the ~ day of January, 1998, before me personally came
OLLIE BOOKER to me known to be the individual described in and
who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he
executed the same.
Notary public
c: \siteplan. sub\RosenBoo. Con
January ~, 1998
Town of Southold Zoning
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Board
Re:
Application of Martin Rosen
Interpretation and/or Set Back Variance
1000-141-03-44
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is one of the owners of property known as 201 Sound
Avenue, Mattituck (SCTM #1000-141-03-44) and hereby consents to the
application of Martin Rosen for an interpretation and/or set back
variance for wireless communications tower at the subject premises.
Very truly yours,
MabeL. Booker
On the ~.o ~' day of ~n/~ , 1998, before me personally
came MARY L. BOOKER to me known to be the individual described
in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that
She executed the same.
Notary P,.u.b, 1~ ,~o
January 28, 1998
Town of Southold Zoning
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Board
Re:
Application of Martin Rosen
Interpretation and/or Set Back Variance
1000-141-03-44
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is one of the owners of property known as 201 Sound
Avenue, Mattituck (SCTM #1000-141-03-44) and hereby consents to the
application of Martin Rosen for an interpretation and/or set back
variance for wireless communications tower at the subject premises.
Very truly yours,
~/~ Josep~ Booker
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF 8RON× : ss.:
On the '~ day oft~6~O~q~ , 1998, before me personally
came JOSEPH BOOKER to me known to/be the individual described in
and who executed the foregoing instrumeDt/and acknowledged that he
executed the same. ~~~~
Notary/Public
January 2~ , 1998
Town of Southold Z0n~ng
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Board
Re:
Application of Martin Rosen
Interpretation and/or Set Back Variance
1000-141-03-44
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is one of the owners of property known as 201 Sound
Avenue, Mattituck (SCTM #1000-141-03-44) and hereby consents to the
application of Martin Rosen for an interpretation and/or set back
variance for wireless communications tower at the subject premises.
Very truly yours,
Patricia Iverson
STATE OF MARYLAND, ~Y OF~LF-/-/~,~: ss.:
On the ~g)-~- day of~--~J//-/~y , 1998, before me personally
came PATRICIA IVERSON to me known to be the individual described
in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that
She executed the same.
January 23, 1998
Town of Southold Zoning
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Board
Re:
Application of Martin Rosen
Interpretation and/or Set Back Variance
1000-141-03-44
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is one of the owners of property known as 201 Sound
Avenue, Mattituck (SCTM #1000-141-03-44) and hereby consents to the
application of Martin Rosen for an interpretation and/or set back
variance for wireless communications tower at the subject premises.
Very truly yours,
/w-Ge~va McDaniel
On the ~ ~ ~ day of
came GENOA McDANIEL ~ to be the individual described
in and who executed the foregoing instrument and a~knowledged that
~ executed the same.
N~:a%y ~u~lic '--
APPLICANT: MARTIN ROSEN
OWNERS:
Ollie Booker
Clarence Booker
Joseph Booker
Geneva McDaniel
Mary L. Booker
Patricia Iverson
1142 East Main Street, Riverhead,
3000 Maxwell Ave., Oakland, CA
755 Rogers Ave., Brooklyn, NY
3000 Maxwell Ave., Oakland, CA
755 Rogers Avenue, Brooklyn, NY
2412 Loyola N. Way, Baltimore, MD
NY 11901
OIQ~tto See~on267 ae a~phc~ts proposed rccon- . ~1000-141-4-32.L Zone Dis-
of ~e Town Mw ~d ~e Code s~cuon o~ acccs~ s~c- ~ct: HB H~let BUsln~i~ bein~ duly swam says that
cftc To~ of Sou~ol~ ~e fol- _ ......... ~._,
lowing ap~li~wilt ~ ~ld ~
for phbli~h~e~gs' by the;
SO--OLD ~ BOA~
. OF APPEALS, at the Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,
Southold, New York 11971, on ·
THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 1998
at the time noted below (or ag
soon thereafter as possible):
6:30 p.m. ~2an~ver Hearing:
Appl. No; 4550- RUTH
~ Location of Property:
dian'~ Neck Road,
Peconic; 1000-86-7-2:2.
'- 6:35 p,m. Appl. No. 4539-
FRANK LICARI. Location of
Properly: Lot #30, Map of Ce-
dar Beach park, 485 Orchard
Lane, Southold. This' isa request
for a Waiver under Article II,
Section 100-26, based upon the
Building Inspector's September
22, 1997 Notice of Disapproval
which states...under Art cie II,
Section 100-25A~ SCTM' Lot
#1000-89-2-7 and Lot 89-2-6
have merged since-the noncon-
forming lot.shave been held in.
common ownarship at some time
after July 1, 1983... under Sec-
tion 100-25E~ no building permit
eau be issued by the Town until
this section has been complied
6: 0p.m. AppLNo. 4554- D.
LAVEGLIA. Location 0fPro~-
~S°undview Road,
Ma~titack; Parcel t000-94-2-3.
~s r~q~u~a~&~l~e~n_ari~0~)e_~ is a r~?_~e2~f?..r,a,.V~ce~ .n Coordinator, of the TRAV-
.2m4e2~(~!}:~ll, l~on tl~.~,~Bui~.., :'~ff~,998 ~goticc.oi~Dis; ,a public newspaper printed
1997Notice~er,.. ..... a~i~ovi], d~sap, provmg a build 3[k County' an.d that tho ,~,~
existing nonconformin setback · ~ e .et~ ~,~vn s,~ ~,, ~,~- . .
[0eatinn .g~ , ditiontoexistingchureh,.forthe ~nnexed ~s a pnnted copy,
--7':~'~' ' '~ followin masons:.ffJ,Undai'Ar-, in s
· p.m. Appl. No. 4555- ticle ~c~ ~,..,~,~. mm%~ o a d Traveler Watchman
DON.ALD H. McALLISTER - '-";" z--':'~-..~." ~:.";"-z%,", r
Location o'f'Premer'tv. ~,.-~ ..... non-conrormmg o~uamgvam a
doht ofwa.,ofi';£k''--~-k~-!:b*-m~ ~on-conforming uSe~ot:be
E;;t Endr, ..................................... weeks
ance based unon the~Bni'Idl,o rmz~gnesvn~recn~a~OV~ ..........
.......... ~' ermitted; the no~
......... > ................... .......
lng an apphcation for a parmit ~r,°.nt. ~ar? se~ba~..'t6: ~Ir( 25.~ ~--~'~ ~.~
to alter an ex:~,:- -~ . wmcn ~s ~s m~l tn~ ~r~l. un'eo~ ~,~_~/~/~_.~-~
o ~ ........ m an ~x, ' 7'50 :
I ...... : - , .m. A I.~[qo. 4544o-~
20 Dmtnct a non-conforming u~-r?~; r*n~
braiding with a non-conforming Vendee (Ownel::,O. BoO, er &i.c .,.
use shall not be enlarged; teton.:, ~ocatio~' e'~ : 7&.'i. '~e tn s ........ day of
structed Or stmcturaP,, o~,~.~a ' .~. :os'-roperwa- ' ..................
, '~ "'"~ ' ~: 11780 SoU-A a,,,6,
umess the use of such building ~xtv r, ~7~"~','~, :'.,'..~ ·
· . ,. ·; ,,~oun ~alx~ ~1 OOU~D} l.:;: . .................................. ,~:v .......
· a~a ,, ' ~e~q0n,. lUU' ances based upofi the-BUilding
"~fJ~ ;, m A I N i~..~ Inspector's Februa~i.18d199g~ ~-~ ///~ ~.,
,c, edr,~ {{,,k...P..,p,i.,,ff.?;' ?~o- '~ Notice Of Disapptgval.~disav.~h~.~
.... ra ~ ~lns~ow~r~t: Loca-,~ , rovin .,v- c:,}: .............................................
tiono Pro~e-r~:-'~3'~'~ t.a. 'P ga bmldmgpe~p_If.~j:. ....
~..'_-',' ,"l;'.5',~'~a'-~ ~ cation to cons~itbW~[~or~tary I~'UDlIC
,.anne; ,,~.a~?~t~?2 ~N.Yj C_0unty~ . telecommUnicati~~
farces #!090~ !2.34.19~ ~his ig i ', felioWing reas°nS:~*a~BnRA K SCHNEIDER
a requesLror a v~rianbe'paSed'~ - '.: i) th~ propOse8~'~ PUBUC, State of New Yerk
upon theiBuiidingIfisp~ctdr~s :. niCation~toWerbeing ocatedon No 4806846
February 27;. 1998:~"Noti,c? of~,: !a;non-confomaing lot in an L[ '
Disappro,~al, disapprpving i-an ~. Distri~ is.not pennitteda
apphcationfoi a ': to..a~nrg .ingto
rfhis is a request for a Variance
based upOmthe~Xoll0wingAwo
Building Ins~e¢io~.S[ N0tices-'0f
Disapproval i'egarthngmi ~ppli-'
eati6h f0? a'~ennit ~o add deck
and railing on:awaccessory plane
building: ...... !-:,'-; . ! .
(a) dis~ppr0v~d ]~eb~ 24,
1998 under ArtiCle :lII~ SeCtion
100-33A 6ecaui~ .*i. Lac~es$oI'y Harbor Road,
bUildin~ ~! exeiee~hia!ximum 35.6-7, This
allowable liuight ~f, 18 feet_.,-"
and ~; 3 f
(b) disapproyed_March 6,
1998 under Article:iIl~ Sect on {nC a bu ldi~.
q0&33 B.3 beca/~so ~t:.!~accessory- posed acc~
builaing 'oiHots~i:6ritaining b~-~ su'aetorein
tween 39,999.79~9~ sq::
quire such buUding b~ set hack .
no less than 10feetfrora anyl0t of the Bulk
line: Staircase0f3 fiN-- will nowule in the,Re40
be within 9+; feet of the rear lot
line .... .... ~ ~ ,~ lowahi~ 2
C6:45 p~ni. APpl::No 4556- lot area
.THOMAS KEAN. Location of 20%thea
Pro0erty: EastEnd Road,Fish-
100043 IOi~,i~ areqeest for
aVaria~~Build.
ing Inspeetbgs~To~embei: '~0, .
1~7 Notice: Of Di~apprOval ~orap~rox~atety
~t~,1~, -ta~{..,....Japg~on for
a'tz~xisting n°n~e0~f~rmlng
.m~ ~t~O..wmg tR'o. unds: A~fi exist-
mg o~uamg ~y~ a non..¢onform-
t~md, extended, ree0nstr~ctea,
or restored...~ pursuant to Article
XXIV, Section 100-241A,."
6:55 p.m; AppL ~o: 4557-
DOROTHY THOET. Location
of ProPerty: 380 PecOnic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel; NY; COunty
Parcel #1000-145-2'3. This is a
request for an Interpretation un-
der Article XXIV, Section 100- R-40
242A which reads as 'follows
"N .... 'all°~able lot
othmg tn this Amcle shall be
deemed to prevent th~remodel- app~ox; 700 s~
Art. ,XIV, 100~,
OTH?
~404~
East
: Seet~n
· 1000-110-6-5; Which '
under
) feet
nini-~
mum requ~remen~f4~O feet for
Lng, .reconstruction or enlarge-
~6i ofa'nb]acdn fohnlnl~ build-
ingcontaining aconformmguse, Art. XXIV,
~rovided that such action doe~ posed construction ~
on the allowable front yard,s~t- 0
mt create any new noncohfor- back Of 35' pursuant tO
of record
APPEALS 'BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
Georg~__Homing
RECEIVED
JUL 2 ' 1998.
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Cl~rk
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMO
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
ZBA Fax (516) 765-9064
Telephone (516) 765-1809
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
EUzabeth A. Neville
Town Clerk
Jerry Goehringer
ZBA Chairman
Filing of Application
The above application is transmitted for filing under the above
assigned number purs-nnt to the Bcard~s Resolution adopted
~f~c~ ~ ] 9qF which calendared the public hearing.
Thank you.
E~uelosures
LEGAL NOT[CE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19~ 1998
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of
the Town of Southold, the following application will be held for public hearing by the
SOUl HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS, at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,
Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1998 at the time noted
below (or as soon thereafter as possible):
8:15 p.m. Appl. No. 4544 - MARTIN ROSEN. (OWNERS: Booker & ano).
Location of Property: 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-141-3-44. This
is a continuation of public hearing regarding Article XVI and applicant's requests:
(A) for an interpretation regarding a proposed transmission tower/structure
in this I_I Light-Industrial Zone District, and/or
(B) for Variances based upon the Building Inspector's Februa~/18, 1998 Notice of
Disapproval, disapproving a building permit application to construct a tower for
telecommunications use, for the following reasons:
1) the proposed telecommunications tower being located on a non-conforming
lot in an LI District is not permitted according to Section 100-165B;
2) the proposed tower being the principal use on the lot is required to have a
rear yard setback of 70 feet pursuant to Art. XIV, 100-142; the proposed tower is
required to be located at least one-hundred (100) feet from the nearest dwelling unit
pursuant to Article XVI, Section 100-162C.3..."
The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or
representatives desiring to be heard in the above application or desiring to submit written
Pag~ 2 - Legal Notice
Re: November 19, 1998 Hearing
Request(s) by Martin Rosen
statements before the end of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than
designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.).
If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call 765-1809.
Dated: October 23, 1998.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,
Southold, New York, concerning this property.
OWNER(S) OF RECORD:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Nov.
If you have an interest in this project, you are invited to view the Town file(s)
which are available for inspection prior to the day of the hearing during normal
business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
BOARD OF APPEALS · TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ° (516) 765-1809
LEGAL NOTICE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY~ AUGUST 13~ 1998
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following application will
be held for public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF
APPEALS~ at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New
York 11971, on THURSDAY~ AUGUST 13~ 1998 at the time noted below
(or as soon thereafter as possible):
7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 4544 - MARTIN ROSEN. Location of
Property: 11780 Sound Avenue, Mattituck, NY; #1000-141-3-44.
Applicant is requesting an Interpretation regarding a proposed tower
structure in this LIO IAght-Industrial-Office Zone District, and/or
Variances for a proposed tower structure under Article XIV, Sections
100-165B, 100-142, 100-165B, 100-162C.3.
The Board of ~Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all
persons or representatives desiring to be heard regarding this
application or desiring to submit written statements (before conclusion
of the hearing). The hearing will not start earlier than designated.
The file is available for review during regular Town Hall business hours
(8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call
765-1809.
Dated: July 27, 1998.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman
LEGAL NOTICE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY~ APRIL 16~ 1998
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following application will
be held for public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF
APPEALS~ at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Read, Southold, New
York 11971, on THURSDAY, APRIL 16~ 1998 at the time noted below (or
as soon thereafter as possible):
7:50 p.m. Appl. No. 4544 - MARTIN ROSEN~ Contract Vendee.
(Owner: O. Booker & ano.). Location of Property: 11780 Sound
Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Parcel #1000-141-3-44. This is a
request for Variances based upon the Building Inspector's February 18,
1998 Notice of Disapproval, disapproving a building permit application to
construct a tower for telecommunications use, for the following reasons:
1) the proposed telecommunications tower being locatged on a
non-conforming lot in an LI District is not permitted according to
Section 100-165B; 2) the proposed tower being the principal use on the
lot is required to have a rear yard setback of 70 feet pursuant to Art.
XIV, 100-142; 3) the proposed tower is required to be located at least
one-hundred (100) feet from the nearest dwelling unit pursuant to
Article XVI, Section 100-162C.3 .... "
The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all
persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above application
or desiring to submit written statements before the end of each
hearing. The hearing will not start earlier than designated. The file
Page 2 - Legal Notice
'Re: Heaving for H. Rosen
ZBA Meeting of April 16, 1998
is available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4
p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call 765-1809.
Dated:
March 30, 1998.
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER~ Ch~rman
' LEGAL NOTICE ~, :7:00
. SOUTHOLDTOWN : { ALI YTJ~:Conr
'BO'ARDO. FAPPEALS: ~' ~ tract e~ ee: oouo KiTM.
:NOTICE IS ;:HEREBY ',can, tis~r~qu~,at~Interp~t~
OIVEN~ pursuit tb section 267 tion
of the ~ Law ~d ~e Code - ~s Ap~l~l~!~g
of~e To~ ofSou~ol~ ~ roi.
for phbhC hear~gs by the , ~
~AY~Y23 19~ ~mg ~ '
~r ~ ~s~ible): ~
~-~ ~ ~ A~I. No. 45~9: ' o~n~(~~t
~o~ a~;~lc III ~~cc~r~-
Secg0~ 1~-3 lB- 13 ~ csmbh~ ~ctc ~ v, ~**, ........ ,
'Access0~ A~cnf USe in based upon the *,Buildin8
~nj~Cgonws~i~of~c :~p~s ~y'5, 1998 N0~cc
0~cr; ~1 ~ ~c p~cip~ b~ld- ·of Disapproval :which~ disap-
~g of~c o~er:applic~: L~ pmv~ ~ ~ph~ ~i a per-
cagon of Pmpc~: 260 Cc~ mit to co~ct, addition to
~oad (at ~fion wi~ S~- dwcll~i ~for ~e ~on;~. it
78-9-29'(Bayside Te~¢}. y~ ~¢ks_~fiono p-
6:35 p.m. Appl. No. 4581- e~; 2625 Bay Shore Ro~,
JOSEPHLEBK~C~R. ~ :O~n~a ~; P~I'~1000-
upon ~ Buil~g inspectors : 7:30 p.m AppL No. 15~-
M~h4, 1998NoficeofDi~ MART~ ROSEN (O~ER:
construct,on ora m~g w~l ~:
up m 20 f~t ~ heist. The ~- ~ ~.~ ~. ·
sons of disapprov~ ~ ~t ~e
proposed mm~ing wall berg of ph~lic hearing regarding
tocat~ in ~ flout y~d in ~e app~ic~fS ~uest ~or ~ inter-
A-C Dis~t~is not ~i~ ~ pre~tion mgm&rig a Proposed
be higher ~n 4, ft, Article ~wers~c~sLIO~i~t-
~III 8~6on 100~231-A. ~o- Indus~-0~ce Zone Dis~ct,
cation' of, Prop~y: 935 Building !ns~ectoffs Febma~
Franklinvi~2 Roa~ :~aurel; ~°r V~c~ b~d up°n ~e
1000-125-2- . . : ~'~. ~' 18, 199gN~u~ of Disapprove,
6:40 p.m. Appl..~ 4583- &sa~prov~g a buiJ~g pe~it
B~ET~ __~ . M R~ applicafon to cons~ct a tower
~L~ER.~ ~s isa ~t for tel~o~kati~ns ~e, for
~ce under A~cle ffl, ~e folloWing~e~o~:
' Section 100-30A.3, b~ed upon 1) ~e pmpos~ telecommu-
· e B~ld~g~mffs May 2i, fiicafions ~wer being located on
~ 1998 Notice of Disapproval for a nomconf~ing lot ~ ~L1
a building pe~it to cons~ct Dis~Ct is not peri,ed accord-
d~k addition ~d a~hing ~e ~g m S~fion ~00-165B;
existing accessg~ p~ola wi~ ~ ~e:p~p0~d tower being.
im existing side y~d se~ack (at ~ pfncip~ hse 0n ~e 10t is
less ~ 15 fi. necess~ for a ~ui~ m ~e ~'~ y~d s~t-
pfin~ip~ bdilding Location of b~k bf ~0 fee~ pumu~t t6 A~.
Pro~: ~0 Mi~d P~aY, XIV, 1~142~'
Sou~old; 1000,88-2-12.1. 3) &e P~p0s~ ~wer ~
6:45p.m. Appl. No; 4585- qu~ed~l~atl~one-
IS~NDER E~Y AND AN- ~1~ f~m&e~-
GELICA BENGOLEA. ~is ~ est dwell~g ~t P~U~t m
arequest b~edupon~eBuild- title. X,~IO ~tjon :100-
ingI~pector~ May 21, ~ 162C.a..: ~7~7: -
Nofi~ of D~pmv~ for av~- ~of~~
~on 1 ~-239.4B for a d~k ~- ~m ~ ~v~ ~
&tion ~d ~tem~on w~ch wifl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y~
be loca~d wi~ 75,fe~t of a ~~s~
b~ ~j~ to a fi~ wa-
~r b~Y (G~ ~Y),~680
nonco~g ms~ ~d is? ~~(~p~ ..~'
c~d ~ ~ R~0 ~w-D~F ~ve ~ p~ ~ ~
Rcsi~n~ ~nc Dis~ct ' ~7~1~.
' 6:50 p.m. AooI. No~ 4586 ~ D~e22~ 1998
~ISA McE~OY.. ~a ~ ~ BY O~OF~
~ ~s ~y ~, !~ ~ ~o~ OF ~S
sw~g ~1 w~c~ ~s notl~ ~: ~ ~ tX-7~98~11
p~t ~ ~cle lI~S~uon
1~-30~4. ~afion o~'
e~: 2565 ~ng C~ck D~ve,
Sou&ol~ !~52-~2.
6:55 p.m. Appl. No. 4598,
~C~ PISAC~O; ~ ~
a r~ucst for a v~ce ~er
~c~ I~, S~fi0n 1~30A3,
based- upon thc Building
~pec~ffs J~e 15, 1998 N~
flee of Di~pprov~ for
sion to ~u~ ~nt y~ ~k
~om 50 f~t
48.5 f~f~ ~b~t ~dw~
~g fo~fion at 865 ~d
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK ss:
Patricia C. Lollot, being duly sworn, says that
she is the Production Coordinator, of the TRAV-
ELER WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed
at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the no-
tice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said Traveler Watchman
once each week for
/ weeks
successively, commenc~/~g on. the ....~ ............
, . . ................ ............
Sworn to before me t~is ........ ..2:.. ............... day o[
............................ ...........
Notary Public
BARBARA A. SCHNEIDER
NOTARY PUBUC, State of New York
No. 4806846
Qualified in SutfcdkCounlY /
Com=i .
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER~
BENNETT ORLOWSK/, JR.
Chairman
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
RICHARD G. WARD
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
August 25, 1999
Charles R. Cuddy, Attorney at Law
445 Griffing Avenue
Riverhead, NY 11901
RE:
Proposed Office and Radio Tower for Martin Rosen
Sound Avenue, Mattituck
SCTM# 1000-141-3-44
Zoning District Light Industrial (LI)
Dear Mr. Cuddy,
On November 4, 1998, you had requested that the Planning Board hold
off requesting an expanded part III of the Long Environmental
Assessment Form (LEAF).
However, in reviewing the Rosen file and your letter of January 8,
1999, we note your request for the specific variances required for this
project.
The Building Department will be able to tell you of the variances required
as a result of your building permit application.
If you have any questions, or require assistance, please contact the
B~din~ Department or this office.
Site ~lan Reviewer
cc: Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman. Board of Appeals
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
~ COUNTY OF SUF~LK
Real Property Tax Service Agency--_
-, i
.5 kl~ N~I,F 5
ALLII~tN!Lt M
NF-W viHyL ~II~J,NG
A~F'~LT ~kll HC~ L~,
~JEN ALLIFI~klLI M
lqP-kJ, vH-JYL 61DIdG
Ex is-l~-JCa F~d M i')ATI~,M
S(.,N F: Y "= ILo''
!!
A!.JJ M I~Jdt,4 Lt~ D B4~.~
I~ ~__AF, EL~_VAT~ H
~d id IP/NTI oN
0
0
15°55'40',£
/51, ~/?"
"CZ)
I ~IL.EOmO
17°47'10
11780 SOUND AVENUE
MATTITUCK. NE'W YORK
15o._~5' 40" Y-
151,
I
/A W/'J~-
/7°47, 10" ~/
1.17~0 SOUND
M ATT.! Z U:C~K .'*'NEw
/75.57'
AVENUE
YOI~K
SURVEY OF PROPERTY
SITUATED AT
MA?TITUCK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
S.C. TAX No. 1000-141-05-44
SCALE 1"=20'
APRIL 11, 1997
DECEMBER 4, 1997 ADDED PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
DECEMBER 18, 1997 REVISED PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
MARCH 5, 1998 REVISED PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
AREA = 11,517,67 sq, fl,
0,264 cc,
1998,
Southold Town
Planning Board
CERTIFIED TO:
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
MARTIN ROSEN
N.Y,S. Lic. No. 4g6RR
THE EXISTENCE OF RJGHTS OF WAY
AND/OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IF
Joseph A. Ingegno
Land Surveyor
PHONE (516)727-2090 Fox (516)722-5093
97-204B
DECEMBER 4,
DECEMBER 18,
MARCH B,
SURVEY OF PROPERTY
SJTUA TED A T
MATTITUCK
TOWN OF SOU'I-HOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
S.C. TAX No, 1000-141-0,5-44
SCALE 1"=20'
APRIL 11, 1997
1997 ADDED PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
1997 REVISED PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
1998 REVISED PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
JULY 13, lg98 ADDED PLOT PLAN
AREA = 11,517.67 sq. ff.
0,264
CERTIFIED TO:
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE
MARTIN ROSEN
INSURANCE COMPANY
EXISTENCE OF RIGHTS OF WAY
/OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IF
NOT SHOWN ARE NOT GUARANTEED.
Joseph A. Ingegno
Land Surveyor
N,Y.S, bc, No. 49668
PHONE (516)727-2090
OFFICES LOCATED AT
Fox (516)722-5093
9?