Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/06/2011 Hearing1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK X TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York October 6, 2011 9:44 a.m. Board Members LESLIE KANES WEISMAN JAMES DINIZIO, GEORGE HORNING KENNETH SCHNEIDER - MEMBER GOEHRINGER - Present: - Chairperson/Member JR. - Member - Member Member Member JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney~A3J VICKI TOTH Secretary Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter P.O. Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 (631)-338-1409 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing: Metro PCS New York, LLC %6507 Hiram F. Moody, Jr. & Sarah R. #6497 Susan M. Dunning %6506 Thomas R. & Wendy L. Carley %6502 John J. & Joy E. Gallagher #6505 Kenneth Seiferth, #6504 Philip & Jennifer Stanton #6508 Taubin Family Trust, #6509 Nicholas Cutrone, #6496 LIPA & T-Mobile Northeast, Goulard LLC #6433 Page: 3-55 55-61 61-74 74-79 79-110 110-123 123-137 137-157 157-164 164-165 October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING %6507 METRO PCS NEW YORK, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Metro PCS, New York. Request for variances from Article XVII Code Section 280-70J, based on an application for building permit to extend and co-locate on an existing wireless telecommunication facility and the Building Inspector's July 12, 2011 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed antenna support structures at; 1) more than the maximum code required height of 45 feet, 2) less than the code required distance to adjacent residential property lines of 500 feet. 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. Is there someone this applicant? MR. COUGHLIN: Coughlin. CHAIRPERSON spell your name? MR. COUGHLIN: Attorney for Metro behalf of Metro PCS. before the Board for here to represent Yes, Good Morning. John WEISMAN: Would you please C-O-U-G-H-L- I-N. PCS New York, and here on This is an application two area variances. One October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 being for height and the other being setbacks to residential areas. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Before you get going on this application, need the green cards and we have some correspondences in our file that I would we like to make sure you have copies of, if you don't already. One is a commentary from the Town of Southold Planning Board, the other was just Suffolk County local determination. And finally, we have a letter that we received from a neighbor on October 5th, regarding your application, a letter of opposition. We will make copies of those for you. MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you. Very good. Thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to review these. I would like to talk about this application and maybe at the end, I can address both the Planning Board memorandum and also the letter from the neighbor in the area regarding the setback. At the moment, as the Board is aware, this proposal is to co-locate on an existing pole in Mattituck. The proposal calls for the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 extension of that pole, that Metro PCS can co-locate their antennas on that extension, and additionally calls for the installation of equipment within the larger fencing compound area that exists in the middle porton of the property to the west of the existing building. Although the height does exceed the new wireless code requirements, the existing pole already does in fact greatly exceed that height requirement, and that relief was granted by this Board under the Fire Code, through several different applications. I believe the history of that pole goes back to the early 90's, when the original application was brought. Subsequently to the late 90's, early 2000, the other carriers, who are now existing on the poles, brought applications to co-locate. And then most recently, I believe in 2001, Sprint brought an application before this Board under a prior version of the code, to extend that pole to its current configuration. Although this is a new code, the proposal is substantial and similar to those other proposals. Metro PCS October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 6 1 2 $ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 has identified its significant coverage gap and its network, and proposes that this installation is the least intrusive and most need to do so. Metro PCS, like the other carriers who are existing at the site, is licensed by the FCC to construct, maintain and operate its network in New York, in Suffolk County specifically. And Metro PCS like the other carriers strive to provide reliable coverage's in its licensed areas. And this proposal, if approved, will allow Metro PCS to provide that reliable coverage to the vicinity surrounding Elijah's Lane, and through much of Mattituck. The services provided for Metro PCS especially in times or in places where landline's are not available. It's a highly -- mobile phones are used for highly emergency calls. Certain 911 regulations that also would obligate Metro PCS and other carriers to be able to provide at record levels of service. This site like the others will be unmanned. It will be remotely monitored and it will approximately be once every 4 to 6 weeks, to make sure that the site is operating October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 correctly. There will be no increase traffic and no parking impacts for the site. Additionally, Metro PCS is obligated under Federal Law and FCC Regulations to present to this Board that the proposal will comply with maximum permissible omissions that set forth by the Telecom Act and the FCC Regulations. Metro PCS has done that study and considered all of the existing antennas that are on the pole, together with the proposed and determined that the site will still be many, many, many times below that threshold. Additionally, we have a report that has been done with calculations that actually, Matthew is here, that he can actually walk the Board through that analysis as necessary. So from an engineering planning perspective, the site has been identified ideal. It obviates the need for a new pole in the area, which was (In Audible) as it was under the old code. Any new powered structure in the area, would likewise, need the relief from this Board in the same fashion. Considering much of the area is residential and would need the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 setback relief. And considering Metro PCS, we would certainly need a structure that is greater than 45 feet. So either way, we would be here before the Board and I make that point, the Board has certain factors consider under Town law and the fact that this benefit that Metro PCS needs and the benefit that the community, that the (In Audible) can not be achieved by any other method but these variances that we need from the Board. As you can see, I have a team of here with me today. And what I would to folks like to do is introduce them to you. Identify what materials they have prepared and submitted a couple of minutes ago and bring them up to touch on their areas of expertise. Mr. Lou Moglino is a registered with the New York State. He is here. His firm is MTM and his firm was the one that prepared the drawings and he can discuss the design. Mr. Dave Karlebach is a planner. He is here. He is the gentleman that prepared the (In Audible) report that was submitted. It has the photo simulations of what the extension on top of the pole would look October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 like, if approved and erected. Mr. Dave Collins is FCC compliant and an expert, as I said earlier. His report has been handed up. His firm is Pinnacle and the conclusion of his report, to be more specific is that even analyzing the existing AT&T, Nextel, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, with the proposed Metro PCS antennas, the radio frequency emissions would still be less than 1% of the allowable limit. Mr. Michael Lynch is a licensed real estate appraiser. He is here. His report was submitted and he has done several studies about potential impact on real estate values and in this instance has determined that our extension would not have a negative real estate value to the surrounding areas and Mr. Nicholas Balzano is here. He is a radio frequency engineer and he is the individual who signed the affidavit with the maps that would have the coverage depiction of what the proposed site would have. So unless there are any preliminary questions, I would like to bring up Mr. Moglino and show the Board in a little bit more detail of exactly what it is October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that just we are proposing. CHAIRPERSON proceed. MR. COUGHLIN: WEISMAN: I think you can introduce yourself background? MR. MOGLINO: Sure. Moglino, M-O-G-L-I-N-O. Lou, would you just to the Board and your architect with the State am one of the Design Group. My name is Lou I am a licensed of New York. And I owners and principles at MTM Our firm produced the drawings for Metro PCS, the subject site. The first sheet I have on the Board is, Sheet Z5. On the left-hand it depicts the elevation. We are extending the pole 10 feet. Just above -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Maybe you can bring it a little bit closer. So the Board can see it a little better. Do you have any copies of what you just submitted? MR. MOGLINO: {In Audible) by MTM. (Stepped away from the microphone.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fine, we have it October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 11 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in our pole file. Please proceed. MR. MOGLINO: So we are extending the 10 feet, vertically. And we are going to the light that currently exist on to the top of the new extension. be relocate the existing beacon light and the pole There will 6 paneled antennas. Each paneled antenna would be approximately 4'6 tall, 6 1/2 feet wide -- 6 1/2 inches wide. I am sorry. And just a little 3 inches deep. We are staying within the existing compound. There would 40-50 cabinets sitting on a concrete slab, approximately 10X16 feet. We are not increasing any of the existing setbacks or encroaching on any of the setbacks to the west or the rear. That is basically it. That is the scope of the project. MR. COUGHLIN: I believe there is one inconsistency in some of the records that the Town has and what was verified by Metro PCS (In Audible) it is not a major issue but just so the record is clear. What is the height of the existing pole, as is? MR. MOGLINO: The existing pole is 180 October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1/2 feet. MR. COUGHLIN: What is the approximate height of the existing antennas that are on there now? MR. MOGLINO: It is not depicted on the drawings but the height of the existing antennas is probably 111 feet. MR. COUGHLIN: I just make that point because the denial that the Building Department issued noticed that the top of the (In Audible) was 120. I am not sure if it was the field measurement of the topography at the time or when the pole was installed but the 10 foot pole extension is from that 108 verified height and not 120. Maybe it is not an important distinction but -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is very important. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is very we important. I noted that in my own notes. application states in the Notice of Disapproval of 120 feet. MR. COUGHLIN: It was something that had talked to the Building Department The October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when the denial was first issued and then when the revised denial was issued. But based on the facts that the antennas are up above (In Audible) that were not a major issue because it was possibly 1/10 of a foot, given Mr. Moglino's noted to the top of the antennas. MEMBER proposed top MR. COUGHLIN: be less than 10 feet existing antenna. of GOEHRINGER: What is your from the antennas distance? 118 feet. from the location, So it would top of the of our proposed the second batch provided, in maybe antenna to the top And then just to information that we have terms of the equipment you -- MR. MOGLINO: Sure. This is just a large blow-up of the existing compound where we note where the proposed concrete slab is going to be. MR. COUGHLIN: Just on the drawings, what the to be for the Metro PCS direction. MR. MOGLINO: to make it clear proposed specs are equipment from each Sheet Z2 is currently on October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Board showing, the proposed cabinets or slab to the north proposing to be 109.4 feet. To the south it is 41.33 feet. To the east, 235.3 feet, and lastly to the west, 229 feet. MR. COUGHLIN: And for purposes of what is already existing to the -- well, I guess, in each direction, can you identify whether there are existing wireless telecommunications structures in each directions that are closer than the one depicted? MR. MOGLINO: Yes, currently there is a shelter to the south of where we are proposing and everything is within the existing fencing compound. But there are -- in three directions to the north, south and east, there are the existing equipment or shelters. MR. COUGHLIN: And to the west, we are even in fence line? MR. MOGLINO: Correct. Almost in line to the existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have a question. Have you considered and analyzed October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 another option? Is there any other option to avail the pole other then an extension of the height? MR. COUGHLIN: I can address that and I have one here that can address it in a little more detail. Very simple, the answer is, no. AT&T has resided as the owner of the pole. They own it. (In Audible) but the analysis is that there is no spot on the existing pole but for the space down below for the (In Audible} antennas, and when Mr. Balzano comes up, he can show you what he can (In Audible} in analyzing that box, why a proposal of antennas at Station 5 be approximately would not cover the curing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? MR. COUGHLIN: Please. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My question is, did you investigate the antennas other then this particular one rather then elongating this one? In other words, was anything investigated to Cutchogue area around the landfill? MR. COUGHLIN: When Mr. Balzano comes October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 16 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 up, I think it would be helpful to have the actual visual but the surrounding -- the new wireless code favors the elevation of the existing structure. So the existing poles that were identified as Metro PCS as a migrated in the development in the Town Southold, (In Audible) the Cutchogue site is one that will not come before this Board but is pending before the Planning Board. Then there is the Southold Police Station. They have identified all of the powers and then I think when you see all the maps up on the Board, you will see why this site needs to be here. It is the tallest structure in the area and if it were not for the site being located on this pole, ours would need to be erected, but Mr. Balzano can address that in a little more detail. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Proceed. Does any one have any questions? (No Response.) MR. COUGHLIN: That concludes what I wanted him to have addressed. I am going to have Mike Lynch come up next. Again, he is a licensed real estate appraiser. And he did a of October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 study of this proposal. MR. LYNCH: Good morning. My name is Michael Lynch. I am a State certified real estate appraiser. Business address, 15 Duey Street, Huntington, New York. I have appeared before this Board in the past, as well as, before the Planning Board. So the the Board is certainly aware type built northwest corner of Main and Lane. To the west of this -- the itself is largely wooded. The of the property is largely application, where the property is, it's 415 Elijah's Lane. Just north of Main Road. The site itself is improved with an older garage structure and the monopole itself was in the early 1990's. And presently houses all of the major carriers, Nextel, Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile. Just to the south of the property, there is an auto store parts that is at the Elijah's property westerly half wooded, as is the auto parts store to the south. And then to the north of the property, it is partially abutted by a vacant parcel. That runs at the corner of Rachel's Road and Elijah's, and other then October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that, you have abutting homes immediately to the north on Elijah's and to the northwest on Rachel's Road. And opposite the property to the west along Elijah's Lane, are older residences. The development immediately to the northwest of the property, on Gabriel Court and Rachel's, there is a newer development. Most of those houses were built after the original construction of this pole. Based on the application and the existing conditions in this area, I don't feel that this 10 foot extension, which would raise the height of the structure to 118 feet, from the existing 108 feet, would have any adverse affect on any property values. As Mr. Coughlin points out, it would obviate the need for a new structure. The site has been in existence for close to 20 years. I have looked at these sites for the last 15 years across Suffolk and Nassau Counties. I do note one study that I looked at in Bridgehampton on an existing tower on the Keyspan operations, now it is National Grid Operations on Montauk Highway in Bridgehampton, which is consisting of 120 October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 19 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 monopole that was built in September of 2000. There is an older development opposite the site, adjacent to agricultural property, that is in view of this particular structure, and I did a before and after study of homes that had sold prior to the installation of that Keyspan monopole versus sales in the after situation. And the homes actually appreciated a rate that was consistent with the overall Bridgehampton market in general. So in that instance, the existence of that particular monopole did not have any adverse effect. In this case, we have an existing 108 foot structure and we will be incrementally adding to the structure. So again, I think all and all, this particular application, which involves the expansion of that pole, would not have any adverse effect to the surrounding residential homes. And I can answer any questions, you. if the Board may have any. Thank MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MR. COUGHLIN: The have is Dave Karlebach. Thank you. next person that I He is the Planner. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 He also did the photographs that are attached. MR. KARLEBACH: My name is David Karlebach, K-A-R-L-E-B-A-C-H. I am a community planning consultant. I have a Master's Degree in City and Regional Planning from Rutgers' University. I did in fact prepare that Planner's Report that is before the Board. I did not prepare the computer simulation that are attached to the report. They were prepared by another consultant, but I did review them and believe them to be accurate and correct. Let me just state at the onset, that there could be no better place to put communication antennas on the existing communications towers. I think when the local Board approves a new tower, it is with the hope and the expectation that all or of the to have their And that is really most modern zoning ordinances. wireless antennas the focus on To limit the communities. ordinance providers are on one tower. amount of towers I can't think of that discourages in the a local co-location. Now, October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with respect to the height variance, you have already heard testimony that there are no other available slots on a pole, which would remedy the service staff. Certainly 45 feet is not reasonable. The reason for that is, there are many other, I guess you would call intervening elements in the landscapes. Such as vegetations, topography that would interfere with the penetration of these radio waves to the nearest sites. So 120 feet is the minimum height necessary to effectuate the use. And if Metro PCS can not achieve this height at this location, the system doesn't function properly or it doesn't function at all. And this carrier can not fulfill its carrier mandate providing that (In Audible) reliable coverage that the government requires. So there en lies the justifications for the height variance. There is just no other spots available on the pole that are going to render that service gap. With respect to the setback variance, that is the proposed facility will be within 500 feet of residential property line. I will just point October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 out that all of the equipment that is proposed that is going to occur in a previously approved compound. So in effect, this is what I would call a "built in" setback variance. In other words, short of uprooting this tower and relocating to new location, this application is powerless to do anything about the setback variances, but as the Board, as I said, they had previously approved this compound, with the expectation that everybody would put their equipment in the same location. So it is really an item, that I don't think, has to be revisited from a Planner's prospective. Regarding the photo simulations that are attached to this report, I think the most important residents and passers-by, already accumulated to the presence of a tall structure at this location. And I increasing the height to the pole of feet, is not going to change their factor is perception of the site. It is not going to change the visual quality of the area. And it is certainly better than the alternative, which would be the construction of a new think 10 October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 tower in the neighborhood. That would have a far greater affect. This proposal that is before the Board represents the least intrusive manner of providing service into this area. MR. COUGHLIN: I know that Dave prepared a couple of representative (In Audible) that is in the packet in front the display board -- of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have them. MR. COUGHLIN: Would it please the Board to have Dave walk through the different view points, where there is a map? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This packet to me, seems extremely clear. I don't have. If the Board has any questions, fine, but it's pretty straight forward. I actually just have one question, which may or may not be your area of expertise, which is the possible impact of an additional 10 feet might have on the (In Audible) to the residential and commercial property lines? MR. KARLEBACH: Well, I will just say October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as you the much as I know about it. I believe the structure is 120 feet high and the nearest property line is in excess of 220 feet away. So even if we were to fold down at its base, it would still be well short of any property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: a letter from the record to reflect We just handed neighbor. And I want and give you an opportunity letter. Hunter, to reflect the reaction to this Indicating that, (In Audible) resides on an adjacent property that is about 105 feet from the proposed equipment. That is what this letter says. are showing a Connecticut address on the letter is 105 doesn't say property, MR. the notices property is to pole and large but nevertheless, her property line feet from the proposed structure. where the structure is on the particularly. COUGHLIN: Based We It compound area, that Dave just Tax 108-4-7.3. We Town records, as described. Suffolk County identify that parcel from on my review of that were sent out, Ms. Hunter's the north of the existing October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 25 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 being vacant lot with no structure on it. That being said, as the (In Audible) concerned, I am going to ask Mr. Moglino to come up, but what I can tell you from my experience in handling a number of these and I think many of the experts have already heard the story before, is that these poles are obviously designed not to fail. And if they were to fail in situations that exceed the applicable building code limit, they are designed in a fashion that they do not fall over the traditional (In Audible) radius that a tree would fall over. But they (In Audible) in certain points of the design. So I have yet to have a 110 foot structure fall down in that way. And additionally, the code provides that the -- the Zoning Board doesn't have the authority to do this. The Planning Board has the authority to consider and wave any fall zone requirement or concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be part of the Special Exception Permit; however, it does have to do with safety that this Board is looking at as part of an area October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 variance. MR. COUGHLIN: Lou, can you speak a little bit more about pole designs and failures in the fall zone? MR. MOGLINO: Sure. The pole itself is a complete round structure. It's cemented into an even amount of steal members. Mr. Coughlin is correct. Usually the poles don't fall at the anchor bolts, the base of the pole. When they do fail, they're designed to fold upon itself. To fold down. If it comes from the north, all the stresses come from -- get relocated to the opposite side and causing it to fall upon itself. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is one rated for wind velocity, do you know? MR. MOGLINO: Whatever the current codes are, in which, this area, we have to design for 110 mile an area wind speeds. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there ever a time when a monopole would have some sort of aerial significance where you would be required to put wires on it, similar to the one in Greenport? MR. MOGLINO: This particular October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 27 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 structure is a monopole. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: no adaptation to do that on MR. MOGLINO: Correct. for monopole's. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had MR. COUGHLIN: answers CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So there would be any monopole? Wires are not Thank you. hoped that that MR. COUGHLIN: The next would like to have come up is who is FCC Compliant expert. the Pinnacle report that is in. Dave, would you introduce tell them what you did? Yes. person that I Dave Collins, His report is yourself and MR. COLLINS: Hi, I am Dave Collins. Last name spelled C-O-L-L-I-N-S. I have testified before this Board in the last year and a half, I believe. My specialty is antenna sites for compliance with the rules and regulations set forth by the FCC concerning exposure to radio energy. The Federal Government sets the standards for maximum permissible antenna sites. They energy levels around the also provide a standard October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 28 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 engineering formula to determine that level which would then compare to the standard to see where you stand in terms of compliance with the rules and regulations. The standard itself is very conservative. Only allows a low amount of radio energy. And the methodology in the engineering formula is also always that the resulting calculations are the worse case. Maximum possible level that could be generated from the antennas. And in this particular case, all of the local cellular carriers that are already at the site, minimum Metro PCS. That would be AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and now Metro PCS proposal. FCC requirements are that all of the antennas be included in the assessment. And we have done so. The simplest way to describe the results is to convert them to a simple percentage. 100% would be the maximum amount of level permitted, for maximum permissibility. By law, we would require with the rules and regulations. And we have done so. We made the calculations for the existing carriers and Metro PCS's antennas and we performed October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 these calculations out to a 500 foot radium from the site. There is really no need to perform calculations beyond that. FCC recommends that this is proper measurement to do the calculations. And again, we have done that. In that 500 foot radius circle, with all the antennas operating at its licensed power, the existing and the Metro PCS proposed, the maximum level would come out to 0.9158%. It is as counsel eluded to earlier, it is less than 1%. The lower the amount of maximum permitted, we come in more than 109 times below that level and therefore we are in compliance. MR. COUGHLIN: Dave, I am going to show you an area map. We received this letter from Ms. Hunter, who is adjacent the existing parcel. As was identified earlier, it's at least 90 feet from the property line, Ms. Hunter's lot. Can you to confirm that property (In Audible). MR. COLLINS: They will be in complete compliance. If I read at the 100 foot distance -- actually the maximum level is at 120 feet. The level just before that, we do October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 30 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 it at 20 foot increments. (In Audible) is 2 0.6484. There is no area around the site 3 that would cause a noncompliance issue. In 4 addition, all of the antennas at this site 5 are at a height greater than 10 meters, roughly 32 feet. The FCC knowing the physics of radiowave's, all of these antennas carriers here are excluded from having to identify compliance because of the laws of physics. They are low powered combined with height above the ground, it makes that distance issue, that there isn't a way that it can be noncompliant with those issues. MEMBER HORNING: What is the minimum height then? MR. COLLINS: The lowest height, we would have to look at the drawings. 60 some odd feet. Again, that is twice as high for the minimum level required, which -- MEMBER HORNING: 32 feet. MR. COLLINS: Right, 10 meters is roughly 32 feet. So roughly the bottom of the antenna is 62 feet. It's a four foot paneled antenna. Again, we performed the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 calculations being diligent compliant with there is. MEMBER tests, were as the good neighbor policy and and yes, we are in deed every rule and regulation SCHNEIDER: These frequency they ever done in the field with some type of a meter -- MR. COLLINS: Yes. The FCC accepts either way to determine energy levels around the site. They're both viable. One of the benefits of doing it as a mathematical calculation versus real life, as far as Pinnacle, and my firm is concerned, we do not include -- for starters, we assume that every body is operating -- they're fully licensed power and they don't always necessary set a through the level that maximate. It might run, maximum power. calculations, where self (In Audible) powered they are permitted to not benefit for them to When we perform our ever possible, we ignore the effects of the cable antennas line loss. The longer the cable it is, the lesser the signal loss and to diminish on its way up to the antennas and on monopole's, typically, October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you are going to lose half of what starts out at the base of the radio and the time that it gets up there, you have loss half. We assume that you haven't lost a thing. So the number we give you is extremely conservative. And chances are, they don't exist because No. 1, they don't always operate at maximum they're allowed to. And No. 2) they account for line loss. It is the law of physics. We don't, because we try and give you the absolute worse possible case. So in a way, measurements are more conservative then in the real world. Typically in the real world, number that we would measure, the number is lower. And we have done this a number of times. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Have you done it at this site? MR. COLLINS: No, the FCC doesn't require it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I'm done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Carry on. MR. COLLINS: Thank you. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. MR. COUGHLIN: Okay. The last witness I would like to call is Nicholas Balzano. Be is a radio frequency engineer. He signed the affidavit for the generator and those maps. MR. BALZANO: Good morning. My name is Nicholas Balzano, B-A-L-Z-A-N-O. I am certified engineer employed by Metro PCS. I have been in the wireless communications industry for more than 20 years, and I am currently responsible for the design and implementation and PCS on Long Island. maintenance for the Metro It is my professional opinion, that the subject site is the best possible location to meet the coverage objectives of Metro PCS in Mattituck. To have a better understanding of the (In Audible) of the size, I have here some maps that I am going to present. The (In Audible) is made of several layers. The first layer is a topographical map of the area. You can identify on this map ground elevation lines, major roads. And the (In Audible) represents the existing poles for the area. Where the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 green dot, we have to the southwest portion (In Audible) monopole there. In Audible). (Stepped away from the microphone.) MR. BALZANO: And we are proposing ll0 feet. And then the red dot, the southeast side. It is located at 415 at Elijah's Lane in Mattituck. The second overlay represents the existing coverage provided from this site. The green represents the reliable coverage in those areas. This is what the customer is able to make and receive a phone call and would not drop a phone call. On the other hand, the clear area represents unreliable coverage. Within this area, a customer would not be able to receive a phone call or drop a phone call. As you can see, it is a pretty large area. So we need this site to provide a larger area for this coverage. We went around the Cutchogue area and Mattituck area and we identified areas (In Audible) and identified as this being one of the best sites for coverage. The lowest height would October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be 55 feet. So I investigated and (In Audible) to see how it would cover. And that would be the next overlay. The purple is covered by the subject site and the proposed site 24E as the actual available height. As you can see, the clear area would still be very large and would not create the coverage that is required. And so we -- I went at that point, to extending the pole that we would need to cover the area. So the next overlay is where, in green, you will see the existing coverage and then you can see here in (In Audible) how much it would increase and what would be the coverage. It will be (In Audible) in coverage. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, can you tell us what map this one reflects -- MR. COUGHLIN: I think what Mr. Balzano is comparing Map 2 and Map 8. Map 2 takes the footprint coverage at the proposed site by itself. Map 8 depicts the coverage with the next available height, which would be the 55 feet. I think you are asking and just so the numbers are clear, I will try and speak into the mic. At 55 feet, October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the facility would provide 0.884 square miles of coverage and the proposed. At the proposed extended height, the facility would provide 2.71 square miles of coverage. The difference miles loss extended? MR. MR. being approximately 1.8 square coverage if the pole was not BALZANO: That's correct. COUGHLIN: In your opinion, radio frequency expert, is that a significant difference? MR. BALZANO: Yes, a huge MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you. MR. BALZANO: That pretty difference. concludes my presentation. If the Board would like to ask my some questions? MR. COUGHLIN: I would actually like to ask you some questions. This is the elevation of the monopole, the design has the (In Audible) of the Metro PCS antennas that we done by MTM is approximately two feet from the top of the existing antennas? MR. BALZANO: Yes, that is correct. That would be the minimum separation. as a much October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. is this achieve MR. MR. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: both boards could be made the height? Are you COUGHLIN: In your expert opinion, the minimum extension necessary to the coverage? BALZANO: Yes. COUGHLIN: Thank you. But that coverage, smaller to lessen referring those to boards or panels? MR. COUGHLIN: Panels. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the actual length of those panels? MR. BALZANO: About 4.6 feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that a standard height for those panels? MR. BALZANO: 10 feet. MR. COUGHLIN: Is this the standard antenna model that Metro PCS uses? MR. BALZANO: Yes. MR. COUGHLIN: That is approximately Can that panel be 4 1/2 feet high? MR. BALZANO: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: shortened or lessened? MR. BALZANO: Unfortunately not. For October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what we are trying to achieve, that panel has certain characteristics and impact and we can not make it any smaller than that. MR. COUGHLIN: If it was a different model antenna, would you be able to get the same footprint of coverage? MR. BALZANO: With the same -- MR. COUGHLIN: No, if it was a different antenna -- MR. BALZANO: No, I would not. MR. COUGHLIN: And these are the standard Metro PCS models? MR. BALZANO: Yes, they are. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The installation of this on the top of this antenna, this is a question that I ask all the time, what is the affect of the load on the antenna in reference to a fall back type of situation or a split, now, we already had a person testify at 110 miles per hour wind velocity. That is probably what it is rated for. It is probably rated for more than that. You know, that is mean velocity as opposed to peak velocity. What is the negative effect of October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 putting this on the top of the antenna at this particular point? MR. COUGHLIN: I will give you the attorney version. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That would be wonderful. MR. COUGHLIN: A structural analysis was done at AT&T's request to analyze the impact of the pole extension and that report showed passed all applicable codes, both State and Federal and was submitted with the Building Department as part of the building permit process application. I can provide the Board a copy of it, if you would like. If you want to get more technical answer then that, I can bring up Mr. Moglino, he is an architect and he might be able to speak more about that, if you would like. The extension has been designed to meet and exceed applicable codes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, we will leave it at that. MEMBER HORNING: These maps are a little bit confusing on the coverage. What is Map 4 showing? October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BALZANO: Map 4 would be -- this would be the coverage of the blue, right now. MEMBER HORNING: Pardon me? MR. BALZANO: This is the coverage, the blue one. MEMBER HORNING: The proposed site -- MR. BALZANO: That would be at the landfill in (In Audible). MR. COUGHLIN: Mr. Balzano has both of the sites. Although the Cutchogue site is before the Planning Board, but to give a demonstration of how these two sites, companion sites, will serve to provide coverage for the Cutchogue and surrounding areas. MR. BALZANO: {In Audible). (Far away from the microphone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think mn summary, and I will try and move this along now because we do have a lot of other hearings that we have to get off to. Not to cut any one short but in summary, the maps October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are there to indicate a variety of options and the coverage gaps that would exist. And then finally conclude that the proposed subject location would provide the best coverage, from your perspective your community. I know that you have sent this application to the Planning Board and it is my understanding that they sent their package out to their consultant. Their new wireless code requires that it is part of their Special Exception consultant confirm your evidence indicating that this is the best location and necessary location to provide continuos coverage and that the height proposed also is essential to that coverage. They have asked us to hold off on making a variance determination until such time that they can give us the information from their consultant as part of our records. I would like to get your on that? MR. COUGHLIN: With all do the Planning Board, we have been with on these comments other approved respect to working applications October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 42 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 and this pending application with the Cutchogue site, I don't think it is appropriate for one Board to request another Board to hold off on its review. This Board has separate reviews, to review the height variance and that Board has to review a Special Permit. The proofs may be similar, if not the same. I believe that we have demonstrated to this Board that we have the minimum height. Now, the Planning Board's consultant may have inquiries from Mr. Balzano. This is the coverage that would be provided. The criteria that this Board is to consider is very different from the special permit criteria laid out under Federal Law and also the revised Local Law. We are unable to build this it until we received approval from both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board, and I recognize the fact that that is the reality of the case. If this Board were inclined to condition any decisions to Metro PCS to receiving its approval from the Planning Board, I would have no objection to that. But as a matter of practice, under the Local October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 43 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Law and under the State Law, requesting the Board to not act on a completed application submitted and a full hearing held -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just comment on that. It is not unusual for this Board to take into consideration to delay information based upon coming from other entities within Town government that have an effect here. I am not suggesting that we will do that. I am saying that we often get Planning. We get them from Trustees. You know, it is not unusual. That is why I bring it up. MR. COUGHLIN: If I may -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Also -- just let me say one other thing. When this Board -- in it's old procedures, evaluated Special Permits and variances, height variances and so on, the expertise on this Board is significant but we are not experts. This is not our field. We have in passed called in an independent consultant. Clearly, this is in your best interest to bring in expert consultants and have that testimony presented. For us to better your October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 presentation, we at times bring in our own consultants. It doesn't make sense to have two consultants. If they are independent consultants. It does not make any sense from your prospective and from ours to delay it. MR. COUGHLIN: An independent consultant would be great. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am just wanting the record to reflect that that is and the Board will have to before us also decide -- MR. COUGHLIN: remind the not aware, hasn't had applications, went into effect. declaratory rule. forward it to the interested Understood. Just Board, to the extent that you are I recognize that this Board the authority over wireless I guess since the moratorium In late 2009, FCC issued a It's Docket #09-99. I can Board if anyone is in reading it. What that ruling time within which to act. Categorically, there are two groups, as far as the FCC concerned. Brand new poles should be says, is that local municipalities have the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reviewed and acted upon within 150 feet. A co-location application and in that ruling, which this would be, that would be 90 days from the day it was filed. So that is an issue from which we have expressed concerned to the Planning Board about as part of their -- the consultant that they have retained, we objected to, which is why I made the comment to the independent. His review is likely not going to be timing, which is a concern that we have and I believe should be a concern of the Town, that it is complying with this declaratory ruling. out because that is raised with the Again, I just point that an issue that we have Planning Board and as part of a companion review that is going on, I want to make this Board aware as well. Again, I understand practically speaking until both decisions issue, the proposal isn't going anywhere and we certainly -- I wouldn't have any objection to a conditioned decision based on Metro PCS and making sure that it goes through the necessary steps to prove it's Special permit case, but I October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 respectfully submit that we have proved out our height variance case. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The option is two-fold. Either adjourning without a date until receipt of that information, which could be a considerable amount of time. We are aware of it. I spoke with the Planning Director. She was not able to confirm the time frame for a response from the Board's consultant. So you are absolutely correct that regard. We can close the hearing and review all the information that you have given us. Look at the transcript. I have taken notes, but still the transcript is better, and proceed. offering a condition Board. Are there any from the -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I make one statement. I have and the purpose of the regards to the loading of the issues and possible and so on, some (In Audible). I I appreciate you are as an option for the questions or comments just want to watched this -- questioning in and the tower and all varying of power of which may be considered have watched this tower from October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 47 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 90 feet to 108 1/2. I have a grave concern about the continuing height of this. From health safety and welfare, and some of it has to do with fire rescue and emergency but the majority of it is in reference to proximity to an unmanned airport or unpersoned airport, which is very close to it. And I live closer to the Sound then I do to the site but I live in the municipality of the great Hamlet of Mattituck. And I assure you that the small planes that are flying over my house at a higher basically, a bluff or a height area, are of course flying over this at certain times. And that has always been my concern and I will continue that concern. And that I am just mentioning that. MR. COUGHLIN: I didn't make it mean that I was not answering your question. This document, we have -- Metro PCS as part of the Planning Board application, submitted an FAA (In Audible) of no hazards. So that was investigated. I am happy to provide the Board a copy of that document the Planning Board has. That issue was in October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fact reviewed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that. And that is the same thing that we hear all the time from the FAA. I don't believe them and I am not saying that that is any effect upon my decision. I am just saying that it is a concern of mine from watching the tower constantly growing. It has nothing to do with the owner of this tower. It is just a concern that is based upon -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George has a question. Jim has a question and we still have to see if anyone in the audience has any questions and would like to address the Board. And we are really running late now. We have taken a lot of testimony. Excellent presentation. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to kind of recap it. It is your contention that the lowest antenna on that tower, is the lowest technologically can be to service an area. In other words, going any lower, it would just be diminishing return. You are not above the trees. You don't get enough signal out. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 49 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. COUGHLIN: For Metro PCS to go below, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what I am saying is, it is not necessarily the height of the tower but that there is no more room on that tower unless you heighten the tower for your business to go on that pole. The only reason is because the space is not on the tower and the height particularly, although you benefit from the footprint and the higher you go the better your footprint is for. feet. going to be, that is not what your here You're just here for that extra ten MR. COUGHLIN: That is true but having reviewed the propagation maps, Metro PCS probably needs that height based on the adjacent site to the northeast. They still provide have to cover that essential service. to be higher in place. MR. footprint to MEMBER DINIZIO: There is always going that ladder type. One is going to be one place and the other in another COUGHLIN: That is true, but each October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 50 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 network has different features and operates under different frequencies. So the coverage wouldn't -- Sprint is the next highest. If Sprint moved up or down, it would be a difference in footprint of coverage based on the network that they operate and the licenses that they have. MEMBER DINIZIO: So the owner of that tower is not scrambling to go to the top, to get better coverage? MR. COUGHLIN: No, and all of the other licensed carriers in this area are on Metro PCS. Metro PCS happens to be new carrier. So the choice was down below, which was not sufficient. MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thanks, Jim. MEMBER HORNING: Why would you not submit the FAA No Hazard document to us? MR. COUGHLIN: It is not a requirement but I am happy to do it. MEMBER HORNING: Well, there is a lot of things that aren't required but we -- MR. COUGHLIN: Sure. MEMBER HORNING: I am trying to be October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 quick, Madam Chairperson and my colleagues. Why is the coverage so funny looking or whatever or instead of circular patterns? MR. BALZANO: That is because of the signals that travels through the air -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you just go back to the mic. We are getting you but not enough. We want to make sure the transcript reflects things accurately. MR. BALZANO: I was saying that the signal travels through the air and diminished from the source as it goes far away from the source. In between we have clutter, which could be buildings, trees, foliages -- MEMBER HORNING: Okay, got it. Got it. MR. BALZANO: That is the funny looking -- MEMBER HORNING: Okay, for the sake of clarity. Just looking at this one photo, you are calling this photo here, you say that AT&T owns the tower; correct? MR. COUGHLIN: Correct. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER HORNING: So can you tell me from the top down or bottom up, what companies are located based on photo one? MR. COUGHLIN: Absolutely. Sprint is at the top. They were the action to bring the proposal of the extension to the pole. Below the -- MEMBER HORNING: To the 108 foot? MR. COUGHLIN: To the 110. AT&T is down. They have that mini microwave on it, for purposes of the picture, to see that. Down below is Nextel. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. next dish are MR. COUGHLIN: Below that is Verizon. MEMBER HORNING: Yes. MR. COUGHLIN: And the lowest is T-Mobile. MEMBER HORNING: And the gap in between Verizon and T-Mobile, that space is not large enough to co-locate the antennas? MR. COUGHLIN: It was an issue that was never investigated because AT&T said it was not available. AT&T who owns the power the you October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 53 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 center, said you can go up or down but you can't go in between. MEMBER HORNING: Would you get something in writing from them? MR. COUGHLIN: We have them. I just don't have copies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Vicki will make a copy for everyone. MR. COUGHLIN: And if there are any materials that (In Audible) submitting what was required, I am happy to supplement the structural reports and FAA determinations and if there are any other materials, I am happy to provide them. MEMBER HORNING: The Board has some interest in airport safety and what not and public safety issues. The FAA documentation -- MEMBER DINIZIO: Would good to have in the file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in like to address this (No Response.) MR. COUGHLIN: You got it, the probably be That is fine. the audience that would application? October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 declaratory ruling, I can provide a copy of that. If I may and very briefly and summarize. Again, we are seeking two area variances. I know the Board is well versed in the criteria. I believe through the materials and the witnesses, we have demonstrated that there won't be an undesirable change in the neighborhood. I think that Mr. Balzano's materials show that we are going to need a site source. So we can't proceed without seeking relief from this Board. We would submit that it's not substantial. And by way of testimony, you babe heard that there will not be an adverse impact on the neighborhood in terms of physical or environmental conditions. Unless there are any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, I think you have done it. Thank you all for your expertise and your clear and well organized presentation. I am going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of the FAA clearance letter and the declaratory ruling on the time limit. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MEMBER SCHNEIDER: MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion carries. (See Minutes for Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye . Resolution.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to make a motion for a three minute recess. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. HEARING #6497 - HIRAM F. MOODY, JR., and SARAH R. GOULARD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application is for Hiram F. Moody and Sarah October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 56 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 R. Goulard, No. 6497. Request for variance from Article XXIII, Code Section 20-124 and the Building Inspector's June 30, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based an application for building permit for an addition to a single family dwelling at: 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, located at: Reservoir Road, Winthrop Drive. Adjacent to Silver Cove on Fisher's Island. Good morning. MR. HAMM: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: for the record. Please state your name MR. HAMM: Steven Hamm, 38 Nugent Street, Southampton, for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON correspondences. MR. HAMM: originals. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: much. WEISMAN: We have all We are set. I have an affidavit and Thank you very MR. HAMM: So essentially this is about removing one structure, a deck and steps, and replacing it with another on the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 structure covered porch addition. It will be enclosed. The idea is to make the house more usable all year round. It is very similar to a case that you had 18 months ago. I have attached the decision of that case, a memorandum that I just handed you. It was for a house that was two doors down. I will just touch on a couple of points and see if you have any questions. We have an existing setback of actually less used. deck. The setback for addition, will be less space, in terms of currently being than 28 feet for the the porch, covered 28 feet. We will use lot coverage that is So you will see from the Site Plan that was submitted that lot coverage after this project is completed will drop from 11% too 10 1/2%. Of the 305 square feet of the addition, most of it, all of about 35, will be in the permitted building envelope. It is compared very favorably to the case two doors down that was submitted. Where they had 28% variance for their front yard setback. This one will be a 20% variance that is basically the Town Law criteria and October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 addressed in my memorandum, so if you have any questions, I don't need to make any further argument with you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You front yards -- MR. HAMM: the memorandum as CHAIRPERSON seems to be pretty any questions? have the two Dick Strauss, four feet of foundation. MEMBER HORNING: With sort of a basement height type foundation? MR. HAMM: I am not sure. I can't answer that. I can get that information over to you. I just asked about what would need to be removed. They have -- I have attached that memorandum. They are within Trustees jurisdiction and we have an administrative permit from the Trustees, at this point. kind MEMBER HORNING: I have a few. What of foundation will there be? MR. HAMM: Apparently, I am told by they will have to go with some sort of a poured And I make that point in well. WEISMAN: Actually this straight forward. George, October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 file? MEMBER HORNING: Do we have that on MR. HAMM: No, it is in the package that I have just handed to you. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And you have a consistency ruling, a recommendation? MR. HAMM: That was from -- Vicki had handed that to me. MEMBER HORNING: The diagram of sort raising of a roof, what is the just of a of the rasing of the -- MR. HAMM: That is sort of difference of the house that is within the building envelope. I expands the bathroom there. That of this application. MEMBER HORNING: to have the drawings. purpose a permitted think that is not part Okay, we just happen maybe you could explain to the Board why somebody approaching that curve, reckless MR. HAMM: Right, it was included because of the drawings. MEMBER HORNING: On Winthrop Drive, which is where the critical setback issue is, there is a big curve in the road, October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 driving lets say, would not be able to smash into these people's house? MR. HAMM: I don't think anything has changed from what it is now, in terms of, it's always possible that it can happen. I am not it would be any more or any less. MEMBER HORNING: I could see why it could because there is a great difference in elevation in the road and the house and you could see it on the survey here. So there is no way that they are going to impact the house if somebody drove right there. And they wouldn't even get into their lawn area, which is minimal space already because they're going to hit that wall. MR. HAMM: Thank you for pointing that out. MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any other questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? {No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I am going to make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6506 - SUSAN M. DUNNING CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Susan M. Dunning, No. 6506. Request for variance from Article XXIII Code Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 31, 2011, updated August tl, 2011 Notice of October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Disapproval based on an application for building permit for "as built" addition/alterations to a single family dwelling at 1) side yard setback of less than the code required 15 feet, located at 925 Stephenson Road, adjacent to Long Island Sound, Orient. Please just state your name for the record? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consultants for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have a copy of the LWRP? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. And Suffolk County local determination? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please proceed. MR. ANDERSON: This is a property in Orient that is off a private road. It is an irregularly shaped property. It also has frontage on Long Island Sound. The property today has always had a detached garage to the rear of the property and a single October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 63 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 family dwelling. It is actually comprised of two units, interconnect to a second. In 2007, we were hired and the plan then was to demolish the house and build a much larger house. A deck, a pool, a spa, etcetera. In 2008, that plan was -- we obtained all the permits to do that, even the building permit. We abandoned that project because of the economy at that time. It was unfavorable and the project couldn't be supported. The applicants then hired a local contractor to go in and, Rob Christiansen, who I gather is a handyman. And they hired a contractor to rehabilitate the house. And that rebuild that house. why we are here, front entry stoop the property line contractor proceeded to And today, the reason there was an existing that was at 9 feet from to the east. And when they they were rehabilitating this house, expanded the entryway 18 inches and because the lot is cocked, that brought us to 7.6 feet from the property line, where we basically had 9 feet. So we had two foot encroachment into that side yard. And October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that is the variance that we seek today. That would occupy all about 3 or 4 square feet from the standpoint of a footprint. So it is very, very minor variance. But the variance itself, the application was prompted at the request of the Building Inspector. Prior to us seeking this variance, after this house was rehabbed, it became clear that the foundation was un-supportive to support the foundation of the house. At that point, the applicant hired Mark Schwartz, who is here with us today to design a proper foundation to the house. We also hired Bob Sorenson, a contractor from Orient, who is also here today, to install all proper foundation. The Building Inspector directed us to go to the Trustees and then granted us a building permit for the foundation. And that foundation was installed on the westerly unit that is part of this house, that is shown on this survey. Mr. Baron noted that the side yard that had decreased from the 9 to the 7.6 feet. Requested that we obtain variance relief from this Board prior to October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 65 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 installing the foundation under the easterly unit of this. So that is why we are here today. It is an "as built" because the contractor went beyond what they were supposed to do. The applicant was out of town and not versed to getting permits because that is why they hired us to do the full blown, new house, pool, the whole nine yards but was led to believe from the contractor that these were simple maintenance items. And so the project proceeded on that basis. So today, we have units from the Trustees. And we seek this very minor relief, just limited to the corner of this. And we have laid out our argument in support of a variance in our application. And since we have preserved this house, we don't think the character changed. I will note however, the encouragement that we are talking about here along the easterly property line, butts up against a right-of-way to the beach. And is secured building permits for the foundation, the easterly part. We have a coastal road and hazard foundation for both October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 66 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 obviously highly vegetated. So I don't think there is any visual impact that would be noteworthy. At this point, we can't achieve the benefit achieved by the applicant, can not be achieved by any other means other then an area variance. We maintain that our -- the relief requested is not substantial and we maintain that it won't have any impact on the physical and environmental conditions that are here in the District. That is basically our story. I am here to answer any questions that I can. The builder is here. The builder who was involved in this is no longer involved. He is not here. I doubt I could bring him here. And we are here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This took a little doing to try and track the history of the property. I think we have it. It is unusual that the coastal erosion hazard line is kind of running through the property, it looks like. And of course that is a matter for the Trustees and not this Board. You got a CO. You have CO. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ANDERSON: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But it would appear that the plan that is attached to that CO is different, maybe you can explain it, if you can? It looks different then the one that we have before us. MR. ANDERSON: It does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you explain what those discrepancies are all about? MR. ANDERSON: Well, I can't attest to the accuracy of the surveys, but what is immediately apparent to me, and I know that in 2007, there was always two sort of dwelling units. There was two in each one. And that the deck structure was covered with a roof. So the roof appears to be redone in some fashion. There was also, I am going to say an 8X8 balcony deck that went off the front of it, that the old survey will show. To me it looks like part of that deck was filled in. I am not sure there is an encroachment seaward, but there is some we are porton of the deck. Now, as I said, here for the narrow issue of an encouragement into the side yard, as October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 instructed by the Building Inspector. I know the Trustees have been out there. So my attitude, whatever discrepancies the Building Inspector tells us to do, and I don't think that there is a community problem here, because we have preserved an old waterfront cottage. And it has been inspected, including the deck and everything else. We didn't apply for it because we weren't requested to by the Trustees. And everybody seems pretty comfortable with what is there. This is really, from my way of thinking of it, a case of a rouge attorney -- not rouge attorney. Rouge contractor and an out of town owner, who doesn't know any better, who did more than they should have done. They should have checked with the Building Department before undertaking activity they undertook. It leaves the property owner in kind of a pickle. So this is really an exercise to try and get the paperwork straight. That is what we are trying to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what I am trying to do. I want to make sure October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that you get (In Audible) for the total structure, so that we can grant a variance, should this Board decide to do, what actually is built. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think the variance that we requested, if you just limit it to that, I am not asking for a variance other then that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: understand. I understand. MR. ANDERSON: I am do anything more than that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: am simply pointing out that have on the property, is not MR. ANDERSON: The CO updated. I agree with you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: saying. The CO needs to be MR. ANDERSON: But at No, I not asking you to I understand. I the CO that we the CO. should be That is all updated. the moment, our concern is to restore that foundation, and really Bob can speak to that. The way that this was done -- I don't know if any one sort of crawled under this. What we have here is a dangerous situation. It is on I am October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 supported by some blocks. Some posts. There is a cable underneath. If you crawl underneath this house, the first thing that I am going to encourage you and I think of, is the house going to fall on top of me? And the structures, there is no support to the perimeter. This is why we brought Mark in. So the house is sagging. What we are looking to do is just sort of shore it up. To the extent that we have to get updated CO's, we are compelled to do that. I think that would be a good idea. Like I said, the Building Inspector has been down there. He is aware of what the problems are and we have been working with been as cooperative as be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: him closely and has we can possibly So the foundation needs repairing -- MR. ANDERSON: We're putting in a poured foundation. It is a poured fitting with concrete block and goes around the perimeter of the house, which is what is required to protect that house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Understand. That October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 71 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hasn't been done yet? MR. ANDERSON: One side has. We got a building permit for the westerly side. And the nonconforming, we put off, until we come before you, and that is why we are here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, it is clear. Is everyone clear? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: I have a couple of quick questions. I believe you mentioned something about a 10 foot minimum side yard setback or am I mistaken? MR. ANDERSON: It had a preexisting nonconforming 9 foot setback off the entry way to the house, which has now become 7.6. We are now 18 inches into that, which is limited to the corner. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: It's a preexisting nonconforming setback of 9 feet. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And I noticed October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the record, that there was an addition built in 1981. What is your approximate date of when that was done? Do you have that? MR. ANDERSON: Oh, this is a very old, old building. In your files, there is an old variance that was handled by Irvin Price and in that, they created the lot line that wraps around that. And part of that, cut across a portion of the house. And the house actually was part of encroaching into the right-of-way and outside his property line. So Mr. Price came in and received a variance from this Board to create that jog in the property line that resulted in 9 foot setback that existed until this rogue contractor did what he did. MEMBER HORNING: existence prior -- MR. ANDERSON: CHAIRPERSON George. MEMBER HORNING: an approximate date. And the house was in Yes. WEISMAN: It's a Pre-CO, I just wanted to get October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 say? even. MR. ANDERSON: I would say 50's. MEMBER HORNING: 1950's you would MR. ANDERSON: Yes, or prior to that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comment, I will make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 74 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) ******************************************** HEARING #6502 - THOMAS R. & WENDY L. CARLEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Thomas R. & Wendy L. Carley. Request for variance from Article XXIII Code Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 8, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for additions to a single family dwelling at: 1)less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet, located at 350 Way, Tepee Trail, Southold. MR. BASSOLINO: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MR. BASSOLINO: I am Wampun B-A-S-S-O-L-I-N-O. I am the West Shore Drive, Southold. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. I I am missing one green card. MR. BASSOLINO: Yes, I submitted a think Good morning. Robert Bassolino, architect. 30 October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 search and they have searched it down to the point of that it was delivered. And there is two pieces of property. One is owned by a wife and one is owned by a wife and husband. I got the wife and husband back, but not the wife. I submitted the tracking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. we have a letter from Suffolk County indicating this is a matter for local determination. If you would like a copy, can have it. MR. BASSOLINO: Does that mean anything? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. And you MR. BASSOLINO: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: that though, it's the MR. BASSOLINO: late with all that pole had this morning. I will We have to do law. I know you are running information you be very brief. Although the Carley's lot is 23,000 square feet, it's on a triangle and the Building Department determined that they have three front yards. The building is 125 feet from October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Apac and it is nestled back by the (In Audible) triangle. We are asking for a one-story extension, approximately 14X19, a total of 227 square feet and 150 square feet of deck, 10X15. The rear yard minimum is 50. The existing rear yard is 31.3. We are proposing 31.8. We are not increasing the actual yard. We are still increasing the degree of nonconformance for that building into that setback. But we are not decreasing the distance to the only piece of property that we (In Audible) fronts on. The front yard is what we would be exposing. The minimum right now is 34 feet. We're asking it to be 24 feet into the front yard. There is no impact on adjacent properties because they're on three front yards and the streets are surrounding. We are conforming to the style of the neighborhood and the conformance of the house. The total coverage would be less than 11%. Any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This was a previous 2008 variance. In fact, we were on the Board. I remember that well. It is an October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 77 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unusual piece of enclose a a deck -- MR. porch property. So you want to at 277.87 square feet, with BASSOLINO: Deck CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: proposed front yard setback is at grade. And your is 22 feet? plans, house? need a MR. BASSOLINO: 22 for the deck. 24 for the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. enclosing the porch and deck. MR. BASSOLINO: Well, the there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The MR. BASSOLINO: There was deck there once. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Rear setback of 31.3 and now 31.8. questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. MEMBER HORNING: I have a question. Did you putting on Some other Basically porch is not deck is. a concrete yard Any variance on the MR. BASSOLINO: quick explore any alternative a second story to the plan that you would not house? We looked for a second October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 78 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 floor. It has part of a second floor area. Part of the building doesn't have a second floor. It has a cathedral ceiling. We couldn't do that. To put a porch towards the triangle, the lot gets narrowed as you go south, and that is the living room. So there would be no way to put a piece on there. And it would not conform to the lines of the building, the roof line. The lot is a triangle. MEMBER HORNING: So you did explore options? MR. BASSOLINO: Yes, we did. The first thing that I would want to do is avoid a variance and not come here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, you don't want to come here. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. MR. BASSOLINO: The lot is so unusual. The lot is 23,000 square feet but it is on three front yards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Plus it is also positioned close to one property line. MR. BASSOLINO: It's 30 feet from the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rear property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries. (See Minutes for Resolution.} ******************************************** HEARING %6505 - JOHN J. & JOY GALLAGHER. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for John J. & Joy Gallagher. Request for variance from Article III Code Section 280-13, based on an application for building permit to build an accessory building on a vacant lot, and the Building Inspector's July 20, 2011 Notice of Disapproval stating that an accessory building is not permitted on a vacant lot with a principal dwelling, located at Bayview Drive. Adjacent to Spring Pond, East Marion. Is there someone here to address this? MR. GALLAGHER: Hi, yes, my name is John Gallagher. I am the owner of the lot question. And my wife, Joy is here also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Gallagher, just before we get started, I have some correspondences that I would like to make sure you have a copy of, for your records. One if from Suffolk County local determination, which says that they have no interest in this application from the County's perspective. The other is from a October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Cathleen Dwyer addressed to the Building Inspector. The other is the LWRP memorandum, from our local waterfront revitalization coordinator, which happens on all application that are waterfront or locations located near wetlands and so on. We have an e-mail from a Paul W. Hayes. He owns the property at 65 Bayview Drive. MR. GALLAGHER: Paul who? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hayes. He owns property at 65 Bayview Drive. Apparently, you don't have copies. Let me give you copies so that you can look them over and comment on anything that you would like to. Let's give him a minute. MR. GALLAGHER: Okay. Do you have any questions for me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, is there anything that you would like to tell us first. We have your application. Perhaps you would like to make some comments. MR. GALLAGHER: Just basically my wife and I -- basically want to put in a garage area on our property. We want to have reasonable use of the property that we October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 own. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. You do realize that you can't put an accessory structure on a property without a principal dwelling and the lot that is next to your residential lot, the one that has the right of way -- MR. GALLAGHER: Yeah, there is my house. Then there is the right of way and then there is the vacant lot. And that is where I want to put the accessory structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. I understand. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's a residential building lot, right? MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, it's a residential building lot. MEMBER DINIZIO: It can't be merged with your property in any other way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yeah, but if they -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we establish one thing first. The house lot that you live in belongs to you and your wife? October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lot? MR. GALLAGHER: Yes, it does. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And who owns this MR. GALLAGHER: My wife and I. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You own the present lot and the one that is in front of us? MR. GALLAGHER: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So they're voluntarily merged already. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, no. They have not merged. What we are talking about is the fact that the law doesn't really permit the construction of a garage, let's say, without a house being there. Now, you have a house. It's a very small lot. MR. GALLAGHER: Yeah, it's kind of like a "V" shape. It's almost 5,000 square feet. It's about .13 acres and the accessory building I am lot, would cover the 3%, making the total 9% is reasonable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State requirements. talking about putting on this 6& and the deck would cover coverage about 9%. The Board has We don't get to October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 84 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 arbitrary make these decisions. They set a standard and a statute that we have to follow, as part of this application that you submitted. I don't believe you have answered it in great length but it has to be within the character of the neighborhood and environmental impact. The lease amount of variance that we can possibly grant, rather than more. Is it an absolute essential variance? Can you do something without this? Clearly you have to have a variance to do this. There is no question about it. But you do have an option, which is to opt and go on the property and we have done this with another piece of property similar in East Marion on Rabbit Lane. Where there was a bay front property with a house on it, a right-of-way, which that case was a road right-of-way of houses. And then on the other side, on Marion Lake and they wanted to put storage shed on it. And this Board said that you can voluntarily merge those two properties. Meaning, make it one lot. So you will have a house on it. And put a covenant and restriction on it saying that October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that right-of-way will exist across the piece of property in (In Audible) which is something that you can file legally. how do you react to that? MR. GALLAGHER: To merging the two properties? You know, to be honest with So you. It is very unclear to me, some people say, that have been in the neighborhood for a very long time, that the property is already merged. It was merged a long time. Other people say, you can sell one property and keep the other one. You know, it is unclear to me, if they're already in fact merged or whether they're separate entities. on the house lot. did property records. I can tell you that I pay taxes and I pay taxes on the vacant MEMBER HORNING: Sir, can I ask when you buy this property? MR. GALLAGHER: 2002. MEMBER HORNING: You bought this at the same time? MR. GALLAGHER: Same time. MEMBER HORNING: According Okay. to the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON happens is, a Building Department, determine whether the how it comes to us. determination. further. They in this Notice say it. If in WEISMAN: What usually when you apply for something at they usually lot is merged. That is And they did not make a we can investigate it it was effectively merged, right-of-way, it may have because the right-of-way right-of-way, believe it considered a front yard. Now, didn't make that determination of Disapproval. They didn't fact they had determined that sort of the been before us, exist. See the or not, be So you would have had a setback variance from the front yard. So you probably would have been before us any how. But we are just trying to explore what the range of issues are. I believe this gentleman would like to speak. MR. STOUTENBERG: Peter Stoutenberg Environmental East. We have spent a lot of time in the Building Department, going back and forth with that determination. That was the first approach that we had. And they determined that in their opinion, they October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 definitely were two types of different properties. Everybody in the Building Department was pushing this around. Going to the Tax Assessor's and getting surveys. And they have said that we have two different properties. And this is where they sent us. That was our first shot. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But Peter, was that determination made that it was truncated by a right-of-way or was -- MR. STOUTENBERG: It's not a right-of-way, it's a piece of property actually. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is part of a filed map? MR. STOUTENBERG: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Between those two pieces of property, is a right-of-way for homeowners to get to their beach or boat or whatever. MR. STOUTENBERG: Right. They own that property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Understood. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very similar to the roads in Nassau Point that lead to the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 water. MR. STOUTENBERG: The other thing was, was this legal enough to be a big enough road? Was it big enough? Was it wide enough? I think it was in the deed, that says it's a path. know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that is good to MEMBER DINIZIO: May I? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please do. MEMBER DINIZIO: Regardless of all of that, why couldn't you just put the garage by the front of the house? Front yard? What would stop you from doing that? MR. GALLAGHER: There would be nothing that really stopped me from doing that. Just I don't know how you would do that to make it look nice. MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to have some kind of hardship, you know what I mean? Where are your cesspools located? MR. GALLAGHER: Cesspools are located between my house and the pond. I guess the backyard. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER DINIZIO: The waterfront? MR. GALLAGHER: The waterfront. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well? MR. GALLAGHER: Well is located on the some elevations restrictions. Because it is so close to the marine environment, they try and not do a lot of grading and stuff. They try and allow the water to pass through and not a (In Audible). The design part. MEMBER DINIZIO: One of the impacts is the fact that this building is so close to the MR. GALLAGHER: That would work. MEMBER DINIZIO: Just lay it down on ground. MR. STOUTENBERG: I think there are road side. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. How about, why does the garage need a 16X9 foot deck? MR. GALLAGHER: I am a handy guy. I like to do things. I like to saw. I like to work. I like to do these things outside rather then the inside. MEMBER DINIZIO: What about if you put a patio there instead of a deck? October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the water. Regardless, I am thinking you want to try and reduce this as much as we can. It is a pretty large accessory structure, with a deck and on the water. I can see it turning into a house, perhaps, later on. MR. STOUTENBERG: If they were to sell the house, we could be before you later on to put a house on it. It is a legal lot. It would need a lot of consideration for that. But there is no plans for a house. MEMBER DINIZIO: So I am looking to reduce it er find substantial reason why it can't be added on to the front yard. You can have an accessory structure on the water in the front yard, as long as you meet those setbacks. The 16 feet and you have 46 -- I don't know what the setback is, 35. You generally need a 5 foot setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is a pie shaped size of this lot and farther away from the water and the road and the front yard, the more you are going to need side yard variances, which is probably a less October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 91 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 variance. MEMBER DINIZIO: The house is, looks like it is 4 or 5 feet from the right-of-way. about CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: the residential? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER HORNING: I have too. MEMBER DINIZIO: some legal You are talking Yes. Okay. some questions Unless you can find way to merge these lots. Then we are still - there is still a law that says you can't have an accessory structure on the side yard. You know, I would feel a little better about it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask Mr. Stoutenberg a question? Did you see a deed indicating that this is not just a cloud on this title, that it is actually a right-of-way for the association or do you have a copy of it? MR. STOUTENBERG: Let me see if I I believe we had to produce Building Department and I have that a copy. for the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think that is how we proved a while ago. MEMBER HORNING: Can I question? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: that. That was ask a Yes, go ahead. MEMBER HORNING: What is the status any applications to the town Trustees? MR. STOUTENBERG: We are waiting to see how we sat with you before that. MEMBER HORNING: And how about the DEC, do they have any involvement? MR. STOUTENBERG: We didn't want to get an application -- we wanted to see what your requirements were first. We wanted to see if there was something that you were interested in first. MEMBER HORNING: of Were you going to have a driveway to this proposed garage? MR. GALLAGHER: The way the property is shaped, it is kind if like a pie shaped, pea shaped. There has been a driveway in the front of the road and the front yard. It has always been there. That is where we park our cars. That is where the cars have always been parked. So that would, as far as (In October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Audible) putting in asphalt or rocks or whatever, I haven't thought of that yet. MEMBER HORNING: But you say that you do park cars there? They do drive into that lot and park their car? MR. GALLAGHER: Right. MEMBER HORNING: How much did you consider an attached garage? MR. GALLAGHER: Well, there is no more room for an attached garage because the house ends at the fence. Split rail fence and then he right-of-way begins. And then the right-of-way has a ten feet drive, which is really no room to attach a garage to the side of the house. MEMBER HORNING: On that side, about towards the front of that correct. How house? MR. GALLAGHER: Well, I just don't know how you do that. The front yard is small enough to begin with. To put a garage in a small front yard -- it's a cape cottage. The roof slopes down and then there is a bedroom. Two bedrooms in the front. To put a garage right there, I thought it would October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be to cumbersome. I thought it would be much easier to have a separate building on the other lot. MEMBER HORNING: I think we asked about detached garage possibly on the house parcel. I am not asking you about the practicality there and whether Because the Board much to grant parcels. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: of having an attached garage you considered it? is really not inclined as accessory buildings on vacant I will say this much, just so everyone understands. When the Board has applications, inspect every site individually. that we have an application for. one of us has been to your property. also, as part of doing diligence on taking a look at the neighborhood. one of our requirements is to look character of the neighborhood and what you're proposing conforms to character of the neighborhood or not. And I have to say that with the placement of this proposed accessory we go and Every site So every We have this, That is at the whether the it does regard to October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 garage. It is going to be set closer to the water then most of the houses. From where you are proposing it on that pond. And in driving around, I did not observe on that road, any accessory garages. There are a few attached by breezes that I have noted, but primarily garages need to be attached to the dwelling. MR. GALLAGHER: There are a few exceptions. There are a couple that are attached. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So there is a lot to consider here. I have a feeling that there are a lot of people in the audience that want to address this application. And before the Board does anything else, lets ask who here would like to come forward and address this application? Please come up to the podium and state your name? MS. DWYER: Hi, I am Kathleen Dwyer, D-W-Y-E-R. I am the person who wrote the letter that I think you have a copy of already. I also have some letters from people that live in the community that were unable to be here. I can provide to October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you assistant members. MS. now. CHAIRPERSON WEtSMAN: Okay. Our will make copies for our Board DWYER: Thank you very much for taking the time to hear from me and my fellow neighbors and property owners. I hope that you, from what you seem to be doing, carefully consider the arguments. My points is that I would like to deny the variance request for application %6505. A little history, a little story. When I purchased my home back in 1998, I was with the understanding, both from the seller and the real estate agent, that the vacant property across could not be built on. The house is feet. It does very small. It's 1300 square not have a garage. I was told that the Village build a told that it would value of my house, want a garage. However, house and the magic of over. would probably never allow me to garage on the property. I was also probably affect my resale because most people do rhe charm of the the community won me I would prefer the beauty of the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 community and its natural surroundings versus the ability to expand my space. So with the knowledge that I would probably be in the size of the house that it is now. Recent discussions with real estate agents located and appraisers as well, have said that should my water view be obstructed, the value of my property would most definitely decline. I also want to tell the story of my house. It has a little bit of history. The main originally the street. the street, to build a footprint of my house was a bedroom with a house across The owners of the house across requested that it be allowed bedroom on a house for an elderly mother. When they were told they could provided a room, that when the room was no longer needed for the mother, the room would be removed because they were not to interfere with the water view or scenic view of anyone in the community. Fortunately for me, the owners of the house did that. They took it down. They moved it across the street to an empty lot and it became my house. So I was very happy that October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people in the past were sensitive to those issues because it allows me to have a wonderful place. The reasons that I am requesting that the Board deny the request for a variance are for some of the reasons that have already been stated. The Town Code and I am may not be using the correct vocabulary, my apologies. Please feel free to correct me. The Town Code does not permit construction based on some of those variances being requested. I am looking for the protection of the beauty of the community. The scenic of the community. And I am also concerned about the environmental impact, not only the construction, but for the property in the south and the north and any courteous structure that could cause runoff into the pond. It should be noted that the community is currently working with a company called EnviroTrack to better manage the runoff into the pond. We have been granted a $30,000.00 in grants to date, including $20,000.00 from the New York State Environmental facilities in order to do things to improve the runoff quality. I fear October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that any actions we take would affect the grant money and could effect the environmental impact of the area. I am also concerned about Spring Pond access and the marine something emergency area. It could also be that could interfere with vehicles, should we ever need be done and accessed to that area. my other neighbors will speak now, those are some of my main reasons So I will give you my letter that to other letters that state some concerns. My last request community that is made up not live here year round. and I know there is a the public of what is to Some of but for it. is similar Elderly people process to informing going on. I was fortunate to receive a certified letter. It was posted in the paper, although I got the letter first. There is also to be a posting on the property and I was very discouraged that the posting on the property was basically done for someone who is perhaps maybe a foot tall. It was down on the ground. It was not posted on the structure. of my is, it is a of people that do October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I don't know if all of my neighbors, including my elderly neighbors would have been able to see it. Thank God, I do not suffer from curvature of the spine yet. It would have been very difficult for us to see that. So I would request that in the future, that the stake be posted something at eye level so that people can see. I have a picture if you would like to see it. That is all I have. If you have any questions for me? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just need to make a statement. This is not meant to be smug or sarcastic in any way. I know of one scenic easement in the entire Town of Southold and that is in Mattituck. It across the swimming pool of a marina. I don't know of anyone else that has a scenic easement. You would have to particularly state that you have a scenic easement over a particular property and I am not saying that in any other way, then saying that is my understanding of it. MS. DWYER: I understand what you are saying. The deed for the community October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 itself, does have things in there that state that it would be to preserve the community and it does have (In Audible) community, which is an association to say that there is not to be building of a stand alone building on an accessory property. So I believe if we can provide you with those deeds of the community, that would show it. Also my argument is not just for the scenic view. From where I live in the community, I am the person that is most impacted by it. I also recognize that it is part of a community and people other than I get a scenic benefit out of it. I understand your point. But what is beautiful and attractive to someone is not beautiful to someone else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else like to -- please come to the podium. MR. PIROZZI: My name is Frank Pirozzi. I am a Board member. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please spell your name? October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PIROZZI: P-I-R-O-Z-Z-I. I am a member of the Board, the HOA. Mr. Peters, who couldn't be present asked me to attend and let you know, that the Board has approved the structure and is waiting for your approval and the Town approval. I really don't believe in any way this impacts the whole community. It's an empty lot. It's on a street. The only view is when people walk by. There is no view from somebody's backyard, so to speak. There are plenty of structures around the pond as we speak. I don't see how this changes anything. see how this affects the runoff. We runoff no matter what. I just don't right, that as a community, denying I don't get feel someone their right to use their property, pending the Board's approval and it being legal. So that's all I pretty much have to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? MR. COPE: Can I submit some things to you first? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. Just state your name for the transcription first? October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. COPE: Sure. My name is Jim Cope, C-O-P-E, 1113-90 Bayview Drive, East Marion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. MR. COPE: I am too a member of the Gardiner Association Board. I have something that I wanted to give you. I am opposed to any kind of construction on this lot. Specifically, this construction that is proposed to be a two-story garage. I am very pleased that everyone had visited the property and could see the layout, the shape and understand how it would impact on the quality of life, as it pertains to scenic beauty for the community at large. What I wanted to speak to the issue of the letter contained in your packet and it states that the Gardiner Bay Estates Homeowners Association has voted in favor of approving this project. That is -- misleading, that is a word to put it. It is true that there was a presentation to the Board by the president of the association. By my count, there 5 people against it and 8 people for it. So you are talking about a 2 vote issue. So whether or not the association would October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 submit a letter in agreement with this proposal. The fact is that there is 100 homes in the Gardiner Bay Homeowners Association. And two votes doesn't make 100 homes. It was only the Board that discussed the issue and community at large did not have the opportunity to be heard on the -- on whether or not they thought it was a viable solution for the applicant. We've had referendums in the past but there was no referendum on this issue. I would only talk about the current use and I include in my presentation to you, current photographs. You may have observed that particular scenario in your inspection of the property. It's being used as a -- as a place to -- dockside for the off loading of -- and -- a commercial shellfish operation. Mr. Gallagher has leased 10 acres of land in the Sound for purpose of raising oysters. He is using that dock, one of two docks on the properties that he owns. That are side by side. The purpose of his bringing suitcases of oysters and freights back and forth. The plan that was observed by me at October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the a different story (In Audible enough door and folk room, so Board meeting, clearly indicates that a large that cargo can be brought into the building. It is an R-40 designation. It is at the moment, you know, a small issue. A man's hobby and he is certainly harvesting the shellfish and is using that property for him to market. So what I am told, you can support 250,000 oysters on 10 acres, okay. Where is this hobby going. We think -- I think that this is the forerunner of a larger commercial operation. It's more than a hobby and I think at this point, it crosses the line for what is appropriate for this residential area. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Please come to the podium. MR. LUSCHER: My name is Charles Luscher, L-U-S-C-H-E-R. I live at 820 Bayview Drive. John and Joy are my next door neighbors. The first thing that I would like to say is that the oystering, that is a business, I certainly wouldn't want to be it. I have watched and helped John, his October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hobby, for the past couple of years. And I do think he gets about 200 oysters a week. And it's costing him thousands of dollars to do this. He is doing it because he wanted to try it. It will never be a business because of he tries it, they will take away his permit to dock his boat. We own the bottom. We own the pond and we control the boating in there. He is not allowed to run a business from there. I don't consider him running a business. If he puts this garage up and you allow it, I would be able to see it from my house. He pays taxes on this property. John Tesiay (phenetic), who owned the property before him and Joy bought it, wanted the association to purchase it. They refused. There has been stories about moving the right-of-way to be adjoined to John's house. There has been different things said. But he does pay taxes on this property. And the association has looked at this property and the Board approved it. And I understand from listening to you from the zoning and things like that, and I have no answer to that. But as a member of the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 no objection to the community, I have garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank Anyone else? Please come forward. MR. KNOBLOCH: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning. MR. KNOBLOCH: My name is Michael Knobloch. We reside at 795 Bayview Avenue. This is my brother James Knobloch. We own the house together. We live across the yOU . three to four weeks ago. So this is the first that e are hearing about that. So we are a little unprepared for that. I just wanted to talk about a few points on why we are opposed to it. Other than the arguments on the oystering and what have you, our main concern and what James brought up before, that this is two-story structure. We are assuming that it is going to have electricity. Some running water. We are not sure. But our concern is that once it's permanent, it's permanent. There is no property that is in question. We also wanted to let you know that we did get a certified letter from the contractor, about October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way down the road to pull that structure off the property. So the next homeowner who purchases this house after he moves on or what have you, can either sell that separate lot as a separate lot to a contractor, who can use it to store his equipment in or another homeowner who wants to use that separate structure like a summer studio apartment on the water, that they can rent for a few hundred dollars or whatever it is a month, as a separate lot. So we want you guys to take that into consideration. We are not opposed to other options. We are opposed to having a permanent structure on that lot. So down the road, anything can happen after that. This could be a problem. It might not be something that he acts on but the next person that moves into that structure might do whatever he wants. So just understand that when you do make a decision, it's permanent. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else? MR. WINGETT: Wingett, My name 235 Dogwood Lane. Thank you. is Roger October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 spell CHAIRPERSON your last name? MR. WINGETT: W-I-N-G-E-T-T. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. MR. WINGETT: I would ask you to disapprove this variance. I do not see a necessity to have shellfish business, hobby or whatever bring run out of a residential area. And that to me changes the nature of Gardiner's Estates. I don't want to see commercial fishing boats in any other way. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board WEISMAN: Would you please have any other questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no further questions or comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve this decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to make a motion for a five minute break. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (Whereupon, a recess was taken at this time.) HEARING #6504 - KENNETH SEIFERTH. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application is for Kenneth Seiferth. Request for variance from Article XXIII Code Section 280-122 and Article III Code Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's June 2, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for additions/alterations to a non-conforming October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accessory garage at; 1) a non-conforming building containing a conforming use may be enlarged as long as no action does not cretae any new nonconformance or increase of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings, 2) less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet, 3) second floor roof dormers at more than the code required 40% od the roof width, located at: 2000 Nassau Point Road, adjacent to Broadwaters Cove, Cutchogue. Please state your name for the record? MR. SEIFERTH: My name is Kenneth Seiferth. I own the property. I am not related to the construction. Just so we are all on the same page. Good afternoon, the way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Seiferth, do recommendations, Revitalization Program MR. SEIFERTH: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: you have a Local Waterfront memorandum? Good afternoon. copy of LWRP Let us give you by October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and also copies determination. This the proposed action on your exempt from this application. copies for your records if Suffolk County local states that property is But you should have copies. And we are missing three green cards. MR. SEIFERTH: One I don't have and I will explain why. Here is GPS tracking that they did have them. When I made a copy, I didn't realize that I didn't make a copy of the side piece here. (In Audible). (Stepped away from microphone.) MR. SEIFERTH: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what would you like to tell us? MR. SEIFERTH: I would like to say that I am trying to get the garage that has been there for a long, long time and built probably 50 years ago, to get a CO for it. It never really had it. I went through a lot already. When I bought the property, I brought two lots to make them one lot. The only real problem I see here, if there is a October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 problem, the dormer whereby, I have two little dog houses, if you have been to the property, you would know what it looks like. I want to adjoin it on that one side. To match that dormer. Other then that, the rest is existing and I am not changing the footprint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Your proposed dormers would line up 84% of the roof width. MR. SEIFERTH: I think you are right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In your application, you state that you need clearance to walk around and stand up on the dormer. MR. SEIFERTH: That would be good too but that is not the total reason. I would also like to be able to use it for a Rec Room. My parents used to live over in East Hampton. I grew up around there a long time ago. Now, they are getting older, so they're visiting me a lot. Between Florida, coming here and fishing. So I would like to make it into a downstairs, where we can sit and have wine. That is what that little patio is there for. And the upstairs to use it for a October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rec Room. That is to be the extent of it. WEISMAN: You propose No. WEISMAN: CHAIRPERSON heated? MR. SEIFERTH: CHAIRPERSON MR. SEIFERTH: CHAIRPERSON quarters? MR. SEIFERTH: CHAIRPERSON electric? MR. SEIFERTH: CHAIRPERSON MR. SEIFERTH: I house to it, yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seasonal use? Correct. WEISMAN: Sleeping NO. WEISMAN: Yes. WEISMAN: Obviously Water? ran water from the Is that on the side? MR. SEIFERTH: No, it's tied into existing house. I ran it over. MEMBER HORNING: I think she is asking, is there an outdoor spickett attached to the garage? MR. SEIFERTH: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are just checking the plans again. this my October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SCHNEIDER: The 3.6 side yard MEMBER setback, that will remain? MR. SEIFERTH: Yes, I that at all. it would elevation am not touching I am looking at MEMBER SCHNEIDER: In your drawings, be nice to have an existing for the two dog house dormers. MR. SEIFERTH: I think the sheets over -- that was one of the requirements that the Building Department had. They wanted to know -- let me see if I have that here. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sheet 1. MR. there. MEMBER call it the waterside existing, MR. want. building? MEMBER where the dog SEIFERTH: Maybe Sheet 3. It is on SCHNEIDER: I guess you would south elevation? We have elevation, front elevation, front and water side elevations. SEIFERTH: I am not sure what you You want the elevation of the existing SCHNEIDER: The south elevation houses dormers are. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MEMBER drawings? CHAIRPERSON two elevations -- MR. SEIFERTH: Ail I am doing that dormer, I dormer on the be any higher. MEMBER elevation -- SEIFERTH: Right. SCHNEIDER: Do you see these WEISMAN: We are getting Nothing is changing. is that -- if you look at am going to mimic that back side. It's not going to That is what I am saying. SCHNEIDER: So the water side MR. SEIFERTH: That is not changing. MEMBER respect to the side elevation side? SCHNEIDER: Correct. And with second floor, the water is the same to the south MR. SEIFERTH: MEMBER SCHNEIDER: looking at is the water second floor to be connecting two dog MR. SEIFERTH: with MEMBER that. Correct. So what we are side elevation, what you proposed to have house dormers? Correct. SCHNEIDER: And I would be fine October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 117 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Jim, any CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: Sure. Just a quick one. The garage is on a slab foundation; is that correct? MR. SEIFERTH: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: And did you explore the option of moving it to make it a more conforming setback? MR. SEIFERTH: Moving the existing garage that has been there for the last 50 years? MEMBER HORNING: Yes. MR. SEIFERTH: No, I didn't do that. MEMBER HORNING: Just curious. You it to make it more don't want to move conforming? MR. SEIFERTH: No, move it. No, I do not. MEMBER HORNING: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't want to Thank you. Any other October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 118 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 questions? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? MS. ARPARA: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please come forward. MS. ARPARA: Hi, I'm Diane Arpara. I live at 100 Winter Weather Road. Off of Nassau Point Road. That is A-R-P-A-R-A. Besides being a neighbor, I also have a letter from my sister, Mr. Seiferth's neighbor, who her and her husband own the adjoining property. I have a letter from her and that will summarize her statements. I also have two pictures. I apologize for the poor quality. I oppose this addition on a lot of grounds. I have lived at Nassau Point for over 20 years, as you are all familiar with a lot of the properties. It seems like everyone wants to build a new improved garage that wants to return into a guest house. I believe this is no exception. Mr. Seiferth, as well as his father have October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approached my sister about buying her property so that they would have a place for his father to sleep. And I think that is his real intention here. My impression when you need a variance, you have a unique situation that you can't overcome. He can move that garage, as you can see, there is plenty of room on that house. Big yard with a lot of property. If he wants to expand his living area. You know these rules are placed for a reason. His moving his home close to my sisters property is going to take out a lot of trees. It will take away her privacy and her right. I see everyone overbuilding on their property and every house is going to be six feet apart. It is way too close and all these accessory garages are becoming second homes for everyone in the whole neighborhood. I wish you would check up on all these things after everything is granted. And you know, I object on all of these grounds and she has stated similar reasons in her letter. It really is unfair to have someone break a rule on request. And I really want to voice my objection. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Well, lets look at that. Your application states that you are not adding square footage? MR. SEIFERTH: Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are not the expanding the size? MR. SEIFERTH: Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're adding dormer, basically enlarging an existing dormer? MS. ARPARA: The setback is changing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it is where it is now and it's not going to be moved. It is where it is. MR. SEIFERTH: I am not changing anything on that garage, as far as the footprint. And as far as your sister is concerned, I never talked about buying her property. I mean, I don't even know what you are talking about. Also, I am not moving the garage. She has the same view. Nothing is changing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to make sure. Sometimes it's confusing. So I October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 want to make sure that what you are proposing to do is made clearly. The proposed use once renovated, is for a social space with no sleeping quarters? There is no bathroom that is being proposed. No heat being proposed. No air conditioning being proposed. For the record, interesting, you may or may not know, based upon the age of this building, should you decide that you want an apartment in there, you can come before the Board and propose, as long as, you are renting to someone that is on the affordable housing list or a relative. The Town Law does not permit accessory apartments in accessory structures, under certain circumstances. That is an option for structures that were built prior to 2004, I believe it is. What is being proposed now, is no enlargement of the property. The same exact setback as it is now. MR. SEIFERTH: Yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you are proposing an unheated space? MR. SEIFERTH: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To be used as a October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WEISMAN: Your sister door? Yes, you see that fence, seasonal social space? MR. SEIFERTH: Yes. CHAIRPERSON lives right next MS. ARPARA: she lives right on the other side of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We went out and inspected the site and are familiar where the houses are. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So record, you said that your approached by Mr. Seiferth are just for the sister was to buy her property? MS. ARPARA: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: recollection of that? MR. SEIFERTH: No, not at all. MS. ARPARA: Mr. Seiferth's father. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: His father. MS. ARPARA: As well as him. MR. SEIFERTH: I don't know what you talking about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other questions from the Board? (No Response.) And you have no October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other comments from the audience? (No Response. ) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING ~ 6508 - PHILIP and JENNIFER STANTON. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Philip and Jennifer Stanton. Request for variance from Article III Code Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 10, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to relocate/construct an October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accessory barn at; 1) height at more than the code required maximum of 22 feet, location: 522 Town Creek Lane and 845 Maple Lane, adjacent to Town Creek in Southold. MS. MOORE: Good afternoon. Do you have LWRP -- CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Hold on, we are missing one green card. MS. MOORE: As soon as I get it, I will give it to you. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: So let me give you a copy of local determination and LWRP finding this to be consistent. MS. MOORE: Good afternoon. I have with me today, Philip Stanton, the owner of the property. I also have with me, Joe Fischetti, professional engineer, if there are any issues or questions regarding the existing structure. Also here is Jim Bolderage. So everyone is here and hope that we can address all your questions. Going to the standard for a variance in this case, we have Philip and Jennifer Stanton. They own the property next door. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They obviously love this barn. They want to use it as part of their overall design plan. In your folder, you have the pool house and the layout of this. The proposed structure is all conforming to code but this is just giving you a future layout of the plan. unique, it does not requirements in the variance to building, as is. presently is height hasn't nonconforming Unfortunately, the building is conform with the height the code. So we would need relocate the existing In fact, where it is a nonconforming structure. The changed but it's in a use. Provided to you a survey of the property with the setbacks and you can see that the existing location or the setbacks of the barn where it is on the property, is 3.6 and 6.3 feet from the property line, which is a nonconforming location. We are actually picking it up and placing it on the Stanton's home and it is going to be setback at the appropriate, I believe it is 25 feet from the property line and conforming setback, as shown on the overall plan. Ultimately our proposal -- October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Building Department already knows this, but for your information, the barn is not only going to be integrated, it's also going to be improved on the inside. I call it a three seasons room. Mr. Stanton actually clarified it as their watch TV and so on in the winter. I said, "it's your man cave?" And he said, "yes, it's my man cave." But his wife takes possession as well. It's going to be a Rec Room. No sleeping quarters at all. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: heated? MS. MOORE: conditioning. It will be heated, no air Most of us on this Board are very familiar with this property. Part of the original client saying ceiling fans. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: I have question. that is my discussion was about setbacks and so on In your narrative, Pat, you indicate the second floor storage loft is to be removed and opened up -- Is it going to be MR. STANTON: Ceiling fans. MS. MOORE: For the record, October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plan you MS. going I was MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: But un the floor gave us -- MOORE: Yes, that is what I was to get to next. Originally when speaking with the architect on this project, they were speaking the thought was to have -- Joe Fischetti provided these conditions and drawings, which shows the floor space, which is adequate height. It could be used as space, if the plan was never to finish it, it could be used as storage space. Ultimately, if you say to us that you rather us not have that floor, that is fine. Originally, it was to take it out so that you have exposed -- looking straight up. It's there. We could be -- suggestions could be made to us, that's fine but I don't think that they made an ultimate decision to take the floor off or not. Either way, it would be conforming storage space. It could be eliminated all together. After I got the drawings from Joe, I said, you know what it's existing conditions. If you have no objections to leaving it open to the owner October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to making fine. If you too. a decision last moment, that is prefer we don't, that's fine MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pat, I have inspected the inside of this. a possibility that I could do never there that? MS. MOORE: Absolutely. There is pictures in your file of the inside space. It's all barn wood. I don't remember -- I mean, Joe Fischetti is here and he can come and describe to you but you are more than welcome to come over. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: Yes, it would be towards the end of the month. your MS. MOORE: Okay. You can come over at leisure and it's unlocked. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: Thank you. MS. MOORE: What type of heating are you proposed? CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: name for the record. MR. STANTON: Philip S-T-A-N-T-O-N. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Please state your Stanton, Thank you. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. STANTON: We don't have it designed yet but I am picturing some simple base board heating. MS. MOORE: The Building Department is not going to require any particular heat, is it -- come on up, yes, please. We don't know what the Building Department mandate might be. Joe? MR. FISCHETTI: We -- CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: State your name, MR. FISCHETTI: Joseph Fischetti. We are putting a new basement on there, which we have plans for. It shows it in there. So that would allow us to put a boiler, which is the simplest way to handle it. Either way, ceilings are vaulted. Base boards would work or the basement boiler, either way. That is probably the way to go and not duck work. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: I am happy that the (In Audible) have asked because usually people put a modene (phenetic) in there. So you're going to have a ceiling fan and it is going to blow it right down. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 130 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. FISCHETTI: A modene is ugly -- MEMBER GOEHRINHER: Oh, I never said it wasn't ugly. I never said that. MS. MOORE: What is a modene? MR. FISCHETTI: They're a boxing space heater. They're great. I use them in agricultural structures all the time, Gerry. When you go in here and take a look at these gorgeous beams and how beautiful this thing is, you wouldn't want that thing hanging up in there. Whether it's a heater or a base board, it doesn't change the structure. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: Okay. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: I would like to see those beams, especially if you a basement for storage. MR. FISCHETTI: That is why the architect from the city was to initially have open it up. MR. STANTON: If I can just speak on that. That is our plans to open the entire structure up. One thing, you see the lovely beams and the other thing, I am not sure you can tell from the photographs, the dormered October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 131 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 windows there have stained glass in them. It would make it -- MEMBER GOEHRINHER: It would be really magnificent. MR. STANTON: Yeah. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: What this Board prefers to do is to stamp drawings what you are proposing to do. So if you're saying to remove -- Pat just said you were not sure. I think it would be cleaner if you made your mind up and we stamped them and we were done. MR. FISCHETTI: We can give you conceptual drawings. MS. MOORE: We can -- I don't want to reprint everything. We can give you a letter saying that is the existing conditions drawings. I can have Joe give you a propose that you could stamp. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: That would be fine. Is there a chimney stack in there now? MR. FISCHETTI: No. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: this with a stack in it. Because you drew October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 132 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. FISCHETTI: That is also proposed. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: You have existing and proposed here, give me a break. I am trying to read these drawings. Would you please give us something that you are actually proposing? My job is to make sure that this is accurate. MS. MOORE: Do you want us to give you proposed and cross off that one all together? CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: This is what is proposed with nothing above it. You need to take the stair out. That's all. So there is no stair going anywhere. So why don't you do that. Submit what you're proposing. MS. MOORE: That is fine with me. I think he is just making the decision now. He just needed a little encouragement. MR. STANTON: Yeah, I'm sorry for the confusion. It is my fault. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Well, it would then be consistent with what your narrative is. MS. MOORE: Yes, it would be. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 133 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Jim, do you have any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: Just a brief question regarding the movement of the building. You are going to be putting it in a conforming location where no variance is needed? And the only variance you need is for the height? That summarizes everting because when I went there yesterday, nothing was staked out. It just sort of see this space where all of these things are going to be. MS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER HORNING: And just assume that -- MS. MOORE: It is all conforming, yes. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: The reason why I ask for the inspection because I really don't go staking on people's property unless they know that I am coming. I will be October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there in the next couple of weekends. It won't be tomorrow or this weekend. MS. MOORE: I do want to put on the record and I don't want to mislead, this is a large piece of property and we're talking about possible subdivision because of the way the lots are configured. I have maps that were drawn by me, that we're talking to Planning, but we are so early, conceptually. Ultimately, what he would like to do is take that beautiful building there, the brick one, the carriage house and be able to use it. It's easier if you subdivide it away then if you leave it attached as a nonconforming accessory building. So I just wanted to be sure that when you are writing the decision, I am hopeful that it would be approved, that it's recognized and at least on the record, that it may be subdivided. No matter what the subdivision with this main house and all the structures, will remain conforming, because we have enough of and coverage issues are not an issue. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Okay. MS. MOORE: Thank you. land October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: I do want the record to also reflect and make sure you have a copy, that we have a letter of support from the Southold Historical Society. MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: I am not sure where it came from but -- MS. MOORE: Actually, Jeff Flemming who is very, very kind was able to come over and take a look and definitely supports as the Director of the Historical Society. Supports the reuse of these buildings to the extent that we can. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Okay. MS. MOORE: Do you need my map of my subdivision? CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: No, it's okay. MS. MOORE: It's on the record. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: I think that it's okay. It's not before us now and -- MS. MOORE: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of this application? October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 more MR. STANTON: I would like comment, if I might? CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Sure. to make one MR. STANTON: The property that it is currently on, is currently on the market. And we have had interested parties in the last year and a half. And those interested parties have not made a big case for keeping were very easy to let it go. there is some risk in space. I think that shame. We love it and we and basically keep the barn. They So I can only assume monetary to have the would be a real just want to preserve it it like it is. MS. MOORE: In cleaning up my narrative because it was done two months ago. At the time, they were negotiating the contract for the sale and it fell recently, but it was to remove the structure. So as it turned that contract did not progress completion. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision. through or demolish out, to October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 137 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. favor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING %6509 TAUBIN FAMILY CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: The next application before Family Trust, aka, variance from TRUST. the Board is for Taubin Orr. Request for Article XXIII Code Section CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. I am sorry, I have to revise that. This is closed subject to receipt of a revised floor plan. MS. MOORE: Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 138 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 280-123 and the Building Inspector's August 16, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for as built nonconforming building at: 1) a nonconforming building containing a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved, unless such building is changed to conforming use, 2) less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet, located at: 625 Terry Lane, adjacent to Southold Bay, Southold. MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of the Trust, Taubin Trust, and I have with me, Amy Orr. Just a little bit of background and why we are here. The trust consists of mom and dad. They have passed away. Amy and her sister are the owners of the property and they live in Europe. They use the house all the time. So they have make arrangements -- you have to buy out sister because that is the fair thing to at this point. But in going for financing, they discovered a couple of years ago, there were no permits on anything. It was to the do October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the 70's and things were a lot looser than they are today. I wasn't involved from the beginning, someone else was doing the permit work. They got DEC's and they got Trustees to legalize what was there plus a very small deck, on the right hand side of where the shower is. Just was thrown in. You have to get on the record. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: State your name, please? MS. ORR: My name is Amy Orr. I am co-owners of this wonderful property. We originally went to get a permit because we want to move the septic system off the beach and that has always bothered me. That is why we began to start this problem and realized that we were in trouble and needed the Certificate of Occupancy on the property. So it is really because we want to move the sewer system. We want to get everything in line and really keep it the way that it is. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: I understand -- this one was a tough one. And I sure this one was not an easy one for you either, Pat. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 140 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOORE: That is why the pictures help figure out what occurred. Do you want me to run -- CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Well, actually, what would be very, very helpful to me, simply, I found some inconsistencies and the information that you gave to the Building Department for a Pre-CO, which have denied, the narrative sort of jives, it would really be easy and for the rest of the Board, if you can they dates and I think MS. MOORE: Okay. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: It is a very eloquent, as it always is with your narrative, but this can be confusing. And this way it could be a date and this. A date and this. MS. MOORE: Okay. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: We have research in our office that shows the subject building on the land in 1975. Somehow it got -- supply to us a chronological timeline, the date and a description of what happened. Date activity. Date activity. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOORE: Are you talking about the Assessor's Card, because the Assessor's card said 19907 CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: No, the survey from 1975. MS. MOORE: Okay, that one. house was under construction -- CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: No. MS. MOORE: There was was wrong date. MEMBER DINIZIO: thing because I like They are very clear. undated and handwritten When the one survey that -- that had the I read your whole reading your things. This one particular kind of seemed line bouncing around. each requirement, you made the thing several times. And honestly -- MS. MOORE: I can give you chronologically. That and that is fine. would be much I know easier MEMBER DINIZIO: Some statement here, to cutback the requirement here. The answer to No. 5, and I just don't know what that means. So if you can just tell us MS. MOORE: If I can just go by the October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 142 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pictures and kind of -- and you can tell me where there is confusion as I go along. Only so I can answer your question, specifically. If can I continue? that is all right with you, MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you can do that. MS. MOORE: If you take a look at the photograph, and I have Amy here with me because that helps. Well, the very first photograph that I give you is the old 1800 of Founders's area, the beach. And you can look and see what appears to be a boat house further south when you get -- MEMBER GOEHRINHER: Are you referring to Southold Savings Bank? MS. MOORE: Southold Savings Bank, yes. Look at the furthest from the prospective from where someone is standing the photograph. The furthest building looks to be a boathouse and when I compared it to what is there today, that appears to be the original structure that was an old boathouse. It had been covered prior to October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 143 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 zoning, all of this was converted prior to zoning. To a seasonal cottage. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: Well, when do we know when it was converted? MS. MOORE: It shows us the subdivision of -- what is the name of subdivision -- MEMBER GOEHRINHER: Overton? MS. MOORE: Overton subdivision. It shows up on the Overton subdivision map, when the Planning Board approved it and the even MS. MOORE: -- let me go back to my the Zoning Board had to approve the size of the lot, and it looks like then it is consistent with the lot. So I am believing based on the structure itself, it predates zoning. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: On the Overton subdivision, what date is that? Overton subdivision, it -- it is Lot 4 overlapping Lot 5. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: line MS. MOORE: It's a straight line. So the squiggly not a squiggly line. It's is October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 at at MEMBER GOEHRINHER: You are looking the actual subdivision map. I am looking this one. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: That is part of the research from the Zoning Board office. MS. MOORE: You guys sometimes have access to better information then I have. The subdivision of Ali Overton has this structure as a cottage, at the time, overlapping the property line. You can see that the homes along this area were -- there was a lot -- Lot 3 was a mobile home. Lot 2 was an old house as well. I know this is historically because I live across the street and the old gentleman that lived next to me used to tell me about the old mobile home. It was like a cottage. It was like a cabana community before it was ultimately subdivided. So anyway, that is going back to the old records. In the 70's, I only know, because that is when their family was here and acquired the property. So if you see the photograph, the first photograph, it says 1973, that is actually October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 145 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the picture that appears on the property card. Because if you see, the structure is here and the deck is on the east end side of the property. What then occurred in 1977, property line. We are building a new house. So what surprises me is when the Building Department gave the building permit and was working with the Barth Family and the Taubin Family to move the house over, nobody said you needed a building permit to do that. That is how things were in the 70's. And when I gave Mike Verity the history, I was like, the way that the code read, there was no structural elements being provided in the description that was in the code at the time. So that is why logically I didn't think they required a permit. Nonetheless, -- and the owners at that time said, hey, you have to move the cottage off our this is after they started construction on the other lots, the Barth property, that was the description that I gave you. That the Barth's, Lot 5, had the -- the Barth's wanted to put a house on that property and the Building Department said, hey, you know October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 146 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 5 6 we are, because today, there should be some documentation. We are trying to document today so that we could ultimately get the permits and get her finances and keep this as it is. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Well, we are going to somehow get this straighten out. I asked Mike if he could come and explain to us why was a Pre-CO denied, so that we could understand what is the Building Department's prospective, is this a legal structure. You know, does it predate everything, because even though it is seasonal, you are going to need to have some CO -- MS. MOORE: My thought was, Mike, why can't you give me a Pre-CO for the structure. Not on the land but the structure that got moved. And the building permit, give them whatever drawings he needs that met the code at the time. Whatever is we applicable, since there were no codes. The relocation to the other side of the deck. To me that would give a nice chronologically structures. I am not sure because -- you know, I don't have a lot of paperwork October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on -- it's obvious from when you look at it, it is preexisting but I don't know without -- most of the people that I knew in the area have passed away. So ultimately whether we get it as a Pre-CO or a building permit for the conforming structure to whatever the codes were in the 70's. I think he was willing to give it to us that way, if he couldn't give us a Pre-CO. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: I am going to suggest something because we also need the LWRP. tell him to aerial And -- MS. aerial's? MS. MOORE: You haven't gotten it yet? CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: No, and I will you why. This got so complicated for The figure out, he wants to try and do an time line, a Google Earth thing. MOORE: When did they start taking CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: I don't know. point is, we don't have it. So needing to get from you a little chronology Mike said he could come next month but he couldn't be here today. He is not here. He October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 t6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is not in the office today. And needing the LWRP, I want to make sure your office and your client have an opportunity to be before us and responding to that information. So I think -- MS. MOORE: When you get the aerial would you mind calling me, because that would be helpful for me to have to match it as well? CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Of course. Vicki, whenever we get the LWRP from Mark, whenever he does it, we will call you and make sure that you get a copy. MS. MOORE: Yes. I don't want him to come to wrong conclusions of the aerial's that he is basing it on. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: You would be able to see everything that we are seeing. MS. MOORE: Okay good. long MEMBER GOEHRINHER: Excuse me. How did the Taubin's own the property? MS. ORR: We bought it in 1972. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So in essence, I know you are here for variance as well. a side yard October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 149 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 MS. MOORE: CHAIRERSON perfectly recently. MS. For the deck. WEISMAN: This looks like new deck. That was clearly added MOORE: No, no, it was replaced. a It was stained and repaired and replaced. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: But it was done without a permit. So what we really need and what we are getting at, we need the whole house before us and the side yard variance, to clear up all this stuff. So we could figure out what the proper outcome is. MS. MOORE: Okay. I mean the end result is that they want to keep what they already have. Ultimately, this might be decommissioned and a house put up on the hill, which is where the house -- sanitary is being relocated and everything. She and her husband are both Art School Professors. So the income is not yet there to build a new house. They want to keep it. MS. ORR: And also we have a huge house in Philadelphia and we love the cottage. It is so special and to come her and have that space. I know our neighbors October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 love us rather rare enjoy this. compared to built, we MS. because they look over this area and our intent is to It is a new age in 2011 and the new houses that are being think it is really special. MOORE: We will adjourn from now. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: I would like to adjourn to next month, so that we could get the LWRP, get the timeline from you and get Mike in here to explain from their point of view what the building permit, the Pre-CO this all is all about, and we can straighten out. MEMBER DINIZIO: I have to be honest. In all fairness, I took a lot of time to try and figure this out and justify your allowing the seasonal cottage to still exist. And you add to it and upgrade the septic sytem. I have a hard time truing to justify that. MS. MOORE: As a seasonal cottage. Mike gave us the suggestion, if you expand this cottage to 850 square feet, you are no longer nonconforming, you are a dwelling. We are kind of doing the opposite of common October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sense and we're expanding it. MEMBER DINIZIO: That is saying. MS. MOORE: So we prefer to come in as a nonconforming structure. It's obviously a dwelling. You can see it from the inside. In 1977, they connected the existing sanitary, which when you look at the survey, it shows the existing sanitary under the house and under the bathroom. So that is where the septic system was. The reason to relocate the sanitary was more of a concession because once you go to the DEC and the Trustees and for us to see that we want to get this all permitted and to stay what I am in a new sanitary system because you can't keep some of the way that it is. That is not environmentally comparable. So the cost in keeping this, is to keep the new sanitary system on the hill, where the DEC and the Trustees said that was fine. That is a great location. You have to move what would be obvious improvements here. If an agency there, they can get permitted to stay there but under the condition that we have to put October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 can get you in to move things here, they will. It's kind of expected that they (In Audible) before the DEC came into ever being before '77. It was all there; however, we want you to put the new sanitary system in because it is the right thing to do. MEMBER HORNING: Pat, did you submit something from the Trustees yet? MS. MOORE: Yeah, they got -- the Trustees had approved this earlier on. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Well, I spoke with Jill Doherty. The Trustees approved move of the sanitary. Their review was strictly environmental. they said it's there and MS. MOORE: And it jurisdiction. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: jurisdiction and they the problems about it. MS. MOORE: Okay. I didn't make the application. Thank you. I know that they had it. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Is that new septic in there yet? At this point, was before they had Before they had didn't make any October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 153 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOORE: No. We are not going to do it if we obviously -- you know, the whole idea is to legalize where it is and put the sanitary system in. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: There is a range of things. From FEMA compliant, to moving things for compliance. So I think that timeline would be helpful. MS. MOORE: Yes. Timeline was, it has been there for the 1800's. Site Plan she is in the inheritor and thew one that has to clean it up. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: The one with all the aggravation. MS. MOORE: Yes. But understand that parents lived there 30 years, as a her seasonal cottage. In fact, her father was handicapped. The fire department would come over every time that they would come over for the weekend, and carry - because he was wheelchair bound, carry him down those set of steps to the house. So it's a lot of long history here. This has been pretty much as it. Of course, the deck was repaired -- I am going to say that the boards were October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 replaced. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: This is rare. This is below the bulkhead. Actually this is on the beach below the bluff. MEMBER HORNING: I want to ask, from the storm, did the water go up -- MS. ORR: It went up slightly to the house. Our neighbors to the west, they flooded their first floor because they're sitting right on a concrete slab. We did not at all, although a lot of trees did come down. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make -- MS. MOORE: Do you want the timeline before the next meeting? CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: If you could. It would give us a better opportunity. MS. MOORE: Although, if Mark gets that aerial's, it would be helpful so that October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: We will give you the LWRP. It's more independent. I hope I did not misspeak because I spoke to Mark about LWRP reviews and I believe that he was looking to do a timeline himself. Whether through aerial or some other information, I am not sure. MS. MOORE: Okay. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: In any case, we will get that over to you. But we would prefer to get a timeline from you. MS. MOORE: Of course. You have the photographs. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: We are looking now at just not the side yard variance, for a deck. We are trying to figure out to do about this structure. Legalize. MS. MOORE: Okay. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: So bearing that picture is what we are in mind, the total looking for. MS. MOORE: (In Audible just what (Whereupon the tape skipped.) October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 156 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 MS. MOORE: If you had a structure that was right on the line, you can extend the structure on either way, as long as you did not encroach on what was already the closest point. And since you had a deck that was overlapping the property line, that when the building was property line deck from the sense? CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: why we need the timeline. MS. MOORE: Okay. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: removed, they made that the there and then filled in the other side. Does that make any To give us a better idea. Give us the date and what happened. MS. MOORE: Okay. That is fine. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: So I am going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to November 3rd at 1:00 o'clock. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. Yes, but that is October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) ******************************************** HEARING %6496 NICHOLAS CUTRONE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application is for Trial #6496. There need to read a legal notice because a carryover. And we from Suffolk County you just state your MR. CUTRONE: CHAIRERSON spell your last MR. GERACE: CHAIRERSON have received a Soil and Water. name, please? Peter Gerace, is no this is analysis Would architect. you WEISMAN: And could name for the record? G-E-R-A-C-E. WEISMAN: Do you have a copy of this Soil and Water? MR. GERACE: No, I don't. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Why don't I give you this for your information in case there is anything in it that you want to respond to. Can I remind the Board, that we adjourned this subject to your appearing October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before the Trustees for two permits, which happened in September. So would you bring us up to date where you are with the Trustees? MR. GERACE: We went before the Board of Trustees on the 21st? CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: 22nd, I believe. MR. GERACE: We presented the project. Originally we were going to wait for your decision prior to the Trustees. That is what is usually recommended but the Board of Trustees had mentioned that you wanted to speak to their department and talk about the project, which I think was done in the -- after we presented the project on that date. They seemed favorable. I believe, they said they would approve it. They did ask for one thing, which maybe right before the bluff in the backyard, that maybe the owners leave that area and don't mow that area so that the bluff could be further reinforced. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: I think the Trustees suggested a 10 feet wide non-turf buffer, is that -- no mowing area. MR. CUTRONE: No mowing area. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 159 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: You have to state name. Welcome back. MR. CUTRONE: Thank you. My name is Nick Cutrone, C-U-T-R-O-N-E. They suggested a 10 foot no mow area. One of the Trustees had stated that they really don't have that much property before the bluff. The five foot is more than enough. Last week, my wife and her sister staked it out because they were out here all week. And it's not being mower. They asked for a 5 instead of a 10, because we don't have that much room from the end of the deck to the beginning of the bluff. said out are CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: lets make it 5 feet? MR. CUTRONE: Yes. So they basically CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: We have all been there to inspect your property. You anticipating both permits that you need? MR. CUTRONE: That is what they told US. CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: And Vicki is just verifying with request of the Trustees where the state of this was and that this is an October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accurate picture. MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Cutrone, what happened with the road? MR. CUTRONE: After our last meeting, we went back to the house and I actually saw one of my neighbors and he asked me how we made out. And I said that one of the fellows brought up the condition of the road. As I explained to you, you know we have to get together and have a meeting. Which we did. I don't own that property. I have a right-of-way to use that road. It's like me coming onto your property and start bachoeing. I can't do it. It's illegal. We have to wait for Mr. Catalino's to do it and say let's go. The last time I was up here, we had went to the Board of Trustees. Garett, my neighbor, had called and said that they wanted to have a meeting before Thanksgiving. As I said, I would like to widen it up. I don't own it. When I went back there, those branches that were hanging on the wires, we determined that they were communication wires from Verizon. We lifted the branch off our wires our self. I don't October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 161 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 own the property. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: happen, if we don't make fire department is going and they are going to send one of you. MR. CUTRONE: I wish What is going to it subject to, the to come up there letters to every they would. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: That is probably going to happen. We usually go out in the Fall and so if they don't do it. It could be more stringent that what you are required to do. The trucks are extremely wide and difficult to turn around. MR. CUTRONE: I know, I drive a truck for a living. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: That is the situation. So I can tell you that is the story. That is the reason why I eluded you to that situation. I am not speaking on behalf of the fire district or fire department. I am a member of the fire department. MR. CUTRONE: A couple of years ago, we did get a letter from the fire department and we had someone come in and widen it a October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 couple of feet. the vegetation said, I don't own the just -- MEMBER GOEHRINHER: You can't say that. You utilize it to get to your property. You are just as expected as anyone else. And this is not a sarcastic statement, okay. I am just telling you that. I can just tell you what is happening in certain areas Over a couple of years, keeps on growing. Like property. I can't in the Town. They are actually contacting fire insurance companies and companies are actually dropping people based upon the condition of the access. MR. CUTRONE: I believe it. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: I just difficult in a small car to get just have to mention it. MR. CUTRONE: I just hope doesn't have an effect on why found it up there. that it I am here. I don't own the property but you say I am responsible. I believe you. Mr. Catalino owns the property. Right now, I think if I spoke to him, he would do it. It's just trying to get everyone together. I October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand where you are coming from. There is four families that are involved. Trying to get everyone together is the big thing. MEMBER GOEHRINHER: I will mention that to the Chief. MR. CUTRONE: I appreciate that. Thank you . CHAIRERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision later date? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Gerry. Ail in favor? to a October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 164 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6433 LIPA and T-MOBILE NORTHEAST, LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. We have a letter from LIPA and T-Mobile requested a letter for adjournment. This is an ajournement that we have had several times. Just to remind the Board, it was adjourned in August, then it was adjourned to October and now they're requesting an adjournment without a date. Simply based on those facts, I asked Vicki to get a letter. We have a letter but with no statements of facts. So I asked Vicki to get a letter and supply the office with some sort of indication why these various adjournments. I just want something in the record. There is something going on politically with something on the property. This can go on October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 forever. They can withdraw the application and reappty when they're ready. So I don't care about adjourning without a date. It's 2:00 o'clock. I am going to open the hearing for LIPA and T-Mobile Northeast, LLC #6433. There was no one here to represent the applicant and no one in the audience. So I am going to make a motion to approve the request for adjournment without a date, for the letter dated September 28, 2011 from John J. Coughlin, attorney and agent for the applicant. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second. Gerry seconded. Aye. Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) ******************************************** CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I make a motion MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to close the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (Whereupon, the public hearings for October 4, 2011 concluded.) October 6, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that foregoing transcript of tape recorded Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is true and accurate record of the Hearings. Siqnature:~_~~ ~ Jessica DiLallo the Public a Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter PO Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 Date: October 31, 2011