HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/02/2012 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
Southotd, New York
13OARD OF APPEALS
~ECE]VED
February 2, 2012
10:11 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN Chairperson/Member
JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2:19 P.M.)
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
VICKI TOTH - Secretary
GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member (Absent)
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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing:
Joseph and Elizabeth Brittman
David Moore #6515
Anthony S. Campo #6531
Douglas C. And Kathleen
Paul Nadel #6537
9105 Skunk Lane, LLC #6538
David M. Hall #6535
%6522
M. Folts, #6536
LIPA and T-Mobile Northeast, LLC #6433
MGH Enterprises, INC/
New Cingular Wireless, LLC, #6528
Nicholas Gorgone %6534
Page:
3-12
12-17
17-21
28-33
33-48
49-51
52-77
77-107
107-142
142-197
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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 #6522 - JOSEPH AND ELIZABETH BRITTMAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our first
application of this morning is for Joseph
Elizabeth Brittman. This is a carryover,
there is no need to read the legal notice.
Please come to the podium.
That's right. This is actually a
of Disapproval. So I am going to
Notice
and
new
read
it into the record, the legal notice. You can
stay there. Request for variance from
Article III and Article XXII, Code
Section 280-15, 280-15F and 280-116B, and the
Building Inspector's October 3, 2011, Amended
December 22, 2011, Notice of Disapproval based
on a building permit application to construct
an accessory garage, at; 1) more than the code
required maximum square footage of 750 square
feet on lots 20,000-60,000 square
less than the code required front
on a waterfront parcel of 40 feet,
than the code required bulkhead
feet, located at: 80 Glenn Road,
Road, Southold, New York.
This is a public hearing
feet, 2}
yard setback
3) less
setback of 75
Main Bayview
that was
so
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4
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
adjourned from December 1st, and today we have
a new Notice of Disapproval. Okay. We also
have a new
Mr.
survey from you.
Brittman, would you please state
your name for the record.
MR. BRITTMAN: My name is Joseph
Brittman. I live at 80 Glenn Road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
probably don't have a new
Waterfront Revitalization
recommendation.
It declares the
LWRP. I'm sorry,
as inconsistent.
is -- in which
not issuing it,
Zoning Board,
determination
MEMBER
dated?
Thank you. You
updated Local
Program
So let me give this to you.
action inconsistent with the
the action was recommended
We got a new one. The Board
the coordinator, who is really
recommends that our Board, the
consider issuing a consistency
pursuant to 268.5.
HORNING: When is that document
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the
on that? We have it in our packet. When
last left off, Mr. Brittman, we had an
accessory garage that had a bulkhead issue.
Primarily it was the size.
date
we
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 5
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. BRITTMAN: The square footage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We covered that.
Why don't you just tell us why this new Notice
of Disapproval was issued?
MR. BRITTMAN: Sure. I had submitted
my DEC application similar time to the ZBA
application. And they sent it back asking --
originally, when we were designing it, we
designed it to maintain the original 40 foot
setback, which was consistent with the Town of
Southold. When the DEC got the application,
they asked if we could move it forward. So
that we had more space between the garage. So
after looking at everything with the property
the way it is now, we have another setback of
33 feet from the front yard. I figured if we
moved the garage forward to 33 feet rather
then the allowed 40, maybe the DEC would allow
that. So we got in touch with the DEC and
adjourned
back from them. So
approve the 33 foot
setback in the
the front yard
the bulkhead setback,
it because
anyway,
setback
we were waiting to hear
the DEC did
-- the bigger
backyard, but now I have go for
setback and didn't realize that
which we weren't aware
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of when we made the original application. The
DEC has since issued a permit for the
construction, which you should have a copy of.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. So the
necessity now for a front yard setback is the
consequence of the DEC determination --
MR. BRITTMAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As to where an
appropriate setback, which is still
nonconforming from your bulkhead --
MR. BRITTMAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I see
have a 15 foot wide non-disturbance
here.
have
you also
buffer
proposed and
be
made
MEMBER DINIZIO:
smaller?
MR. BRITTMAN:
No. I guess, can this
It's a real big deal
along the edge of the wetlands
two drywells onsite --
MR. BRITTMAN: The 15 foot buffer that
is proposed is there already.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is listed
The previous survey didn't show it.
MR. BRITTMAN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So does the Board
any questions? Jim?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because
It's already
bring it in?
it's pre-engineered building.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's pre-engineered.
built somewhere and you have to
MR. BRITTMAN: Everything is structures
and gets shipped. Not in modular but
everything get's engineered.
MEMBER DtNIZIO: Can they take a couple
of structures out and make it smaller?
MR. BRITTMAN: It's been completely
re-engineered because of the wind mode and
snow loads.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay.
MR. BRITTMAN: As a matter of fact, I
did get in touch with the company that makes
it and said, they would have to
redesign the structure. It's a
deal.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
it for?
MR. BRITTMAN:
that
could
completely
pretty big
And you would be using
foot boat
this would fit inside. So we thought we
stick it inside.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Nothing else?
MR. BRITTMAN: Well, I would keep it as
We have a 27
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
a storage.
basement in
be --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
personal boat?
MR. BHITTMAN: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's 54 square
over the maximum allowed of 750 square
So we actually understand the size of
I have a single-car garage with no
the house. Of course, there would
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's --
MR. BRITTMAN: 864.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry, 864.
750 is allowed.
MR. BRITTMAN: I guess if we had to do
it. If that would make the Board accept the
structure, I guess we could do it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think my questions
just go to, we have to determine if it's a
that.
MR. BRITTMAN: It's actually more than
hardship and why you need the variance on
that. I understand that you have ordered --
or have looked into it. I assume you haven't
ordered it yet. But certainly costs in
feet
feet.
it.
This is for your own
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
design. We find it to be too large to code.
Just trying to determine from you, why you
need to have this size. What you determine to
do with it, and how large of a boat you will
keep in there. Are you committing yourself to
keeping it in there all through the winter?
MR. BRITTMAN: Yeah.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So basically pull your
boat inside?
MR. BRITTMAN: Yeah.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And there is no other
commercial business going on inside?
MR. BRITTMAN: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is the garage
finished or unfinished?
MR. BRITTMAN: The
barn. So it's an unfinished
sheetrock on the inside.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
planning on keeping it that
MR. BRITTMAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
frame construction?
MR. BRITTMAN:
post-barn. It's
structure is like a
-- not even
So
way?
you're
No, it's actually
actually -- like an
It's (In Audible)
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
equestrian barn.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Any mechanical systems?
MR. BRITTMAN: Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
heat?
one-story,
Anything else?
question
let's go
No plumbing.
No plumbing?
MR. BRITTMAN: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And this is a
meaning it is not a second-story?
MR. BRITTMAN: No. No, second floor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have the
It hasn't changed since the
No
any
plans.
original --
MR. BRITTMAN: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George,
questions?
MEMBER HORNING: Well, I think the
came up at the last hearing, but
over that again. Is there some
reason why you can not attach the garage to
the house? Find some way to do that?
MR. BRITTMAN: No. Not for any reasons
you would want to. I mean, it's going to cut
out the whole water view from the road, which
is nice. Right now, when you drive by Main
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 11
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
Bayview Road, you could look right down the
creek. It would make the house look like a
factory rather then a country house.
Ascetically, it would be ugly. I mean, I am
in the design business, my business, there is
really no way to make the design structure
work. As though make it in kind with the rest
of the surrounding neighborhood. This would
be truly like a country barn.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
else in the audience
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
who would like
questions.
Is there anyone
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing and reserve decision to a
later date.
Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Ken.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
to address
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
**********************************************
HEARING #6515 - DAVID MOORE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application is for David Moore and that is a
carryover. So I am not going to read the
legal notice.
Good morning, to Ms. Martin. Would you
please just state your name.
MS. MARTIN: Any Martin,
Fairweather-Brown, representing David Moore in
this application. I was ill and then away,
and I apologize to the things getting to Mr.
Richter only yesterday. And there is a
further clarification that I will submit,
which has the setbacks from the bluff and
existing, which you requested last time, that
I didn't see until this morning. I have some
documentation, but it's not appropriately
signed and everything. That I will submit
later today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just ask
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 13
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you, the latest survey summarizes the
discussions about the setback variances and
the proposed porch. Both the existing and the
cutback, and I believe it's overall 11 --
MS. MARTIN: 11 foot from the house in
depth, which is 19 feet from the top of the
slope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks like
it's 16 feet?
MS. MARTIN: It's 11 feet from the
existing house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's the depth?
The depth of the deck.
WEISMAN: And the setback
non-turf buffer, is that
MS. MARTIN:
CHAIRPERSON
from that deck to the
16 feet?
MS. MARTIN: It
is now -- with the
exception of the brick, sand and
there will be a -- yes, 16 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We
walkway, now
just received
comments via e-mail
indicating that the
no property and drainage
Has been prepared by the
Brown, dated 1/31/12.
from Jamie Richter,
amended Site Plan showed
calculations on it.
office of Robert I.
He reviewed the plan
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 14
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
and drainage calculations and found them to be
in compliance with Chapter 236; however, there
was one thing that was not mentioned, that we
need to
outdoor
bluff,
talk to you about.
MS. MARTIN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which is that the
pipes that exist and went over the
are not mentioned.
MS. MARTIN: They're already removed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're removed?
MS. MARTIN: They were removed by a
Costello Marine because they were a serious
problem and they felt that was a detriment to
the environment, and that was done prior. It
has already been remediated, and directed to
an existing drywell.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. So
that drainage is now --
MS. MARTIN: Is no longer part of the
problem. It was a follow-up with the building
-- the new stairs down the face of the bluff,
when that pipe was discovered. And they did
that apparently shortly thereafter. So it's
no longer there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Ail right.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
MS. MARTIN: And I can note that on
plan for Jamie and get that back to him?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that
would be very good.
MS. MARTIN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You don't have
issue then if the Board -- just to make sure
that we're all on the same page, conditioned
the decision based upon final --
MS. MARTIN: Inspection.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- approval by
the Town Engineer?
MS. MARTIN: Not at all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
Questions from anybody? George?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
the
11
MS. MARTIN: (In Audible.)
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MS. MARTIN: One is the existing deck,
feet. It is going to be re-decked in
the
an
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16
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
our application to the Building Department.
It will be for that because there is no real
spacing between the boards and -- I forget
what they use but it is really deteriorated.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is it Trax?
MS. MARTIN: It was Trex. It's now
going to be Azek with proper spacing for
drainage below there. So there is no runoff
of the edge situation. And the other thing
is, it is reflected and reflected on the plans
that we gave to Jamie, which is one small
berm. Most of this property -- once it's back
from the bluff, all the runoff is really to
flat areas because of the planting beds. It's
very well terraced and everything. There is
none that goes out to the road, except for
where we're putting the trench drain by the
driveway. And there is one more planting bed
that we're recommending because there is a
natural gully on the west front corner of the
property. Where the pool equipment is and
we're just going to suggest that David put
make sure
another planting bed there to help
that nothing goes to the road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
Is there
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 17
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
further
that would like to
anyone else in the audience
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing and
later date.
George.
reserve decision to a
MEMBER HORNING: Seconded.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6531 ANTHONY S. CAMPO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for
Anthony S. Campo, #6531. Request for variance
from Article XXIII Code Section 280-122, based
on an application for building
Building Inspector's April 13,
December 2, 2011 Notice of
permit and the
2011, updated
Disapproval
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
concerning "as built" alterations to existing
shed and deck, at: 1) nothing in this article
shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling,
reconstruction or enlargement of a
nonconforming building containing a conforming
use, provided that such action does not create
any new nonconformance or increase the degree
of nonconformance with regard to the
regulations pertaining to such buildings, the
"as built" structure has no record of a CO;
at: 1165 Fisherman's Beach Road, adjacent to
Cutchogue Harbor, Cutchogue.
Would you please
the record, Mark?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
state your name for
Mark Schwartz, architect
for the building. The only -- we were using
the existing deck of this cottage. We call
the "guest cottage." That is how it's been
it
used for the past four years or so. We got a
Stop Work Order by the Bay Constable. So
we're here trying to straighten this out. The
structure was approved by the Zoning Board
back in 1976, this guest house. And they
moved the main house also in the same
decision, but for some reason never got a CO
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
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
from the Building Department. Clearly, it's
on the Tax Assessor's card, as well as the
deck. So the only thing that we would like to
do is replace the existing, restructure, bring
it up to code and in the meantime, we're going
to take out the existing half-bathroom that is
there. So it's really just a Garden Room and
storage structure.
MEMBER HORNING: Mark, one question
here. You say an existing bath, where is the
septic for that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: There is an existing
septic system adjacent to this cottage. That
is going to be removed at some point. We're
going to redo the house and at that point,
we're going to redo another
septic system for
the house. So we no longer need that septic,
which is right next to the cottage.
MEMBER HORNING: And you're proposing
no attachment to the new septic system?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
MEMBER HORNING: Will you have running
water out there? Nothing?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think he is going to
lighting in
want to have some electric, some
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
the shed and maybe a hose there.
MEMBER HORNING: Just curious.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just out of
curiosity, what is the status on the house
construction that we --
MR. SCHWARTZ: We have all our permits.
We have to go back to the Trustees because
that expired. We have the DEC approval and
the Department of Health.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you need a
renewal?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Still not
planning on going for some time. Maybe
another six months or so, another year.
propose
that be
shed?"
on it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. And do you
to continue to work on the -- should
permitted on the "shed" or "garden
MR. SCHWARTZ: What do you mean, work
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well right now
nothing is happening. It just has tar paper on
it. Would you be continuing construction after
the Board renders its decision, should the
Board grant this?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 21
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. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, we're going to
need to go to the Trustees and the Department
of Health.
is to do the
windows.
the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, the
residing, new roofing
DEC. This
and new
accessory building used for garden storage,
other kinds of storage only. No plumbing.
Just electric and the other possibility of,
you know, hose there?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Finished,
unfinished interior?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
We may finish it with
it as "a shed." So it's very inconsistent
language. So we're now clarifying for the
public record that this is going to be an
here with the Zoning Board treating these two
lots as one, for the purposes of a guest
cottage. And you did clarify my request
through an e-mail because the application
refers to a "guest cottage" and it refers to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what about
CO? It is clear that there is a history
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 22
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
some wood paneling. I have not discussed that
really.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Might be
finished. No heat?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No heat.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am
interested if you can obtain a CO for the
structure. How do you go about doing that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, if we get approved
from your Board, we will go to the Trustees
and we will go to the DEC, and hopefully get
their approval and then to the Building
Department for a permit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Again, it has been there
for 40, 50 years unchanged, until we started
doing work on the deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a long
history. Does this have to be FEMA compliant?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think it's maybe under
the flood zone. I would have to look at the
survey. I don't think so.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Who
has questions? Just one other thing. The
right-of-way, which is really a dead-end, but
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 23
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
nevertheless,
conditioned that
right-of-way --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I believe on the dwelling, we
there be no structure in that
there is a flat paved path
from a dwelling over there.
I think the Board would want
thing. I am not speaking
do you feel about that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: That's
And I know that
that is now going
To be consistent,
to stay the same
for the Board. How
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Is there a possibility
of relocating that building? It's not very
big. It doesn't have much of a foundation to
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
No.
it's
do -- to do maybe
on the property?
doing that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: It could be shifted more
towards the right-of-way, maybe 15 feet.
MEMBER HORNING: Right, then there are
a more conforming location
Is there a possibility of
fine. I think
kind of vegetated. It will remain flat.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, any
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
conditions of setbacks. What are your
required setbacks?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it is a
shed. They're different. Technically, I
think George has a point. The right-of-way,
even though in reality, it's something odd and
ridiculous. Something that is just basically
Scrub, constitutes as a right-of-way, but
legally, I believe there will be setback
requirements of the right-of-way. It's kind
of what it is. The property is so constrained
by wetlands and water, anywhere is going to be
a setback issue.
MEMBER HORNING: So you're saying in
response to the idea, considering relocating
it to -- let's say a non-less conforming
location? What is the possibility and what is
your answer?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, as Leslie
mentioned, if you do move it closer to the
right-of-way, you're making it more
nonconforming to the front yard. Really, if
you do to the other side, you're going to have
the same situation with the side yard setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Probably less
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 25
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
disturbance in leaving it where it sits, then
lifting it up and move it over. You know,
have to excavate and so on. It doesn't look
like it on the survey, but on the field
inspection, it shows it pretty close to the
edge of what would be a beach.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I would say it's
probably about 25, 30 feet.
MEMBER HORNING: Which brings up the
LWRP, recommendation for inconsistency. Don't
we have that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Yes .
MEMBER HORNING:
address that?
How would you do
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, we would be able
to put a drywell in between the right-of-way
and the structure, for the runoff of the roof.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, now that
you mentioned that, it's interesting. You
show a drywell. But wait a minute, you got on
the survey that we got, existing cesspools as
per old survey to remain. Do you see that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Right now, that is
being used by the main house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's remaining
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 26
1
2
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
until the new construction takes place?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, clearly
you're proposing a less intense, you know,
the structure, and under the circumstances
the possibility of getting
a CO.
of
of
I don't have
any further questions. Does anybody on the
Board have any questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You don't have
any problem, I presume -- let me ask you
differently. Do you have any problem with
this
CO for the structure?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, not at all.
MEMBER HORNING: On the record, you're
not considering making this any larger or
decision, if conditioned upon obtaining a
another use
MR.
MEMBER
space in there
then what you're stating --
SCHWARTZ: No.
HORNING: There is no habitable
anymore?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No. None intended.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else in
the audience -- which there isn't anyone.
Hearing no further comment, I will make
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 27
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
a motion to close the hearing and reserve
decision to a later date.
Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, seconded it.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would like to
make a motion for a five minute recess.
Is there a second?
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at
this time.)
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 28
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
KATHLEEN M. FOLTS
CHAIRPERSON
application is
Folts, %6536.
Request
~6536 DOUGLAS C. &
Code Section 280-116B and the Building
Inspector's December 15, 2011, Notice of
Disapproval based on a building permit
application to construct addition and
alteration to a single family dwelling, at:
Less than the code required riprap setback of
75 feet. Located at: 90 Oak Street, Harbor
for variance from Article XXII,
Lane. Adjacent to East Creek, a.k.a.
Eugene's Creek, Cutchogue.
Just checking to see if there is
correspondence that you don't have.
Mark, for the transcript, would you
please just enter your name again?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Sure. Mark Schwartz,
architect for the project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let me
give you this memorandum, this LWRP
recommendation, saying that the proposed
action is consistent. And also recommendation
WEISMAN: The next
for Douglas C. & Kathleen M.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
for Suffolk County local determination.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What was the date
the Suffolk County date of determination?
January something?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Memo was the 24th.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
what would you like to tell us about this
application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: The owner's of this
property would like to expand the existing
cottage, which is quite small. They're
planning on moving out here full-time.
They're in the sixties and they have a lot
stuff that has accumulated over the years.
They want to move in, and with no basement
they want to leave the existing detached
garage and build a two-story house with an
attached garage also. There is no basement
of
Mark,
of
it because it's in a -- partially in a flood
zone. The existing setback from the house to
the riprap is 52 feet. We're proposing a
slightly smaller setback of 49 feet setback
-- actually to the proposed deck. So we're
going to move some of the house, one-story
to
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 30
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
house and create an open deck in that area.
So the setback from the main house is actually
58 feet. We're here only because of the
setback from the riprap. The existing house
is much closer than the 35 feet required.
We're complying with all the other setbacks.
The height is within code and we're less than
the 20% lot coverage. Putting in a new septic
system and drywells for the drainage system
runoff. We are a little bit restricted on the
site, because of the garage that they would
like to keep and a proposed setback for the
proposed septic system that is required, at
least a hundred feet away from the water. So
that's why we're sticking to the same
location. The foundation will remain, and the
first floor will definitely remain.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Ken, any
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. I see the
riprap curved around and everything. What
would be the average setback of the riprap to
the proposed house?
MR. SCHWARTZ: The average setback
would be somewhere around 55, 56 feet.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 31
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
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And that is actually the
dimension to the porch, what you get from the
wrap around porch.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no other
questions at this point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: The renovation process
has begun or not?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
MEMBER HORNING: Not at all?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
say that we're missing certain
LWRP, do we have that?
CHAIRPERSON
MEMBER HORNING:
MR. SCHWARTZ:
Then my notes
things. The
Trustees and they would not accept it because
they wanted to get your decision first.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And the DEC,
they have anything?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I have submitted, but
don't have anything back from them yet. As
well as the Department of Health, that has
do
I
WEISMAN: Yes, we do.
And the Trustees?
I had submitted to the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
also been applied for, for the
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
it's consistent, and recommends a
landscaped buffer made of vegetation
existing riprap. Do you have that,
septic system.
The LWRP says
foot wide
from the
Mark?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is your
reaction to that?
not
is.
the
MR. SCHWARTZ: Looks fine to me. I am
sure where the edge of the (In Audible)
It's not shown on the site plan here, but
is
15 feet seems reasonable.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The house
going to be substantially larger, but in
the character of the neighborhood, driving
around, there were a number of modest cottages
like the one your client has now, but there
are also buildings that have renovated, that
are much larger.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah, the setback from
the water of this house is similar to the two
next to it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. Okay.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
Does the Board have any other questions? Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
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 the hearing and reserve decision to a
later date.
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
George.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
**********************************************
HEARING #6537 - PAUL NADEL
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next
application is for Paul Nadel, #6537. Request
for variance from Article IV, Code Section
280-18 and the Building Inspector's
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 34
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December 15, 2011, Notice of Disapproval based
on a building permit application to construct
a carport addition to a single family
dwelling, at: 1) side yard setback less than
the code required 15 feet, located at: 220
Broadwaters Road, adjacent Broadwaters Cove,
Cutchogue.
Mark?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz,
architect.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, they're proposing
to construct a 10.6 X 24 by a 20 foot open
carport, adjacent to the existing home. There
is a side yard entry -- it's a side entry to
the house, which is convenient. If we put it
on the other side of the house, the bedrooms
are on the other end. Kind of would block any
emergency vehicle access to that side. The
setback is about 4.7 feet from the side yard,
which is the same as the house, and it kind of
nestles into an L-shape of the house, and
leave the garage existing as it is. So the
height of the ridge and the soffit heights, 8
feet. And this is made out for an emergency
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 35
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
room doctor. So in the snowy weather, at
least a covered car would help in an
emergency.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I have some
questions. You know, we granted a variance a
while ago to join the back building, I don~t
want to call it a garage. I suspect at some
point -- this is a detached garage and then
turn it into an apartment or something. And
now, you join it together with a breezeway and
now you have a principal structure there 4
feet away from the side yard. I read the
decision, it said 5 feet, 5 inches. I am
assuming that the carport comes over a little
more -- it looks like it does. More than the
existing building? A-i, the overhang looks
like it makes it go a little closer to the
property line. In any case, it's extremely
close to that property line. You can park a
car there on asphalt, but I am looking for
some more reasons why you would need to
sustain that nonconformity because this is,
you know -- could it be put in the front of
the yard? I mean, I understand the other side
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 36
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
because the bedrooms are there, but if you're
just covering up a car, that is not
necessarily -- that would not make it (In
Audible) to get into that side to cover a car,
or even around the back. Can you give me a
little more reasons why?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, again, on the east
side, anything -- any kind of addition to the
east side of the house is really going to
block any kind of machinery or emergency
vehicles on that side. Even though this is a
big property, and you have been to the site,
there is a small rear yard between the deck
and the pool. And that wouldn't make any
sense there. The front yard setback kind of
restricts you there, any accessory building in
the front.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, no more than a
side yard.
MR. SCHWARTZ: The only thing on the
side yard is that the existing house has to be
at least 40, 50 or 60 feet back from the
structure, and it is heavily vegetated. And
if this gets approved and built, you won't
even see this thing.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 37
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 DINIZIO: But it will be 4.7
feet away.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, the intent was to
not go any close to the existing structure.
If you look at it that way -- I mean, I can
detail it where it is not going to go any
closer.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You already needed a
variance to have that building adjoined. Now,
you're asking for further variances to further
cover up the yard, per se. You know, I am
just looking for some strong reasons why it
shouldn't be denied?
to
MR. SCHWARTZ: I just don't see it any
where else it makes sense to put it, honestly.
The front yard is not going to work with the
setback to the side.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Why wouldn't the front
yard work?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think you need at
least a 50 foot setback or we need to get a
variance for a front yard setback.
MEMBER DINIZIO: To what extent?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I am not sure really how
describe to what extent.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible) circular
driveway, what if we give you a variance to
put it right at end of that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: That would be
To me, I think that
rather then putting
where you couldn't see
MEMBER DINIZIO:
an option.
is more in your face,
it in the corner here
it.
I am not worried about
your face, as I am worried about the amount
of variances and the amount of nonconformity.
I'm trying to minimize that. I'm looking for
reasons why to maintain it in that location.
There is quite some distance between the front
yard and the house.
MR. SCHWARTZ: That is
65 feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: 65 feet?
SCHWARTZ: Yeah, to the front of
MR.
the house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: See where the
goes directly to the side of the
is that
house?
where the
east side
MR. SCHWARTZ: Uh-huh.
MEMBER DINIZIO: From that point,
driveway starts, that would be
-- west, from here to here.
driveway
right
the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 39
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
side.
to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is the west
MEMBER DINIZIO: From this
this point, what is the distance?
reason why you can't
the house, Mike?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
these options. It's
point here,
We did consider all
just not going to look
right in front of the bedrooms --
MEMBER DINIZIO: What I am trying to
get from you, what you considered and why you
decided against those?
MR. SCHWARTZ: To the east side of --
the east wing, they're basically all bedrooms.
And the access to the front -- front entry is
not even all that close. The closest option
for them to come in on the side, the breezeway
that connects the two, and goes right into the
kitchen area. That is just the most
convenient on that side. Like I said, to me
this seems like another variance. Sounds
severe, if you're supposed to have a 15 foot
setback existing and we are really not going
any closer. Visually, it has to be the best
option.
Any
attach it to the front of
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 40
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: You're going closer.
You're going 4.7 feet. You have 5.5.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Like I said, I revised
that. We're not intending going any closer --
MEMBER DINIZIO: It just looks like to
me, it's the overhang.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I am sure there is
an overhang on the back part of that house
also. We would match that. I would clearly
define that we would net go any closer then
what is there.
MEMBER
could match
solve that
wonder
You're
and out of
it covered
just
now.
spend
They
DINIZIO: I don't know how you
that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not trying to
problem for you. I am trying to
why this can't be put some place else.
saying that
your car
for what
pull the car up
MR. SCHWARTZ:
They would just
twenty-eight in
don't like the
it's convenient to get in
there. You have to have
reason? Why you can't
and get out --
That is what they do
like it covered. They
Florida. It's cold.
snow. They would like to
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
have a covered carport.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is all I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This carportn is
just really a roof with posts?
MR. SCHWARTZ: A roof with two columns
and it's connected to the main house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If the Board
conditioned that it should never be enclosed,
how is that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: That would not be a
problem.
MEMBER HORNING: Would it be enclosed
with these windows?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Those are just
or something on the side
right?
Yes.
WEISMAN: And what does it
sliding glass doors
of the house; is that
That is just a big room
ping-pong table in the
MR. SCHWARTZ:
CHAIRPERSON
lead to?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
right now that has a
middle of the room.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that
of a recreational space of some sort?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
is kind
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 42
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
to provide
some sort,
Exactly the
dwelling?
that
WEISMAN: You would be able
us with a survey or a site plan of
that shows the carport as proposed?
same size setback as the existing
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
up?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, I would.
inspection, it
to the west is
driveway, that
You would clear
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On site
would appear that the property
wooded with a very long
leads to the neighbors house?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAH:
far that driveway property,
property is -- the
Do you know how
the residential
dwelling rather?
MR. SCHWARTZ: With the detached
garage, I would say 30 or 40 feet from the
rear of the Nadel's house and the principal
house, maybe 50 to 60 feet back.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. And you're
suggesting, I believe, I am just summarizing
my understanding of your testimony, which is,
this proposed carport is to remain open, other
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 43
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then the roof and no enclosures on the sides,
no increase, as well as, decrease in the
degree of nonconformity because you're simply
extending it farther? You're not going to
have a smaller side yard setback as a result
of this carport, that exists at the moment?
The height of the ridge is 13 1/2 feet. To
the soffit, 8 feet, and you believe this to be
the most functional location, with the least
visual impact on the neighbors or the roads,
from the subject property itself, is that
accurate?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't have any
further questions.
George?
MEMBER HORNING: Just a little bit of
conversation on the character of the
neighborhood that Leslie was asking about.
The neighbors to the west and the visual
inspection shows they're down a driveway. On
the survey that you provided, it doesn't show
the neighbors house or anything like that. If
you were going to update a survey to show the
exact measurements of the carport, it might be
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
easy if you can provide approximately the
location of that neighbor, so that the Board
could understand that this little bit of an
addition is not advantageous to the neighbor
in any way, because their house is not
immediately next door. It's not immediately
adjacent. It's down towards the cove more,
isn't that about right?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. You can see it
kind of on the survey. There is a shed shown
on the property, partially shown. The house
is at least 20 feet north then from the shed.
The shed on the
MEMBER HORNING:
applicants property?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
neighbor's property.
MEMBER HORNING:
neighbor's property?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
MEMBER HORNING:
The shed on the
The shed on the
that
MR. SCHWARTZ:
information.
MEMBER HORNING:
Yeah.
Oh, yes. I see that.
I certainly can give you
I think that would be
beneficial for this application to note that.
You know, to address the character of the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 45
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
neighborhood. The house is quite a distance
away from the immediately adjacent; correct?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The width of the
proposed carport is 10 1/2 feet?
MR. SCHWARTZ: 10.6.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 10.6, okay. And
the other side yard is 22 feet. So that would
be reducing that side yard, should it be on
that side yard by 10.6 feet. So that would
make it 11.6 feet side yard, which is not a
conforming -- are you following what I am
saying, Mike?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No. No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The other side
yard, the westerly side yard, is currently 22
feet. The house is --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Got it, yep.
MEMBER HORNING: Really the easterly
side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: East side, which
is conforming, and if you were to put the shed
over there and the shed is 10.6 feet in width,
it would reduce that side yard by 10.6 feet,
which would then make it nonconforming; is
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
2I
22
23
24
25
that
correct?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
Ken, any questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: No,
building that
Jim?
other then the
you're attaching it to, which
that breezeway, was built as required by a
variance, which you got. So I am having a
hard time to expanding that anymore. I think
you need to find another way. You're really
is
packing it
on more variances
have more options,
them a little bit.
MR.
in on that side, and you're relying
to do it. I think if you
you would kind of explore
SCHWARTZ: I understand, Jim. With
different owners, I went through that variance
process.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand. You got
a bigger house because of a variance. You did
this because of a variance. The breezeway
exists, because we required it. The Town
required that you have that there. Now to
expand that more, regardless of whether it
is
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 47
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
a carport or a building, I mean, it still
covers the ground. It takes up lot coverage.
It is a lot to ask for a carport.
understand what it does. We have other
applications before us, that are asking for
lot less than you're now. I just don't -- I
a
wish you could give me another reason why you
couldn't put it in the front other then that.
That allows you to get in and out. I
understand you want to keep your feet dry. To
put it in the front yard, it would certainly
accomplish all of that. You had a driveway at
the location already. You continue to use it.
You're relying on the fact that, that
particular house is setback farther, both
people have a right to tare down that house
and rebuild it. Just like you have. You
know, they're going to be
they want to build their house
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
this
to
it
going to look odd.
in this spot. Just
looking at us when
I went through
with the owner and it didn't make sense
put it in the front of the house. First,
s still going to need a variance and it's
I mean, it's just nestled
makes sense. You barely
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 48
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
notice it, in my mind, and
And if this gets turned down,
is going to want it any place
probably not have it at all.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you.
in the owners view.
I don't think he
else. He would
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone in the
audience that wants to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing, subject to receipt of a
survey showing side yard setback of the
proposed carport, the same as the dwelling
the adjacent neighbors dwelling.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail
MEMBER Aye.
MEMBER Aye.
MEMBER Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HORNING:
DINIZIO:
SCHNEIDER:
in favor?
second?
and
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 49
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 #6538 9105 SKUNK LANE, LLC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is for 9105
Skunk Lane, LLC. The Board to consider
adjourning to a new date, revised Notice of
Disapproval received
re-notice and re-post
am going to open it.
name for the record?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
for the project.
CHAIRPERSON
legal notice, just
on 1/19/12. Need to
it, the application. I
Mark, please state your
Mark Schwartz,
architect
WEISMAN: I will read the
so that it is in the
record, and then the Board can discuss the
request for adjournment and re-noticing.
Request for variance from Article III Code
Section 280-13(C)4 (b) and Article XXII
280-105A, and the Building InspectorTs
December 20, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based
on an application for building permit to build
a tennis court with fence surround on a vacant
lot, at: 1) use of a tennis court is not
permitted on a vacant lot, without a principal
dwelling, 2) tennis court fence at more than
the code required maximum height of 4 feet in
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 50
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
a front yard, located at: 9105 Skunk Lane,
adjacent to Little Creek, dredged canal, in
Cutchogue.
Okay, Mark, what is happening with this
change in Notice of Disapproval?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. Mark Schwartz for
the project. The owners wanted to push the
tennis court closer to the road then what we
had originally submitted. Therefore, we have
altered the plans and resubmitted it, but I
didn't get a chance to notice the neighbor's
properly. So we would like to adjourn it to
the next meeting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, so it's not
legally noticed. Will this be creating a
front yard setback variance also?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So then it will
be three variances, a vacant lot, fence at
6 1/2 feet in the front yard, and a front yard
setback?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. I
don't think there is no point in taking
testimony at this point. We haven't received
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
your amended survey and Notice of Disapproval,
so unless the Board has questions at this
point, I think we should adjourn it to March.
Is that acceptable to Board?
make
March
MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am going to
a motion to adjourn this hearing to
1st, at 1:00 o'clock. So moved.
Is there a second?
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next hearing
is scheduled for 11:40, so I am going to make
a motion for a 10 minute recess.
Is there a second?
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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 DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at this time.)
HEARING #6535 - DAVID M. HALL
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next
is for David M. Hall, #6535. Request
variance from Article III, Code Section
and 15(C) and the Building Inspector's
November 29, 2011 Notice of Disapproval
on an application for building permit
accessory in-ground swimming pool and
accessory garage; 1) proposed accessory
at more than the code required maximum
footage of 750 square feet on lots
20,000-60,000 square feet, located at:
Westphalia Road, Mattituck.
Would you please state
the record?
MR. NOTARO: Frank Notaro. I
architect and agent for the Hall's.
Hall is here, to answer any additional
questions. Just a little background on
obviously it has
your name
hearing
for
280-15
based
for an
garage
square
1800
for
am the
David
it,
a very huge side yard and
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 53
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
there is not too many places that we can put
the accessory garage and pool. So basically,
what we started off with was the possibility
connecting the structures, but right now we
wanted to keep it kind of a lower budget. So
in the future there might be a connection made
between the garage and the main house. So
again, that would be another application.
That is not
what we're here for today, but
basically, the Hall's, you know, want enough
room for
changing room
don't have to
house,
a two-car garage and a small little
for the pool. So that they
trace in and out of the main
and if I could answer any questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. The
correction has been made on these new plans
that you have submitted --
MR. NOTARO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
As you recall,
the
in the
shower
any
first floor plan indicated a full bathroom
garage, which is not permitted. So the
has been removed from what I see.
MR. NOTARO: Yep.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you planning
outdoor shower someplace?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 54
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. NOTARO: You know, we never really
discussed it. It probably makes sense to
place on the backside facing the pool,
right now, it's not in the plans.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it is
permitted, provided no variance is required.
That issue is taking care of. Let's see what
the Board has. I see mostly this is front
yard. That is all one piece of property, that
side yard, that goes all the way to the
private road?
MR. NOTARO: Yep.
but
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. George,
any questions?
MEMBER HORNING: Yes. You started
mentioning about attaching the garage and it
sort of being more costly, and yet, if you
attach it at a later date, wouldn't it be more
costly then it would be if you did it --
MR. NOTARO: I probably spoke out of
hand there. They're not going to do it
because when they started getting prices on
pools, it's just -- it's out of the ballpark.
So they -- we have it as an accessory
separated garage.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
attach
MEMBER HORNING: Except if you did
it, you may not need a variance?
MR. NOTARO: Yeah, but unfortunately,
where it attaches is two bedrooms and the
bedrooms aren't large to begin with. We
looked at it. It upsets a third of the
existing house, and the Hall's didn't want to
go down that road.
MEMBER HORNING: Our job is to grant
the least amount of variance possible.
MR. NOTARO: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: If the garage were
attached, then it would be a completely
different application, if you even needed to
have an application.
MR. NOTARO: Well, you would still --
believe with the pool.
MEMBER HORNING: The pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: My one question was
about attaching the garage to the house, but
that was addressed already. At this point, I
have no other questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we just had an
I
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application where the (In Audible) reason for
the side yard was to put a breezeway in, and I
was wondering if that was a possibility, a
heated breezeway? You were mentioning
something about corridors and {In Audible) so
I guess my assumption is that, is talking
about having to access the garage from inside
of the house?
MR. NOTARO: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that a code, if
that is attached, it actually has to be inside
the house?
MR. NOTARO: You would literally just
use the breezeway.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We had an application,
many, many, years -- we solved the problem of
that particular problem by attaching the house
and a garage as an apartment, and that it
would all become a principal structure. In
that particular, you can walk from one end,
the house to the garage through this
breezeway. I was just wondering if there was
any code that says that you couldn't just
attach, let's say, a -- I don't know a 6 by
whatever the distance is between the house, 4
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
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
feet, 5 feet.
MR. NOTARO:
8 feet.
Between the house is about
MEMBER DINIZIO: You can build a
structure here and then you're all principal.
MR. NOTARO: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: To my mind, there is
certainly enough here to make a decision on.
You could -- if you have no other alternatives
to put that garage, that wouldn't require a
variance. I see that pretty clearly.
Certainly going towards Westphalia. Then you
got the septic system there. You would have
to come forward with that. I see all of that.
Could
variance needed.
That is much less of a
that be a possibility?
MR. NOTARO: I think
that we might address to
I never put anything
around the code.
and I believe it
in this bedroom.
change in that side of
MEMBER DINIZIO:
eliminating windows on
that is something
Mr. Hall. Basically,
in, that is trying to get
It is an additional cost,
would involve moving windows
So it would mean an actual
the house.
So you would
both sides?
be
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 58
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. NOTARO: Yes. They weren't
interested in doing it at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you are going
to testify, you have to come forward.
MR. NOTARO: If I could say one other
thing? We didn't even put dog houses
upstairs. It is strictly storage. You know,
they don't need the room, basically.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I was going to
ask you, you show now on this set of plans,
the original didn't have much in the way of a
second-story plan. This now shows attic
space. Unheated?
MR. NOTARO: Unheated.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Plumbing in there
because of the bathroom.
Right.
WEISMAN:
space?
yes,
MR. NOTARO:
CHAIRPERSON
Unfinished attic
And electric.
MR. NOTARO:
would actually put
garage, interior.
CHAIRPERSON
MR. NOTARO:
CHAIRPERSON
At this point, yes. We
5/8 sheetrock around the
WEISMAN: Of the garage?
Garage.
WEISMAN: The attic space
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 59
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would remain unfinished?
MR. NOTARO: Yeah, at this point, there
is really no need for it. It is just strictly
storage. I mean, David, can address it.
Really, at this point, we're just looking to
do a budget on that, because it is supposed to
be a combined project with the pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The proposed size
is 819 square feet. The code allows a maximum
of 750 square feet. So it's 69 square feet
beyond what the code permits. Is there any
way that you can make this more smaller and a
little more conforming?
MR. NOTARO: Well, anything could be
modified, obviously. It was a comfortable
size for a two-car garage and a changing room.
We looked at it and we said, this is what's
ideal and we ran with that.
don't
plan.
8x7
small.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What's the -- I
have it on here, the bathroom --
MR. NOTARO: I don't have it on this
It's small. The bathroom is -- it is
foot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's pretty
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 60
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
MEMBER HORNING: Does that have
anything to do with the pool, by the way?
MR. NOTARO: Yes, the changing room.
So that they don't have to go through the
house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And it's not
accessible from the inside of the garage;
right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a door
way.
MEMBER HORNING: They would have to
walk around to it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Certainly it is a
big lot. Let's see, there is an existing, 4
foot high fence along the side yard -- that is
a rear yard.
MR. NOTARO:
CHAIRPERSON
just open land over
MR. NOTARO:
CHAIRPERSON
could see from there.
MR. NOTARO: From
property?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Right.
WEISMAN:
there.
Yeah.
WEISMAN:
the
Chain Link.
And pretty much
Nothing that I
neighbor's
Yes.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 61
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
MR. NOTARO: I think they're pretty
far.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So there would
not be much in the way of noise --
MR. NOTARO: Right. The garage would
be the buffer towards the front too.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Any Board
members have any further questions?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience that wishes to address this
application? Please come forward.
MS. HART: Hi, my name is Catherine
Hart and I am here with
the back, and we're all
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
your name, please?
MS. HART: Sure.
Catherine with a "C." I
Not about the structure.
my husband
neighbors.
Will
Richard in
you spell
Hart, H-A-R-T, and
have two concerns.
This is a great
use of
thing. They will get a lot of great
the garage, and the kids of the pool. We have
an existing water problem, stormwater problem
and runoff problem, and it was made a lot
worse when the Hall's had paved a stone
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 62
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
driveway, and in doing that, they had lined
the driveway area. Which is very large. They
can accommodate eight vehicle's. So it's a
driveway parking area. They lined the
driveway with Belgium Block and in one area,
they lowered the Belgium Block to the level of
the driveway. So all the water comes off of
their house from the leaders, directly away
from the house, and some of it is directed to
the driveway. And it goes through this
opening, like a spruce way. Comes into our
driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Excuse me,
exactly where are you located?
MS. HART: We're own the same driveway.
We share a common driveway that has three
houses on it. We're the red house at the
bottom of the driveway. So the water comes
through that area, down this opening, down our
driveway, and our house was flooded -- since
they paved their driveway, it flooded three
times. The first was the worst, with inches
of water in our basement, furnace. You know,
wells, whole nine yards. So what we did is we
talked to David and his wife, and they said
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
that they didn't feel the problem was their's.
You know, that it was just water, and didn't
want to participate in correcting it. So what
we did is, we put in a 40 foot French long
drain across the front of our driveway that
meets to our house. That goes to a catch in
the basin, that goes to a much larger drywell
in the front of our lawn. So I don't feel
that there is really anything else that we
could do to contain that water. So the
concern is with the garage, the roof and the
(In Audible) around the pool. Where is that
water going to go? I have pictures if you
want to see it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: They're required to
contain all water on their property.
MS. HART: I have to be honest with
you, when this happened, and we had spoken, I
realized that we weren't going to get further
with our discussions. I went to the Building
Department and I was told by the Building
Department at that time, this was about seven
or eight years ago, that they couldn't
regulate existing structure runoff, but any
new building and structure, has to contain the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 64
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
water and that is why I am here today. So I
see on the plans, because we did get notified,
that there is provision for the water that is
going to be dumped out of the pool, with
watering the level and backwashing and that
case. I didn't see anything in the plans that
we got, that shows that there is anything to
contain that water.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: From the roof of
the garage?
MS. HART: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: May I ask a question?
When you had your French drain put in to
somewhat solve the water problem that was
partially contributed by runoff from a
neighbors property, did you get a survey? Do
you have any kind of a survey of the property
showing those installations?
MS. HART: With me now?
MEMBER HORNING: No, at the time that
you did it? If you could, I think it would be
beneficial for you to submit it, your property
showing those kinds of details to us, so that
we could review that.
MS. HART: I can, and you can do that,
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 65
6
7
8
9
10
i1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but if you look at the grade of the property,
the height of the property at the beginning of
the driveway to where we are, there is 10-15
feet down. So I know water runs downhill.
MEMBER HORNING: Right.
MS. HART: But -- can I show you a
picture?
survey, we
example.
MEMBER HORNING: Sure. With the
can see where your house was, for
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I have the
plans, and I am just going to ask her to show
that to us, when she brings the picture up.
MS. HART: (In Audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MS. HART: So I think the sidewalk
replaces the (In Audible). That is when we
did the drainage.
MEMBER DINIZIO: How does the drainage
work?
MS. HART: You know what, I will tell
you, it works pretty good, but I have to tell
you, six sand bags that I have delivered in my
garage that we have to move. My house has a
basement and two windows. The west side of
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 66
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
the house and the south side of the house,
goes down the driveway and down my front walk
and it surrounds the house. We can't stop it.
So sand bags, it helps a little bit but it
doesn't really stop.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This drain that
to be in this driveway, the drain --
MS. HART: That is the drain that we
appears
put in.
there?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That you put in.
MS. HART: And you see the sidewalks
to get a building permit
MS. HART: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And so let's ask
the architect or the property owner to come up
and address your concerns.
MR. NOTAR0: We always contain any
and a CO.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. There is,
as you can point out, a proposal for a drywell
for pool water. We don't see on the survey
any drywell proposed for the garage. So nor,
do I see on the drawings, any gutters or
leaders. The code does require that. There
is an onsite drainage code in order for them
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 67
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
runoff from any structure. There are actually
little gutters shown on the side elevation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To small for my
eyes.
MR. NOTARO: It will be contained. One
comment I do have, I do alterations to a lot
of existing houses. When people say to me I
am getting water along the basement wall, the
first thing that I do is walk around the
house. What happens over time and I am not
saying this is what has happened to their
house, is what -- is supposed to be a run a
grade away from the home. It actually
sometimes
You know,
situation.
idea.
winds up going towards the home.
so that probably doesn't help the
how you're
concern to So
that?
MR.
really touching the
rid of some of the
goes. Again, I am
If that's the case, I have no
This is the first I am hearing of this.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, first, I think
handling the driveway might be of
us. I think you should address
NOTARO: Okay. Well, we're not
driveway. We're getting
driveway where the garage
only addressing it because
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
I am just
substantial
can discuss,
driveway.
CHAIRPERSON
that there
dwelling?
MR.
know is
hearing it right now. It is
water. That is something that we
on that non-pervious -- the
is gutters and
WEISMAN: I am assuming
leaders on the
NOTARO: I am not 100% sure.
MS. HART: Yes, there are.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we need to
where they're being discharged.
They're probably being discharged on the
property somewhere and then the grade is in an
impervious driveway.
MR. NOTARO:
Actually, I think the
homeowner can probably --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
name?
Please enter your
MR. HALL: David Hall. The house is a
very old house. We have actually installed
new gutters and down spouts after we bought
the house, which was in the year 2000. There
are some old catch bases, if you will. Some
old metal drums that are down in the ground,
next to the house. And that is where the down
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 69
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
spouts is discharging the water and then it
gets absorbed into the property. We didn't
change anything. It was that design when we
bought it. I don't recall if the gutters were
an exact replacement. We didn't change the
house. So I am assuming they were. When we
paved the driveway, at least on the side that
she was, we went over the old outline of the
stone driveway and the part where the Belgium
Block is down leveled with the ground was and
is a concrete walkway. It has been there for
years. So the only reason why it was
depressed, was so you could walk on the
driveway to the concrete walkway and not trip.
We kept open an area where there was a
drainage outlet, and we also spaced some of
the Belgium Block so that the water can slowly
dissipate. But there was an old design, I
have no idea when it was done, you may know,
but it allowed for water to travel from the
driveway area into an old catch basin, and
that was left open. We set the Belgium Blocks
so that the water could go down that way. You
know, one of the things that I don't recall
exactly is at some point we paved, they came
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
to me
road,
and said that we would like to pave the
because the road was also stone.
MS. HART: 2006.
MR. HALL: It was certainly after I
paved my driveway, and -- but it was before
you put the French
MS. HART:
the first year that
paved
drains in, and all of --
We put the drains in there
we had the flood.
MR. HALL: Okay.
MS. HART: The common driveway was
after we had the first flood.
MR. HALL: Okay. I understand that
there is water that comes from my property and
that it is unavoidable because we're up hill
from them, but I had nothing to do with this.
They came to me and asked if I would
contribute to the road.
MS. HART: And that is fine, the road
is not the problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to
address the Board.
MS. HART: Sorry. The common
driveway --
MR. HALL: So after they solved their
drainage issue or at least attempted to solve
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 71
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
their drainage with drywells and French drains
and things, they decided that it would be a
good idea to pave the road, which clearly is
in my view, is a lot larger surface that has
no obstacles in it. That the water chose to
come down and right into their property, it
was going to do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just point
out that the code was changed in 2008, for
just these reasons because the more
development takes place, the more impervious
surfaces there are. We have road runoff and
pollution. So the code now requires that
every property owner control their own
stormwater runoff onsite. Ms. Hart has done
what she could do with the issues on her
property. Ail we can do is deal with the
issues on your property runoff. Certainly
with the proposal of the pool and structure,
it's time to be code compliant, and necessary
on your property, to take care of those, the
stormwater runoff, as per Town Code. Maybe,
one thing that we might be able to do is ask
your architect to provide us with an amended
survey, perhaps additional information, as to
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 72
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
you will be code compliant with regards to
containment on site of all stormwater runoff,
as well as the pool, which you're already
proposing. So that we could be assured that
you're up to date on what is required.
MR. HALL: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But certainly
that would go a long way, not only protecting
your neighbor's, but the common road that you
share, and make sure that you adhere to the
code.
Frank, how about -- does the
to close subject to receipt of that
this over just in case there are
that the neighbor has?
Board want
or carry
questions
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we should
carry it over.
MEMBER HORNING: I agree
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
will tell you what, let's give you an
with that too.
Then
opportunity to collaborate on how you want to
do this. Talk to the Town Engineer, if you
want to, or whatever. Have the Town Engineer
take a look at whatever you have proposed,
which is fairly standard and make sure that it
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
conforms to the code. We will receive
comments from him, and we will adjourn this to
next month, and we can always reconvene at
that time and talk about how you will address
this issue. Is that okay with the Board? Is
that okay with the two of you?
MR. HALL: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In the meantime,
let's see if there are any other questions
that pertain to this, at the moment that are
before us. George, did
MEMBER HORNING:
little more clarification
you want to --
I just wanted to get a
from Mr. Hall. He
was testifying of the common driveway and it
was paverstone's (sic) at one point.
MR. HALL: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: And then you talked
with the neighbor and the neighbor also wanted
it paved? Did you say that?
MR. HALL: Yes. Yes, after I paved my
driveway, at some point they had -- the Hart's
had discussed and came to me and asked if I
wanted to pave the driveway and contribute
I said, "sure."
and
MEMBER HORNING: There was a road there
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 74
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
that
was gravel?
MR. HALL: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING:
MR. HALL: Yes.
MEMBER HORHING:
picture with a big
of that?
MR. HALL:
MEMBER
one?
MR. HALL:
And it is now paved?
And that is the
drainage tank in the middle
Yes.
HORNING:
Just
Are there more than
It causes a drainage problem for us. The
common driveway that we all share the cost of
paving, that big drain that is in the picture,
we put that drain there. We put that big
saying is contributing to the runoff? Not
that common right-of-way?
MR. HALL: Yes. That is my
understanding.
MEMBER HORNING: Not the road; is that
correct, Ma'am? His driveway, not --
MS. HART: His driveway parking area.
one.
MEMBER HORNING: And again, to
alleviate confusion on my part, what is it
about your driveway that your neighbor is
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 75
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
drywell in.
MEMBER HORNING: When it was paved?
MS. HART: Prior to it being paved. So
that water that would come down the common
driveway would go into that drywelt, which is
kind of on a flat area of that driveway.
But it is not runoff
right-of-way, that you --
MEMBER HORNING:
from that common
MS. HART: No. You know, it's from the
house and the parking area. Water runs down
hill, you know.
MEMBER HORNING: Just so I wanted to
get that clear in my mind.
MS. HART: It's kind of hard to
describe. You have to take the opportunity to
come and look.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we have
there. Every application before this
been
Board, prior to a public hearing, each Board
member does do a site inspection. So we have
seen the area.
MS. HART: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is part of
our job. But the architect and the homeowner,
you know, will have a chance to talk about it
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
and see whether they need to put some drains
someplace else.
MS. HART: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How they can do
it, because the code now requires it.
MS. HART: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is the
reason why the Town Board, environmental
awareness has increased dramatically. There
are adverse consequences for not controlling
water. There is pollution as a result and
erosion. The code has been updated and
everyone will have to comply to it for those
reasons.
MS. HART: I have a question? Are you
talking about leaders and gutters or something
more
significant?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, leaders and
gutters are one way of taking the rain off of
a roof. Where it discharges is important.
MS. HART: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If it's
discharging over a bluff or onto a neighbors
property, then it's not code compliant and it
has to be taken care of on that property. I
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 77
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
am sure
that
have
else in
address
further
motion to
1:20.
they will come back with a proposal
will address those issues and you will
a chance to look at it.
MS. HART: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
the audience that would like to
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
questions. I am going to make a
adjourn this hearing to March 1st at
Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6433 - LIPA
NORTHEAST, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application before the Board
T-Mobile Northeast, LLC,
and T-MOBILE
The next
is for LIPA and
%6433. Request for
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 78
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
variances from Article XVII Code Section
an application for building
and maintain a wireless
280-70J, based on
permit to upgrade
telecommunication
Inspector's
October 12,
facility and the Building
September 3, 2010, amended
2010, updated June 10, 2011 Notice
of Disapproval concerning proposed antenna
support structures at; 1) more than the
maximum code required height of 45 feet,
2) location of mounted antenna not located in
the code required interior, 3) less than the
code required distance to adjacent residential
property line of 500 feet. Location: 69685
Route 25 and Chapel Lane in Greenport.
Is there someone here to represent this
application?
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. Good afternoon.
Thank you Madam Chairperson and Members of the
Board. My name is John Coughtin. I am from
the firm of Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin this
afternoon on behalf of the applicant, T-Mobile
Northeast, LLC. To summarize --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just
present to you, for your records, we just
received from the Planning Board. So we all
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
have the same documentation.
MR. COUGHLIN: Very good. As to
summarize, T-Mobile proposes to maintain and
upgrade the existing facility at the premises,
by replacing three existing antennas, with
three new antennas, on the existing 84 foot
pole. The new antennas are replaced similar,
in terms of size. The dimensions are depicted
in the drawings that were filed with the
Board. Additionally, T-Mobile puts to add
some equipment, to the ground, inside and to
the existing fence, in an area to support the
proposed upgrade. I would just note that
although the denial does call out three basis
for relief, one being that the height is
greater than 45 feet, then the maximum height
allowed, and the other being in proximity to
residential, and this being less than 500
feet. The third basis, identified at
280-70J(3), although the denial says that
interior mounted antennas are required. The
way the code is actually written, it says
interior mounted antennas or a substantially
suitably unobtrusive design. I think the
experts who are here with me this afternoon
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
will attest that this facility is in fact
suitably unobtrusive. To the extent that the
Board agrees with that, we would submit that
relief from that provision isn't required. If
the Board does not agree, we will seek relief
for that basis as well. A little background
on the facility, it was first erected in 1997,
and has been operational from that date to the
present, and the application that T-Mobile is
pursuing with this Board, and with other
Boards within the Town, is to maintain that
facility in order to upgrade it. T-Mobile by
nature of denial and the proposed changes, are
often to obtain Site Plan approval and permit
approval, as noted in the Planning Board
memorandum. And additionally due to wetlands
on the property, there is a separate
application to the Board of Trustees that will
be made. I am told that almost all those
applications are ready and will be filed in
the very near future, but none of that limits
this Board's ability to act on the application
before it. By nature of the fact that these
are variances, the Board is very well versed.
The requirements of Town Law 267B are what
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
control the analysis of whether T-Mobile is
entitled to those variances. We have
submitted in our Zoning Board application,
material explaining how T-Mobile satisfies the
criteria, and I think our experts here can
further elaborate on the different factors.
By nature of the sites location, and design,
we submit that it is not a detriment to the
community. It is not undesirable. It is very
minimally visible, and again, the proposal
will not have an adverse impact on global or
environmental conditions in the area.
T-Mobile is licensed by the FCC and maintains
and operations a wireless telecommunications
system throughout New York City and Suffolk
County. Under Zoning Law, T-Mobile is
considered a public utility for zoning
purposes. T-Mobile as other carriers do,
strive to provide reliable service in their
areas. At present, T-Mobile provides 2G or
second generation from services to the
surrounding areas of the premises. However,
T-Mobile's network over these 15 years has
evolved substantially, and T-Mobile now holds
newer licenses to provide 3G UMTS Service.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
That is Uniformed Mobile Telecommunication
Services, and also AAV Services, Alternate
Access Vendor Capabilities. I have an expert
witness here who can explain those more. The
short version, the proposed modification
upgrade, will allow T-Mobile to provide the
newer services that are expected by the user
and that are needed in this area, and that the
current facility is unable to do. The
services that
important and
especially where
T-Mobile does provide are
a benefit to the community,
not be available. This
be upgraded, will allow us
really
services. As it has been,
remotely monitored, 24 hours
week. A technician will
approximately every 4 to
minimal impact on traffic. There is existing
access by nature of LIPA facilities on the
premises. And the type of vehicles that would
be visiting the premises is generally a
passenger vehicle. Additionally, T-Mobile has
done an analysis to the existing facility and
in terms of
with the proposed changes,
traditional landline's would
site, as proposed to
to provide those
the site will be
a day, 7 days a
visit the site,
6 weeks. There is
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 83
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
compliance with FCC regulations and I have a
report here and a witness, who can explain the
report summarizing that the proposed
modifications will comply with the FCC
regulations. Actually leads me to a point,
where I would like to introduce to you the
team of experts here this afternoon. I will
tell you a little bit about their background
and the materials that they have prepared. I
believe, the only materials the Board has
received are the drawings that were prepared
by William F. Collins, Architect. Neil
McDonald, he is a registered architect from
that firm and he can testify in more detail
about the design of the facility, if the Board
so desires. In addition, we have Mr. Dave
Collins. He is the FCC Compliance expert. He
has prepared a report analyzing the proposed
modification and all radio frequency
emissions, and his analysis concludes that the
facilities will be well below the FCC limits.
In fact, assuming a 100% threshold, this
facility will be 0.2315% of that limit or
430 times below the applicable limit. So I
will submit those materials as well. I also
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
have Mr. Michael Lynch here this afternoon.
He is a licensed real estate appraiser, and he
will testify that the proposed modification to
this facility will not adversely effect real
estate value in the vicinity. And Mr. Lynch
prepared a real estate report, and it even
goes into a little more detail. It cites some
studies from other providers. Additionally, I
have Mr. Raymond McKelvey here. He is the
engineer who is available to address and
further explain the modification and the
upgrade of this facility. Mr. McKelvey's
associate a gentleman named Uday Malencapa
(phenetic) prepared an affidavit and a series
of propagation maps that are attached to the
affidavit. That I will also submit.
Mr. McKelvey has reviewed those materials and
agrees with the findings therein. He's very
familiar with the way it was prepared, but the
affidavit and supporting walk a little more
through the need of the upgrade of this
facility. I would like to submit those
materials. Considering the nature of this
application, this is a minor change to an
existing facility. I can have Mr. McDonald
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 85
t
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come up
through
and present the drawings and walk
if it
will move
witnesses that you
getting the
it in a little more detail,
would please the Board, otherwise I
on to any of the other
would like. I know you're just
materials now, so I am not sure, which folks
you may have specific questions for.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have to read
all of this.
MR. COUGHLIN: Madam Chairperson, if
you would like, I can have each individual
come up --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And give a
summary, that would be useful?
MR. COUGHLIN: Sure. Mr. McDonald, I
will have him come up first.
MR. MCDONALD: Good afternoon. My name
is Neil McDonald. (In Audible) Most of what
you see there will remain. There is a fence
approximately (In Audible}.
(Whereupon, the speaker was not near
a microphone.)
MR. MCDONALD: Replace them with --
we're adding an additional (In Audible) about
the same size. The pole itself has been
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
analyzed (In Audible) to
MEMBER HORNING:
structurally sound?
MR. MCDONALD:
MEMBER HORNING:
is it?
do them on the tower.
Sir, that is
feet,
Yes.
How deep
in the ground
Sure.
What was the date you
'97.
And it was a cell
Well, it has always been
I believe the pole was
When did cellular
ground --
MR. MCDONALD:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
said about
MR. MCDONALD:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
tower then?
MR. MCDONALD:
a substation for LIPA.
there.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MR. MCDONALD: I would have to go
through the (In Audible).
MEMBER HORNING: When you're saying 84
84 feet out of the ground?
MR. MCDONALD: Yeah.
MEMBER HORNING: It has to be 5 or 6
feet in the ground. It would be a long pole.
If we could have how deep it is in the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 87
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
service get on that tower?
MR. COUGHLIN: That is the 1997 date.
That is when the first antenna was on.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can I request
that you please speak up as loudly as you can
because you're not by the mic and we're
recording this for our transcriptionist.
MR. MCDONALD: No problem. The pole
setting depth is 11 feet.
MEMBER HORNING: 1t feet. Thank you.
And do you know when that pole was installed?
MR. MCDONALD: I believe it was
predated the initial installation, '97.
MEMBER HORNING: And the condition is
sound, that
MR.
report was
you're reporting?
COUGHLIN: Yes. A structural
submitted to the Building
Department. For purposes of that, the
department's review previous to the issue of
the denial. I can submit an extra report if
you would like to see it, but it has been
reviewed.
MEMBER HORNING:
with the LWRP? Did you
them?
How are you making out
get any feedback from
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
MR. COUGHLIN: We have not yet filed
our application with the Board of Trustees for
purposes of review of the wetlands
considerations, but separately a New York
State DEC application is pending.
Mr. McDonald's office has been in contact with
DEC, as to its review of the application. As
the Board is aware, no final approval
authorizing any upgrade or modification can't
issue until we have all of those records and
approvals in hand. So we're pursuing that
simultaneously to shorten the timeline, but
that is an additional review.
MEMBER HORNING:
Chairperson,
or not?
the DEC
do we get
Can I ask the
any feedback from LWRP
you
the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: But
I don~t think so.
the Trustees and
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How
with the Planning Board?
MR. COUGHLIN: We have not
revised application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They
far along are
yet filed
are aware of
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
it because I
comments --
just gave you a copy of the
MR. COUGHLIN: They are.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- they submitted
at our request.
MR. COUGHLIN: And I have attended
multiple work sessions before the Planning
Board on this matter. They are aware and I am
hopeful that we will have all materials in to
them within the next couple of days.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have any
questions, Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions at this
point.
point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions at this
MEMBER HORNING:
more. Nowadays, people
metallic manifolds,
something. Did you
replacing the pole
pole?
I have a couple of
are putting manifolds,
structural steel or
think or consider
with a different kind of a
were
MR. MCDONALD: To my knowledge, no.
just looking to upgrade the existing
We
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 90
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pole.
MEMBER HORNING: And you don't
anticipate the need to replace it in the near
future?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I? My
understanding, wasn't that an antenna at one
point in time?
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't believe that
there was a LIPA antenna on that pole. It is
a wood pole within that LIPA property. I
don't believe that there was ever any LIPA
equipment affixed to that. We went --
MEMBER DINIZIO: LIPA property?
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, LIPA property.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what I wanted
to know.
MR. COUGHLIN: LIPA owns the premises.
The wood pole, that is consistent with the
various utility poles that are on site, and
because it passed under the structural
analysis, there was no need to consider
replacing it with a steel structure.
MEMBER HORNING: Understood.
station
MEMBER DINIZIO: There is a transfer
there. I am sure they just threw it
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 91
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
up there at one point in time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we can do a
little bit of comments from the Planning Board
and also from your application, which
essentially deals with the history of the
subject premises. The parcel -- you are
proposing no change in use at all. There are
no other residential buildings in close
proximity. The parcel is surrounded with
similar uses and the (In Audible) Zone, MTA
owns the parcel to the north. The County owns
the east and Zoned R80. The existing pole is
84 feet high but is set back at 100 feet from
State Road 25. So it's virtually not visible
through the dense vegetation and existing
trees on the property, and then there is the
fact that the antennas are flush mounted,
which is a consequence to reduce visibility,
as I understand it.
MR. COUGHLIN: That is absolutely
correct. In fact, hot off the press, I have
an additional item that I would like to
submit, which is an visual research evaluation
report prepared by DMS Consulting. The
photographs of the existing facility and (In
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 92
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Audible) of the very minor changes of the
antennas. You can actually see how subtle the
differences are. There is also a simulated
view point of equipment additions that will be
assuming that this proposed modification
is approved by the necessary authorities. And
Madam Chair, about the flush mounting reducing
visibility, which I think is an important one,
to allow an interior mounted antenna would
require much larger pole to fit all the cable
and antennas on. This flush mount allows for
a much smaller, in terms of diameter pole. So
I would submit that it is a suitably
unobtrusive design and in accord with J3, as I
mentioned earlier. If the Board would like, I
up and speak about
this facility?
made,
can have Mr. McKelvey come
the need or the upgrade for
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MR. MCKELVEY: Good afternoon. My name
is Raymond McKelvey. I am an engineer for
T-Mobile and amongst others. Basically the
alterations required (In Audible) we're going
to upgrade it to 3G, which is a third
generation system causing universal mobile
telecommunications. The only difference, they
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
both have data The data
capabilities only of which is 384
kilobits per second. Whereas, this 3G system
provides data rate at up to 14 megabits per
second. And what that means, basically (In
Audible) video conferencing, SKYPE, website's.
capabilities.
the 2G,
What you have with your IPhone or Smart Phone.
So that is the basic reason for the upgrade of
2G to 3G. And that is what I wanted to
present, these maps. These maps show the need
for the site. So ultimately this site is to
provide {In Audible) coverage and reliable
coverage, along Southold and Greenport. So
this map shows the reliable in-vehicle service
along those two routes. The reliable service
is in blue and the areas that aren't reliable
considered unreliable, are the flag areas
or
in white. So this map actually shows the (In
Audible) including the LIPA site that we're
talking about today. The red dots mark the
LIPA site. The black dots mark the (In
Audible) site. So even with the existing
site, on-air, which is what we have today,
Audible) that don't have 100% in-vehicle
coverage. There is a gap of about .5 or .7
(In
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
miles from Route 25 and a gap of about 1.2
miles along Route 48. Now, if we were to
remove the LIPA site and take it down, those
gaps actually increase. So along Route 48,
the gap would increase to about 2.5 miles and
the gap along Route 25 would be about 2 miles,
and also there would be a bigger gap along the
railroad.
MR. COUGHLIN: And Ray, would it be
fair to say that is representative to a 3G gap
without the upgrade right now?
MR. MCKELVEY: Yes, so this --
basically, the 2G and the 3G produce similar
amounts of coverage. The coverage pattern is
different. So this upgrade will show you what
our 3G service or third generation of service
is today. We would have a significant gap
along these major roadways.
MR. COUGHLIN: So that first overlay in
addition to showing the existing 2G, also
shows the proposed 3G?
MR. MCKELVEY: Yes, that's correct. So
if we can go back, we can see there is a
significant improvement. So that is the
significance in providing the 3G service on
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
those major roads. The other thing I
to show you was this range represents
wanted
building
reliable services. So (In Audible). Those
are the four maps that I wanted to show you.
MEMBER HORNING: Someone standing on
their front lawn in that whited out area, what
effect would they have with your service?
MR. MCKELVEY: You know, I am not sure
(In Audible).
(Whereupon, the speaker not close to
the microphone.)
MEMBER DINIZIO: What if you didn't
have any power?
MR. MCKELVEY: We may still have (In
Audible) but we wouldn't be able to guarantee
and service in the vehicles.
MR. COUGHLIN: And as I think the Board
is aware and as you heard me say before, (In
Audible) to just wonder
signal, as people expect.
has been a big change in
to use their phone.
MEMBER HORNING:
regarding the setbacks?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
outside and get a
(In Audible) there
the way people expect
May I ask a question
Sure.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
MEMBER HORNING: The Notice of
Disapproval states something to the effect
that your minimum setback from a residential
property line is 70 feet, and it should be
500. And yet, your 500 foot radius from the
tower, you're testifying from what the
Planning Board said in their memorandum, that
there is no residences within the 500 foot
radius of the tower; is that correct?
MR. COUGHLIN: I believe the
distinction is the way the code section is
written, is that we can not be closer than 500
feet residential zoned property line. I
believe the Planning Board has made a finding
actual residential structure that is utilized
within that radius.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is exactly
right.
MEMBER HORNING: So there are some
measurements of distances, like one is 1277
feet away, etcetera. And again, we're saying
that there is no residential structure within
500 feet of the tower?
MR. COUGHLIN: I saw the same Planning
Board memorandum. I don't know that our
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 97
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
experts have that same determination.
MEMBER HORNING: Based on your
submission of the William Collins, you do have
some distances, but you don't show the
distance to a couple of these places. For
example,
building,
there is a motel there, a retail
and these are not residential
properties. So maybe that is the difference?
These are in the Business District. The
Kuwalski's residence, and you're showing some
distances to some other places. The one to
the northeast, for example --
MR. COUGHLIN: Yes, much of the
of main roads.
surrounding area's are It
starts to move into the residential zone
that's preserved or agricultural. The uses
those properties aren't necessarily the
residential uses that typically might be
expected in the residential zone.
MEMBER HORNING: Would it be fair to
-- if the
suggest, at least, this requirement
property line should be 500 feet from the
residential property line, that doesn't
include business properties; is that a fair
assessment or not?
then
and
of
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 98
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reasons
call
MR. COUGHLIN: I don't know. My
reading is it of a residential zoned area
MEMBER HORNING: Residential zoned.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The number of
for those setbacks have to do with
zones and levels of radiation --
MR. COUGHLIN: In fact, I can bring
Mr. Collins now, unless you would like
up
to
MR. COLLINS: Good afternoon. My name
is Dave Collins. I work for a company called
Pinnacle Telecom. We're the one who published
them. Ail right, why don't you continue.
MR. COUGHLIN: Mr. Collins, would you
like to come up, and present your findings?
indicates that they don't have an issue with
fall zone concerns.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right, because
you're going to be addressing that before
with
hear from someone else first?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. The fall
zone is going to have to be addressed with
Site Plan --
MR. COUGHLIN: That is actually part of
the Planning Board. And I believe, my initial
review of the Planning Board memorandum,
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 99
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 report concerning compliance with RH
safety. I have been -- my work has been
accepted. I have never testified here, but my
work has been accepted here
on prior
occasions. Federal Government sets a standard
for maximum permissible radiation levels for
radio frequency energy around the sites. They
also provide a mathematical engineering
formula for determining that level. The
standard itself, the maximum permitted level
is a very conservative number. It's
exceedingly low of the maximum permitted
level, and the mathematical formula is such
that the result of calculations are always the
worse case. The highest possible output from
the antennas shown as part of the calculated
results. Okay, having said that, we did the
calculated volumes on this site and this is as
proposed with this modification, and we were
able to determine that the maximum output with
100%. Earlier we mentioned a threshold of
reference point of 100%. We convert the
figure into -- the milliwatts percentage
figure into a percentage of what the FCC
allows for the frequency level. In this
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
particular case,
calculations, we
calculated level
having done those
determined that the maximum
for this site is 0.2315%.
That is less than one quarter of 1% of the
applicable standard allowed by law. In terms
of the times below, how many times below?
More than 430 times below the maximum level
permitted. This is typical of sites of this
type. It's not unexpected at all. You can
almost guess at it. From an expert
standpoint, based on the height and the amount
of power involved. So having said all that,
we do comply with all the rules and
regulations by a very, very large amount, in
terms of the protection of the public from
radio frequency energy. Any questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. Thank you.
MR. COUGHLIN: I would like Michael to
come up, he is the licensed real estate
appraiser. I would like for him to come up.
MR. LYNCH: Good afternoon, Members of
the Board. My name is Michael Lynch and I am
a certified real estate appraiser. I have
been here many times in the past before this
Board. Mr. Coughlin did submit the report
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 101
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 I have prepared for this project. As you
are aware, the property sits on an existing
LIPA substation, and the wooden pole, where we
would be swapping out the antennas. The site
itself, the communications end has been there
since 1997. The property site itself is 8.3
acres. It's primary within an LB Business
Zoning. It's surrounded on three quarters of
side by watered land and a County preserve
immediately to the north. And to the
southwest is a Thrift Shop, a mini-golf center
and a hotel along Bay Avenue. To the east is
Chapel Lane. Just to the south of the
property, on the south side of Main Road, are
Light Industrial Zoned. From my observation,
I was out there twice, one in late summer and
most recently, this past month. I could not
observe the wooden pole itself from Main Road,
also from Chapel Lane. In the summer, I also
walked the Preserve and due to the heavily
wooded nature, again, the pole was not visible
from many of my advantage points. Given its
placement within the LIPA substation, and the
other existing conditions in the area, and the
fact the pole has been up since 1997, I don't
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 102
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
believe that the swapping out of these
antennas will result in any adverse effect
the surrounding property value, nor to the
essential character of the area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any questions
from the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. LYNCH: Thank you.
to
MR. COUGHLIN: And last, I would like
to have Donna Marie Stipo come up. And I know
it was just handed to the Board a few moments
ago, but I would like her to present the
simulations, so that you can see at this
point, all the changes to the equipment there.
To get a little more of the idea of what
Mr. McDonald summarized in the drawings.
Board
we ' re
your name.
MS.
S-T-I-P-O.
board that
MS. STIPO: Good afternoon. The
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you just --
recording this, please state and spell
STIPO: Donna Marie Stipo,
DMS Consultanting Services. The
is -- just has been put up, are the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 103
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
actual photographs in the packet that you have
just received. They're laid out sequentially
with a Key Map, to assist you with the overall
view. As most of my colleagues have already
discussed, the change is diminutus (phenetic)
with respect to the actual change on the
antenna. When you look at the two photographs
together, you will see a slight difference.
You will notice that simply because the
computer graphics will give you the details,
but from the view point of the human eye at
certain distances, there would pretty much be
no change with respect to the visibility that
they would see, if and where available. We
took a look at the surrounding environment, we
took approximately a half a mile radii, and
photographed where we could actually see the
pole and it was during the month of October,
the five view points that are provided show
you where and limited views of what the
existing site looks like and when it's
changed. There should be no change with
respect to the level of visibility. There
no change in the height. There is just a
small change in the antenna. We have been
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
also discussing the adjacent property, that is
across the street and zoned in a Commercial
District. There is a residential structure
set back. The existing pole is also set back
and into the wooded property. View #4 would
show you what you would see from the roadside,
which respect to residential use and there is
no visibility. What we did try and take a
look at, is if the change would be visible
from the outside surrounding areas, and there
would not be any visible change. The
replacement of the antennas on the existing
structure will not necessarily alter what is
currently being viewed by the community and
there is also no physical changes to the
community itself.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. COUGHLIN: Just to summarize, you
have heard from a group of experts, and their
various fields, and I believe each of those
folks have weighed in on the 267-B(2) Town Law
criteria. That really guides this Board on
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
review of the two or three variances,
depending on the interpretation of the
unobtrusiveness of the flush mount panel
antennas. And we submit by nature that the
design is an undesirable change and will not
result, and we also submit that this benefit,
that we need to provide greater service and
can not be achieved other then a variance
because if this site does not upgrade, another
facility will need to be erected in the near
field. And that will likewise require the
height and likely area variances from
residential areas, just by nature of the make
up of this part of Greenport. Additionally,
we submit that the amount of relief is not
substantial. The changes are very minimal.
This is an existing pole in a LIPA property,
in a series of LIPA poles. This will not have
an adverse impact on physical or environmental
conditions, and moreover on environmental
conditions that you heard from Mr. Collins
about compliance with the FCC limits. So we
respectfully ask that
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the Board approve the
Question. In the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
past and I am sure you're familiar with this,
in order to make sure that we don't on our end
hold up the various procedures that you need
to go through and Site Plan Review, we have
put in a condition that approvals will be
subject to Site Plan approval from the
Planning Board, and proof of acceptance of the
location. How do you react to that?
MR. COUGHLIN: I have no problem with
that sort of condition. As I said, on the
onset, we need all these Board's approvals
before we proceed to modify the site in any
way. So a condition as part of the Zoning
Board's decision or not, we're still unable to
pursue our building permit, without the
Planning Board's decision in hand. So with
that being said, I have no objection to that
decision.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board
have any other questions?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience that would like to address
this application, other then the experts who
have testified?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 107
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
further
close
later
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
comments, I will make a motion to
this hearing and reserve decision to a
date.
Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
HORNING:
DINIZIO:
SCHNEIDER:
Second.
Ail
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
in favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6533 - MGH ENTERPRISES,
INC./NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next
application is for MGH Enterprises, Inc., New
Cingular Wireless, LLC, #6533. Request for
variances from Article XVII Code Section
280-70i(3) and Article XIII Section 280-56,
Bulk Schedule, based on an application for
building permit to install a wireless
telecommunication tower and equipment and the
Building Inspector's October 17, 2011, amended
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
November 9, 2011 Notice of Disapproval at;
1) less than the code required distance to
adjacent residential property line of 500
feet, 2) less than the code required side yard
setback of 25 feet, located at: 40200 Main
Road, adjacent to Gardiners Bay.
Good afternoon, would you please just
state your name for the record?
MR. RE: Sure. Good afternoon, Madam
Chair, Members of the Board. Appearing for
the applicant, Lawrence Re, from Re, Nielsen,
Huber & Coughlin, 36 North New York Avenue,
Huntington.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what I just
handed to you was a recent receipt of an LWRP
recommendation, indicating that the proposed
action is consistent.
MR. RE: Yes, thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're welcome.
MR. RE: This is an application in
connection with a proposal to erect a 70 foot
monopole at Orient By The Sea Restaurant in
Orient Point, and it requires two variances in
addition to the Special Exception approval by
the Planning Board, the Site Plan approval by
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 109
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Planning Board, and approval by the Town
Trustees. The two variances are that the
proposed site are within 500 feet of a
Residential Zoning District, and 25 feet from
a property line. The proposed site will
indeed be 500 feet of a residence zoned zoning
district, not be within 500 feet of any
property for residents purposes. The property
that is zoned residence and within 500 feet is
the Orient State Park, and it's entirely park
land. There are no residences on that parcel.
AT & T, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC does
business as AT & T and is licensed by the
Federal Communications Commission to construct
and maintain wireless communication services
here in Suffolk County. Throughout much of
the United States, AT & T strives to provide
reliable service, licensed coverage area.
While AT & T has coverage in Orient, it's on a
reliable basis out to the point. The purpose
of this site would be to complete the reliable
service out to the point and I have an expert
witness who will address that in more detail.
The site will operate at very low power level,
and will comply with FCC standards, and we
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
will also address that in more detail. The
nearest residence to the proposed site is
approximately 860 feet to the north. We have
tried to locate this site out near the Point
on a parcel, and it will have as minimal
impact on residences as possible. You are all
aware of the uses in that area. In that area,
you have the ferry terminals, State Parks,
residences and this parcel. And this was
deemed to be most appropriate, based on the
Town Code priorities. There are no Town
structures or Town properties suitable, and
there is no property industrially zoned in
this area. I have a number of witnesses with
me this evening -- or this afternoon. I have
some documentation that I would like to hand
out. I have, as was true in the hearing, a
report completed by Pinnacle Telecom Group
addressing the FCC compliance, and
Mr. McDonald is here and he will address
those. I also have the appraisal report
prepared by Mr. Lynch, with respect to this
proposal. And I have an affidavit of our
radio frequencies engineer and maps prepared
by him, with respect to the coverage that
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
would be afforded by this site. The name of
the expert is Stephane Guillabert. He has
also provided information.
also have a determination
there will be no hazards
this application were to
have already been
this application.
William F. Collins,
Board's permission,
And finally, I
from the FAA that
to air navigation,
be approved. Plans
submitted with respect to
They have been prepared by
Architect, and with the
my first witness would be
if
(Whereupon,
microphone.)
MR. MCDONALD:
the speaker was not near a
The antennas will be
The top
Audible).
stacked vertically on the pole. The bottom
portion of the pole would be a steel portion.
portion would be a removable shell (In
The site is situated in the rear of
Nell McDonald and he would provide a
description of the proposal, and I will have
him come up now. Mr. McDonald?
MR. MCDONALD: Good afternoon. My name
is Neil McDonald. I am the architect. My
office has prepared (In Audible) on this site.
This site is at the rear of an existing
parcel.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 112
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 parcel of the western portion of the
property line. That is really adjacent to the
parking lot. (In Audible) it's very minimum.
There are no distant structures.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have two
questions.
Somewhere in the plans, I noted that
although you're proposing the tower at 70
feet, the code permits 80 feet as a maximum
height, but the plans that I looked at, unless
I am not correct, a telescoping pole that
could go up to 90 feet?
MR. MCDONALD: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If that were the
case, then you would need a height variance?
MR. RE: Yes. If I could interject?
We have designed the pole this way so that in
the event another carrier wished to co-locate,
they would have to bring an application to the
Town and appear before all the various Boards,
and get authority to permit such co-location.
And if you were to grant it, the pole would be
capable of supporting that, rather then to
take the pole down and put up another pole.
But needless to say, because it would actually
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
exceed the height requirement where this is
zoned, they would have to appear before you,
and you would have to judge that for yourself.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fine. I just
wanted to clarify that. Another question, if
you could address or have one of your experts
address, the impact that this pole may have on
scene view shed?
MR. RE: Yes. We have a different
witness. He is not good enough.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What a
compliment. Then I will wait until he
presents that.
MR. RE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board
have any questions at this moment?
(No Response.)
MR. RE: Then why don~t I just jump
into my next witness. My next witness would
be Ginny Watral of VHB Planning. She has a
prepared an apprehensive planning report. I
will submit this to each one of the Board
members.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You certainly do
give us a lot of homework.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. WATRAL: Good afternoon, Madam
Chair and Members of the Board. For the
record, my name is Ginny Watral, Senior
Technical Advisor with VHB Engineering,
Surveying and Landscaping Architecture. Our
offices are at 2150 Joshua's Path in
Hauppauge, 11788.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you please
spell your name?
MS. WATRAL: Certainly. The last name
is Watral, W-A-T-R-A-L. There is actually a
copy of my curriculum in the back of the
report that was just submitted, if you need
spellings or anything. As Mr. Re indicated,
the report that was just submitted to you that
we prepared is a Planning, Zoning & Visual
Analysis. We have reviewed the application
and the proposal before you, with respect to
its planning elements, environmental impact
and the potential visual impact. So as Mr. Re
explained, the subject property is situated
between Orient State Park and Sound Ferry.
The property, because of the limited
commercial area in this area and the need for
AT & T to have reliable service up through the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 115
6
7
8
9
i0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
Point, we felt that this was an appropriate
location. We also feel that it is situated
the property itself to benefit both the
location without inhibiting any use of the
property marina and restaurant use. With
respect to visuals, I would like to step up
here to the Board. In front of you are
on
photographic simulations that are contained in
my report. And I would like to go through
them briefly with you. The photographs were
taken using a crane in the proposed location
with balloons attached to the end of it (In
Audible.) To find suitable locations in the
community, we drive around and take those
photographs and use computer technology, (In
Audible) pole to represent post-construction.
To show you want it would look like. View
Point A, was taken from the intersection of
Three Waters Lane and the pole was not
visible. The proposed pole would not be
visible. View Point B, was taken from the
adjacent parking area of the end of Lands End,
again, this is another not visible location.
View Point C, was taken from 965 (In Audible)
Lane, at the intersection of (In Audible)
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 116
1
2
$
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lane,
proposed
is taken
Lane and
location.
the crane was not visible and the
pole was not visible. View Point D,
from the intersection of Ryder Farm
Route 25, again, this is not visible
View Point E, was taken from 1410
Cedar Birch Lane, and from this location, you
can see the existing vegetation in the area
and this is a photograph of what the proposed
location would look like, and as you can see
there is no antennas visible on the outside.
You can see a pole structure but it is a wood
pole structure and there is no equipment
sticking out. View Point F, is taken from the
entrance of Cross Sound Ferry, and the
existing photograph shows the parking spaces
of the open area, and as you can see in the
simulation, there is some visibility of the
pole from this location. Again, no (In
Audible), but there would be visibility of the
pole. View Point G, was taken from Lands End
Lane. You can see existing poles and overhead
wires. The pole is visible in the horizon of
this location. The proposed monopole would
also be visible (In Audible) then the existing
utility pole. View Point H, was taken from
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 117
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
Parkview Lane, taken from the intersection of
Plum Island Lane, you can see the existing
vegetation and utility pole. I assure you
that we represent this because there is
potential visibility here, but it is very
difficult to see, and it is centered with the
Evergreen bush in the middle, but visibility
from the pole. View Point I, was taken from
the entrance of Orient Beach State Park, and
the photograph and simulations illustrate that
there is no visibility of the pole from the
Orient Beach State Park. View Point J, was
also taken from the park, and on the entrance
road, and again, there is a viewpoint of what
the visibility of this monopole would look
like from this location. And View K, is taken
from the Gardiners Bay, looking back towards
the land, and you can see there would be some
visibility in the horizon of the pole from
that location. And finally from Viewpoint L,
again taken from the Gardiners Bay, closer to
the shore, and you could see what this
proposed pole would look like.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The height that
you're simulating, what is the proposed --
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 118
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.
height. Other
into extensive
Mr.
are
the Residential
significant
application
residential
WATRAL: The proposed 70 foot
elements of the report, went
analysis, relevant codes. As
Re indicated, the two variances that we
here for, with regard to the side yard and
There is the park, and it
developed residentially.
it is a substantial variance. If the
is approved, we feel that there would
significant adverse change in the
District, we feel are not
variances with respect to this
given the fact that there is no
development in that near property.
would not be
We do not feel that
location
not be a
Westchester County along the parkways and
stuff like that. (In Audible). Did you have
any consideration so that we could look at a
very large Pine Tree instead of --
MEMBER HORNING: Since you show in
these nine photos, the tower, and to my
knowledge, there are some cell towers, in
happy to
have?
environmental conditions
neighborhood character,
answer
area or the
and I would be very
any questions that you may
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 119
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. WATRAL: I don't believe that it
was considered in this application. The
applications for Pine Trees are received with
mixed reviews, depending on where they're
proposed. In this case, I don't think it
would be an inappropriate use of it because
there are no other Pine Trees of similar
height. So it would be out of character. I
feel that the concealment pole more closely
blends with utility poles and because of the
coloring, it can also be lost, if you will,
depending on the -- what the
What the sky condition is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you proposing this?
MS. WATRAL:
point to be natural
surround view is.
What color are
It is proposed at this
blue steel. I say
"natural" but a blue steel color,
leave it up to the Board, if they feel
is a more appropriate color to it. I
feel that, again, given the surrounding
horizon, that color tends to blend with
sky better, in my opinion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you tell me
what the diameter is of the basin and the top
but we would
there
just
the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 120
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
of the monopole?
MS. WATRAL: Mr. McDonald had given
that before.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have it in the
drawing, but I would rather you enter it into
the record. Just come to the podium.
MR. MCDONALD: Sure. We had listed it
at approximately 48 inches at the base and 38
inches at the top.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Any
other questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know if this
is an appropriate one. You know, you
mentioned the State Park next to this site,
was wondering if there is any way to obtain
some type of comment from them about
developing matter or not developing the
matter?
Park.
this
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
MR. RE: I know that with respect to
application, a complete NEPA was filed
Just something for our record.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: From the County?
MEMBER DINIZIO: From whomever.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's the State
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 121
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and so communications were had with the State
of New York, with respect to this proposal and
no objections were raised.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Do we have a copy of
that?
MR. RE: I can provide a copy for you.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If we could just have
it for the record?
MR. RE: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: In reference to the
70 feet, why that particular location?
MR. RE: It's interesting. This
particular application pending for quite some
time in one form or another. Originally
proposed at a greater height, at one point.
And we already appeared before the Town
Trustees, and it was proposed a little farther
to the north on the property. A little
farther over towards the east end. The Town
Trustees preferred this location. The use of
the property, if we go any farther north, we
would be moving closer to the residences, and
we would also be interfering with the parking.
If we go to the east a little bit, we can't go
very far because that is where the boat slips
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 122
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are and the water is there. It's a rather
long skinny parcel. The location that we
chose was as far from the residences as
possible. As far as the uses from the
property as possible. The drawback was
we did have that 70 foot setback, but it
that
was
thought that because of the two undeveloped
lands that whether it was 7 feet or 25 feet,
it wouldn't make a huge difference, as far as
day to day use.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And what about the
steel platform? Can you just elaborate on
that?
MR. RE: I will bring Neil back up on
that.
MR. MCDONALD: The steel platform is
open grate. It's made of galvanized steel, so
that it won't rust. Very similar to
applications that we would propose on a
rooftop for supporting the structure. In this
case, it makes the most sense given the
proximity of the water and just trying to get
the equipment up a little bit.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Any standard on how
high it is?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 123
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MCDONALD: We proposed it, I
believe, at 4 feet above ground.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And do you know how
high you are above sea level?
MR. MCDONALD: We're pretty close to
sea level there.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You are 4 feet above
sea level then your cabinet?
all
MR. MCDONALD: Yep.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Then 8 foot fence,
Chain Link fence?
MR. MCDONALD: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ail right. That is
I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When we did field
inspection, it was pretty clear where you're
proposing to put the equipment is already
elevated.
The topography is
MR. MCDONALD: Yep.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
propose clearing
that site?
MR. MCDONALD: We
the vegetation that is proposed
and it's currently clear. It's
already elevated.
(In Audible)
of the natural vegetation on
actually marked out
for this site,
a gravel
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 124
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mixture. For the most part, it is already
clear. No need to take down any trees or
anything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted to
know what amount of land disturbance would be
involved.
MR.
MCDONALD: The methods that are
going to be used here are pretty minimally
invasive because we're not pouring a large
concrete slab. So the steel platform will be
supported on typically 2 foot diameter
concrete case-on's, which would sort of be
drilled into the earth there. The pole
structure would be a drilled case-on. There
is no need to bring in big excavating
equipment or --
going to be
significant
CHAIRPERSON
retaining wall that
replaced?
I would imagine, there is not
any need to clear anything
in the area that we're working.
WEISMAN: The existing wood
is there, is that being
MR. MCDONALD: I would have to take a
second look at that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: ItTs more
elevated from the parking area, then the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
were
regular grade.
MR. MCDONALD: I don't believe
proposing to replace that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
that we
MR. RE: And if I could just add,
is a fence that is being proposed and that
going to be surrounded by 14 foot Junipers.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, any
questions?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, any
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
MR. RE: If the Board
would also like to bring up
would allow, I
our radio
distributed his
I can
This
frequency engineer. I have
affidavit and the propagation maps.
have him go through those for you.
would provide reliable service
coverage, and it
provide 4G
so that people with Smart Phones,
could use their fullest capability.
improvement
in-building and in-vehicle
would also allow AT & T to
coverage,
IPhone's
there
is
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
MR. GUILLABERT:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR.
Guiltabert.
for
spell
GUILLABERT: My
I am the Radio
Bechtel Communications.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
your name?
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
name is Stephane
Frequency Engineer
Can you please
MR. GUILLABERT: Yeah, sure.
G-U-I-L-L-A-B-E-R-T. I have testified already
at least before 100 applications for Planning
and Zoning Board. First time, before your
Board. I have prepared some propagation maps,
I can present to you. It would be done like
the presentation that was done before.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before you start,
let me just explain that Member Horning has to
catch the ferry. Back to Fishers Island.
Thank you, George.
Please proceed.
MR. GUILLABERT: (In Audible.)
(Whereupon, the speaker was away from
the microphone.)
MR. GUILLABERT: What I did on this
map, the green
Yellow is the
color is our 3G coverage. The
(In Audible) coverage. The Blue
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 127
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is (In Audible). Over the White area is no
coverage. This area would be a like a drop, I
have no coverage. You can see with the change
in color, change in coverage. Now you can see
the more coverage along Route 25. You will
have AT & T coverage in-house coverage. (In
Audible.)
Does the Board have any questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seems clear to
me. Very good.
MR. RE:
his testimony on
have him briefly come up,
I have Mr. Collins. You heard
the last application. I can
and explain the
report that was submitted with respect to FCC
Compliance as to omissions. Mr. Collins?
MR. COLLINS: Hello, again. As stated
before, the FCC Federal Government has a
standard, very strict to limit the amount of
radio frequency levels around the antenna
sites, in order to protect the public. And
also has a mathematical engineering formula to
determine the level, which will then compare
to the standard. In this particular case,
there are three frequencies involved. In the
prior case, there was only two. Each
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 128
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
frequency is assigned, it's FCC license, a
maximum power output. In all our
calculations, we always use the maximum amount
because it's always the worse case scenario,
but essentially there is more total power in
addition to these antennas, are mounted lower.
Having said all that, we have performed the
calculations, and determined based upon a 100%
reference point per maximum permitted level,
the highest level with all three antenna
frequencies giving out their maximum licensed,
I came up with 2.0650%. This is higher then
the other level; however, we are still 48
times below limits. We're well within the
restrictions of the limits. The numbers are
higher because there is more power involved
and slightly closer to the ground, some 15 or
so feet. And the third thing that would cause
these levels -- just in comparison, the types
of levels. In this case versus the other, and
what is called, the vertical discrimination.
It's how much of the power is aimed in a
slightly different area, as opposed to just
straight up. These have different antenna
patterns then the other ones and this would
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 129
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cause that slightly higher number. But again,
highly protected, and to give this every day
reference, because the water line mumbo jumbo
here high-tech talk, everything that has
electricity in it, including human beings, but
all electrical things emit radio energy. It's
the Law of Physics. It transmits
electromagnetic waves. We have measured
hundreds of homes because no doubt you have
been approached by people concerned about
radio energy levels for antenna sites. There
are instruments available that will measure
the
levels. Typically inside a home, in a
kitchen, the levels run 3% of the same that
was applied in the levels that were determined
in here. The refrigerator is the biggest
culprit. Almost 3% to 7% of the limit,
depending it's age, make, model, but also the
defrost part of it. Which is nothing but a
big metal plate that they heat, which becomes
a very inefficient but usable antenna. But
again that is 3% minimum inside your house.
This is 2% outside. Well, within the confines
of FCC restrictions. That's it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a quick
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question.
MR. COLLINS: Yes,
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
difference between
transmissions?
a 3G
sir?
Is there a
and 4G radiofrequency
MR. COLLINS: There is no difference.
The only difference there would be in terms of
you receiving and acting as an antenna to you
receiving radiowave's. The fellows who design
this, result the standards that were set,
result of at least 50 years of research. It
started shortly after World War II, but part
of it's parameters is age, height, the size of
a human body. Ail of this was taken into
consideration in the setting of the standard
in the mathematics to determine the exposure
to humans. Your height determines which
particular frequency you might be acceptable
to. Some more then others. For the 815,
750 megahertz, we're actually more receptive
to that then the higher frequencies. So the
protective part of the standard is more so for
the lower frequencies and less so for the
high, because the high, has a higher effect,
but the 4G, 3G, just in terms of frequency.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 131
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 frequencies they use to determine the
maximum levels permitted for those
frequencies, and then the power that they
for each frequency determines what level
would be for the maximum level for that
frequency. So it isn't
oh, we have to be more
use
they
percentages into one, which is what the FCC
recommends.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I will be honest
with you, I really don't understand all of
that. You're the specialist. If you were to
compare for instance like a home router, a
wireless home router, does that admits the
same type of frequency that we have in these
towers?
MR. COLLINS: I think they're actually
higher. The same like wireless -- cordless
phones at home, 2.3, 2.7 gigahertz.
Significantly higher. But however anything
a question that 4G,
concerned with. In
terms of concerns about where you have a
different frequency and use, it is merely
added, when we take all the calculations, we
take into account every frequency at their
maximum amount of power and add up all those
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 132
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
over 1500 megahertz, the same standard
applies. It is one milliwatt per square
centimeter. So regardless of what frequency
you go up to, above 1500, the standard is the
same because the ability to the humans is the
same.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And when a tower is
lower, it is required to push out more power?
MR. COLLINS: No, I can't answer as to
what particular power it may set up a site
for.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
MR. COLLINS: By law, they're limited
to so much power regardless of elevation of
site. We take all of our calculations based
on their maximum level.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So power, height and
function of range?
MR. COLLINS: Yeah. The power
again, if you are given a license to operate,
say 1900 megahertz, any carrier, not just
AT & T, they would also be assigned a maximum
level. So you can't go any higher than that.
They may chose at a particular site, we don't
need that much power in order to cover the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 133
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
propagated area we wish to cover. And if we
use more than that maximum level, but more
than a minimus let's say, we satisfy the needs
of that area we wish to. They don~t want to
transmit beyond it, because they might cause
interference issues within their own network.
Not with anything else, only within their own
network.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
MR. COLLINS: Ail the cellular network
is iow power for a reason. It doesn't wish to
interfere with its own network elsewhere.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And what would be
the optimum height for a tower?
MR. COLLINS: Not for me. I am not a
radio engineer.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
MR. COLLINS: And that is also
dependent upon the needs of that particular
area.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
MR. RE: In order to answer your
question, I can bring Stephane up, but I can
give you layman's answer.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yeah, I am a layman.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 134
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. RE: The topography, the density of
the structures and trees in the area, how big
the gap is. That if it's a perfectly flat
area and it's desert, for example, there would
be no obstructions and easier
you're in a hilly area with a lot
lot of buildings, then there is a
to cover. If
of trees, a
lot more
that is diminishing the coverage, and so you
may need a little bit more height. So if you
want a more sophisticated answer --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No, it's fine.
MEMBER DINIZIO: In any case, the
gentleman that just testified, testified to
the maximum allowed limits. What you operate
on has to be lower then --
MR. RE: Yeah, he assumed worse case in
every respect. So you have to assume 40 times
below the limit.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You would have to
achieve coverage another way. In other words,
another tower. You can't just boost up your
power to make your information go first?
MR. RE: You have to remember that the
antenna sites have to be capable of receiving
a call from a little phone. And so you can't
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 135
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
be too far away because even if you have a lot
of antennas on a tower, the little phone has
to reach the site, so it has to be relatively
close.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you.
MR. RE: I have Mr. Lynch. I have
distributed his report.
MR. LYNCH: Good afternoon again. It's
Michael Lynch, State Certified Real Estate
Appraiser. So again, the property is located
at 40200 Main Road, approximately 1,050 east
of Cedar Birch Road in the Hamlet of Orient
Point. The proposal is for a stealth
monopole, at the southwest corner of the
property. Adjacent to Gardiners Bay and
Orient State Park. It's abutted on its east
by Federal Government property that is Plum
Island Facility, and just beyond that to the
east is the Orient Point Ferry. And to the
north of the property, the nearest residence
-- on the north side of Main Road is again,
approximately 800 feet away to the proposed
communications facility. The marina facility
itself with the restaurant, is approximately
4.7 acres. It's in a Marine Two Zoning
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 136
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
District. Again, the antennas will be fully
concealed within the monopole structure of a
stealth design. I have prepared a report with
photos of the subject property, and of the
surrounding area, as well as an aerial
photograph. I have also included a couple of
studies that I have prepared on the east-end
of Long Island. I know one of the gentlemen,
Mr. Horning, I think left, was interested in
the design of the stealth monopole, and we
have worked on a couple of similar type
structures on the east-end. One was in the
Penny Lumber facility. The other one was in
the Town of Riverhead, was built in 2003 on
the Cherry Creek Golf Club. Just off Sound
Avenue. That was built in 2003. That is
nearly double the height of this proposal.
Nearly 130 feet. I did a study for the
Homeowners Association, that was built
subsequent to the erection of that monopole.
Just to the east of that, approximately a mile
and half, is another very similar development
to the Highland's Cherry Creek. The other
development is by the same developer, I think.
It was the Highland's at Aquebogue. It abuts
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 137
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
a golf course, commenced at a very similar
type. I looked at sales at the Cherry Creek
development that abutted the 130 monopole
versus the other development, which was
similar in all other respects, but for the
stealth monopole and over a course of six or
seven years, the square foot basis on the two
samples, I didn't find an appreciable
difference in the price per square footage
sample. So based upon that study -- again,
the existence of that stealth monopole, which
was roughly twice the height of what we have
proposed here, did not have an adverse effect
to the surrounding community. So in
conclusion, I don't feel that this application
should be approved with the result of any
adverse affect to the surrounding residential
community.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. LYNCH: Thanks.
MR. RE: That would conclude our
presentation. As you know, we still must
obtain a Special Exception permit and Site
Plan review approval by the Planning Board, as
well as, Town Trustees approval. We believe
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 138
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
that the proposal is the least obtrusive means
by coverage to the eastern part of Orient.
We're within the height limits and the only
variances required are in proximity to the
residentially zoned State Park. I would be
happy to answer any other questions that you
might have?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, my only
other question is the same one that I asked
the last time, which is once again, so that we
can proceed with our determination, any
problems conditioning based on Site Plan
approval from the Planning Board --
MR. RE: No, no. No problem
whatsoever.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone in the
audience, that wishes to address this
application?
MR. ELSKY: My name is Normal Elsky,
E-L-S-K-Y, and I live across the street from
this proposed project. And my concern is one
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 139
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whether it be an eyesore to the view of the
property and that it will decrease the value
of my house. One never knows when a person
wants to purchase a house, we look at all
kinds of things and when you see a pole
sticking up and antennas coming out, my
assumption is at some point they're going to
have antennas sticking out, is a negative in
selling the house. So that --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Where exactly are
you located?
MR. ELSKY: Across the street.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In Orient By The
Sea?
MR. ELSKY: Yeah. I live in the
original farm house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We know it.
We're locals too.
MR. ELSKY: So that is my concern and
there are other areas along the coast to the
east of that location that would be much --
that can easily be used just the same way that
they would like to be used, and want to do the
project at this point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Perhaps the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 140
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
applicant's attorney will address some of the
issues that you brought up. They have had
experts testify about the likelihood of any
adverse impact on any real estate value, what
the gentleman just did before.
MR. ELSKY: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
And there was a
woman that came up and addressed what it was
going to look like from various points of
view, where it would be noticed and where you
wouldn't be able to see it. But perhaps,
Counsel, would like to talk further and
clarify what your concerns are?
MR. ELSKY: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let him respond
to your comments.
MR. ELSKY: I can talk to him outside.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Once you're out
of here, you can do whatever you want.
MR. RE: Yes, Mr. Elsky's house is
diagonally across from the proposed site, but
it's at over 860 feet from the proposed site.
Our search for a site led us to this location
because there really are not many choices in
the area. The Ferry's are next door, and
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 141
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these properties are the only ones that could
be really considered. And we have moved the
pole as far away from the houses as possible.
We have made the height to a height less than
the maximum -- under the code. We had
Mr. Lynch testify to the property value
effect, and we believe that it will have no
property value effect on Mr. Elsky's property
value.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Is
there anyone else in the audience that would
like to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any further
questions from the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further questions or comments, I will make a
motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision, subject to receipt of a letter of
correspondence from the State regarding no
objection to the
line.
setback from their property
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Ken.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 142
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
**********************************************
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have one last
application, we have been at this for a very
long time. We're going to recess for five
minutes. So moved.
Is there a second?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at
this time.)
HEARING #6534 - NICHOLAS GORGONE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application is for Nicholas Gorgone, %6534.
Request for variance from Article III
Section 280-15 and Article XXIII Section
280-124 and the Building Inspector's November
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 143
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on
application for building permit for an
accessory in-ground swimming pool at:
an
Drive South, Terry Place, Southold.
Is there someone here to represent this
application?
MR.
Chairperson
Ms. Toth, this
spoken in this
helping
PLANAMENTO: Good afternoon,
Weisman, Members of the Board,
is the first time I have ever
type of an application or
a client in this way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just state your
name and spell your last name?
MR. PLANAMENTO: Nicholas Planamento,
and my last is spelled P-L-A-N-A-M-E-N-T-O. I
am representing Mr. Gorgone in sort of two
ways. I was hired by him as a realtor to help
him with the sale of his home. Incidental, I
am also the sitting president of HANFRA,
is the Hampton's and Northfork Realtor's
Association, which represents the five
east-end Towns. All professional practicing
which
1) location other than the code required rear
yard, 2) lot coverage more than the code
required 20% maximum, located at: 825 Smith
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 144
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
realtors in our community are members of our
Board. And that is to say that I am really
knowledgeable person on both personal interest
such as this, also real estate. Mr. Gorgone
has a property that was recently built --
pretty much new construction on a former lot
that he had purchased previously. And I think
in all fairness, he built a beautiful home,
where he hired more of an upscale builder to
service his needs by improving the lot to such
a degree that one didn't think about what the
future might hold, as far as from a resale
standpoint. It was his goal to remain in the
house for longevity. The house was only
recently built, in less than half a decade.
With that said, a situation outside his own
desires, forced him to make a sale of the
property and we have been marketing it in
excess of seven months. A prospective
purchaser has come by, who has an interest in
acquiring the property, however, one of their
needs is different then his needs, which
prompted us to make an application for a
swimming pool. Unfortunately because of the
lot size, he is at basically his allowed
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 145
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
usage, based upon Town Code, therefore
prompting the need for these two requests.
The pool itself, which is applied for, would
sit in what I would call, professionally
speaking, and I think most people would look
at it as a backyard, unfortunately the Town
views it differently because this is a corner
lot. So again, we have a situation where
there is a buyer that is interested to
purchase the home, in a rather depressed
market, from a standpoint of sales. The house
is actively marketed. The prospective buyers
are aware of this information also. We have
not been able to procure any other positive
offers or interested parties for Mr. Gorgone.
The buyers have requested -- actually it's
part of the contract, in order to purchase the
property to have a building permit for the
swimming pool. So basically I am here
speaking for Mr. Gorgone. Speaking favorably
for this application and for the buyers who
wish to purchase the home for two reasons.
And it basically boils down to just financial
lost. Should Mr. Gorgone not be able to sell
his home as a result of being denied an
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
application for a swimming pool, he will have
suffered part of what we're experiencing right
now in the real estate market. Just a few
buyers are out there. He has a wonderful
home, but people have just not stepped
forward. So the setback for him would
potentially be catastrophic. He also might
share perhaps a his personal reasons, which
has forced the sale. I will leave that to him
when he speaks, but also for the buyer, they
would like to acquire the home but need a
swimming pool for them to meet their setback
requirements, spacial issues. We would still
have to apply for a variance for lot coverage
but not for the setback. However, to engage
in services of a custom pool designer, other
then a
would fit this
lovely home in
stock certain standard size, which
sort of property. It's a
a wonderful neighborhood but
we're not dealing with an upscate waterfront
lot that could support custom features, such
as a Gunite pool. So I politely request you
review the information, the application as
submitted, and you generously grant a positive
response to this application. And I would be
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
glad to answer any questions you might have,
and I would also like to say that this is the
first time speaking here and I am a little bit
nervous in speaking on behalf of a real estate
client. I am not a paid expeditor. This is
the first time I have ever helped a client to
submit and I do hope --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So far so good.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Thank you. I
appreciate the encouragement. It is a little
intimidating.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we don't
mean to be intimidating. Let me give you two
letters that were received by neighbors.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Are these copies for
me and Mr. Gorgone?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
copy. We just wanted to make sure
benefit of the same information.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Thank you.
seen this before.
We have a
you had the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Probably not.
That is why you're getting them. We might
give you and your client perhaps a minute or
two to look over them, but let me ask you a
I have not
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 148
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
few questions anyway. The proposed pool is
16 X 32, pretty much a standard size; is that
right?
MR. PLANAMENTO: Yes, it's a standard
sort of pool size.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The 32 foot
length is what's causing one of the variances.
There is two, one is for the side yard. This
diagram shows what the Building Department has
determined to be the rear yard and the side
yard. So it's showing of the 32 feet, 2 of
those feet would be designated side yard.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Exactly, this is my
understanding, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that's 2 out
of 32 feet in a side yard. The other is 24.3%
lot coverage, where the code allows a maximum
of 20%. Do you know what the existing lot
coverage is?
MR. PLANAMENTO: In all fairness, it's
at 20%. It's just a hair over.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 20.9 existing.
Anything you put on there at all is going to
increase that lot coverage.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Yes, and this was one
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I49
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the things that I think as a home designer,
if you will, the current occupant, he built
the house for his specific need at the time he
built it. There had been a smaller house on
the lot, actually right at the corner of Smith
Drive South and Terry Place. In order to get
the existing building permit, the Town
requested that he had to meet all the setback
requirements. To demolish the existing home
and to set the house at what they considered
to be an appropriate location, instead of that
time just doing an addition to an existing
house, which sat on the shoulder of the road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Another question,
on field inspection, we all go. Every Board
member goes out to inspect all the properties
that are before us, a public hearing. I
noticed that there was a shed, a small shed,
very close to where the proposed swimming pool
would be
survey.
perhaps
the
located. It doesn't show up on the
MR. PLANAMENTO: I think, if I may,
this is an error on my submission,
shed is less than 100 square feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
and
but
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 150
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.
the shed needs
understand it,
or abandoning
have a contract of
am sure they would
PLANAMENTO: I didn't realize that
to be there. One reason, as I
the buyers would be relocating
the shed. The Smythe's, they
sale to buy the property,
like to also speak. They
I
would probably address that. If I could just
back up about the lot coverage, and the two
foot sort of issue. In my conversation, again
representing Mr. Gorgone, there is another
realtor here who brought the customers, we
discussed different size pools. Different
placement and tried to see what would work,
and we could make the pool a little more
smaller, but then that also makes the pool
more narrower. One of the thoughts as I
understand it, in having a smaller pool, like
a lap pool, which would not be suitable for
children's play and -- well, other uses. So
the prospective buyer might speak about that.
but Mr. Gorgone and
The lot coverage issue,
again, it's a tough one,
his design element, for
them for his own uses.
someone would ever need
without a doubt
the house, planned
He did not think that
a tennis court, a
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
large shed, perhaps a garage building. Who
knows what somebody might have in the future.
I think that the particular buyers are going
to speak to that, but the idea is that there
is this gorgeous house, which we're in a
rather depressing, certainly oppressed real
estate market. It was built and designed by
Mr. Bertani, who is a local builder. You
know, has a great representation. The site is
really over developed, considering the
neighborhood. The character of this really
beautiful place -- but houses tend to be
smaller gated houses. It's just an
unfortunate reality that this particular owner
has -- well, he --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
then two options.
removed,
If the shed were
You're proposing
5 foot setbacks for both property lines at the
moment. With the shed gone, it's a small
amount, but it could potentially increase the
overall lot coverage.
MR. PLANAMENTO: I can't answer this
but I will leave it to -- their intent --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's probably not
on the calculations either.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 152
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PLANAMENTO: No, it's not on any
calculations. Again, less than 100 square
feet. I will let them answer that question,
whether they chose to keep it or not, but
thought being kept on site, it would seem
appropriate to keep it at the end of the
garage, would be closer to the Terry Place
side of the property, rather then the other
side yard. Depending on where the Board
the
feels
is not there, then it makes it a 3 foot
setback from a property line, but it takes it
out of the side yard entirely and removes a
locating it in the front --
MR. PLANAMENTO: No, and I don't think
the buyer wants to do that. So I think the
easier thing would be to abandon the use of
the shed. I will let them answer that. The
thought that you brought forward about the
2 feet, you just said something a moment ago
that sparked something in my mind --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, if the shed
is an appropriate location.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It needs to be in
a conforming location, which would be the rear
yard someplace. Unless you got a variance for
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 153
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
variance for the side yard.
MR. PLANAMENTO: If that is the
solution, I think our party would certainly
appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because since
it's not a vertical structure, it does count
for lot coverage but it certainly has an
impact if the code doesn't say how far from
the property line. It's not a setback issue.
It's 2 feet in the side yard.
MR. PLANAMENTO: The problem is that
the pool would extend south two feet closer to
the house, which I suppose an alternative
might be, I don't know -- this is again
suitable to the Board, but perhaps instead of
having a 5 foot setback, perhaps that they can
be granted 3 feet, so it's then clearly in the
rear yard. We're really talking about inches
here. You know, the major demand is the
possibility of having a swimming pool, for
this transaction to move forward.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let's see
what other people have to say. Does the Board
have any questions of Mr. Planamento at this
point?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 154
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to
2 comment that at 24%, it's a lot of lot
3 coverage. That is a lot of additional lot
4 coverage and you know, any way that you think
5 you can reduce that, I would like to see it.
MR. PLANAMENTO: I think that would be
virtually impossible given the structure, the
garage is attached to the house. It's all a
continuos piece of residence. Short of doing
something with the swimming pool, which is
again, I think the thought would be to have
the particular pool that this particular buyer
is requesting. Short of having to create a
custom pool,
expensive.
solution,
hardship
which would be fairly more
I don't know that there is a
and that would be
for this applicant.
a particular
I would also
and active
seems that
substantially
think that being a Town resident,
in the real estate community, it
there are many lots that are
smaller. You have some properties that have
Sound front, water front. There are strenuous
situations where people are forced to have
things in their front yards, instead of their
back yard. It doesn't seem that that is so
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 155
1
2
3
4
unreasonable. I don't disagree from what
you're saying from a square footage standpoint
and percentages, but it doesn't seem to be out
of character for the property or other homes
5 in the township of homes for the Town of
6 Southold.
7 MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, other then the
8 fact for lot coverage, that is what we're here
9 talking about. The rest of it, pools in the
10 front yard, side yard, backyard, you know.
11 There are instances where we have granted
12 front yard pools. There are some instances
13 where they are allowed in the front yard
14 because of the water. Your reasons when I go
15 over them, it says proposed in-ground swimming
16 pool, fit in the lot is not obtrusive to the
17 character of the neighborhood. Well, we have
18 two people that live in the neighborhood that
19 say that it is. You also say that lot size
20 restrictions due to small size of lot in the
21 Town of Southold, side yard and rear yard
22 setbacks. Yeah, that is why you're here.
23 MR. PLANAMENTO: I think if we go back
24 to the historical origin of this -- I don't
25 want to say problem, but the property owner's
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 156
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
decision, rather then extending the existing
house that he owned, which is his right, he
was counseled through the Town to meet the
current setback requirements. We all know
that today, to have a single-family residence,
as you're carving out a new lot, you can not
carve out this lot.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It has no effect at
all on lot coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's look at
some other options. We just looked at the
code, and 5 foot setbacks are conforming. So
we may lose the side yard variance, but then
you would have the setback variance. So --
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you would have a
lot coverage variance?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If they scooted
back to get it out of the side yard, they are
going to have a 3 instead of a 5 foot code
conforming setback from the property line.
You have a wooden deck?
MR. PLANAMENTO: Yeah, there is an
existing deck attached --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: An elevated deck
with some steps --
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
If
MR. GORGONE: Yes, there is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on a
you would like to speak, you need to
second.
come
to the mic and identify yourself, sir. We're
looking at ways to reducing lot coverage, but
that counts as lot coverage. If it's at
grade, then it does not. Patio, for example.
The possibility of removing that deck and
putting steps down to an all stone patio is
one. It's only about the only way that I can
see to reduce lot coverage, but that is an
option to discuss.
MR.
it's okay,
PLANAMENTO: Absolutely. And if
and you don't have further
questions for me, I would like Mr. Gorgone,
the actual applicant to speak for a minute.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Absolutely.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Thank you.
MR. GORGONE: I am Nicholas Gorgone the
owner of the property. What is the ruling on
the pool -- how close can it be to a
structure?
house?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To mean, like a
MR. GORGONE: Yeah. What's the space
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 158
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
between a house and a swimming pool?
MEMBER DINIZIO: We're not really
qualified to answer that question.
MR. GORGONE: No? Is there an Town
ordinance on it?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that would
a State Building Code question.
be
MR. GORGONE: Okay. Ail right. The
hole deal --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are you asking about
the property line?
MR. GORGONE: No, when you put a
swimming pool in, how close can it be to a
structure, of a part of the house?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I have seen them
in houses, sir.
MR. GORGONE: I have seen them in
houses too.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't think it's
really a problem on how close it could be --
MR. GORGONE: Well, that was the only
question that I had and as I said, the whole
deal is contingent on this swimming pool, so
-- and I have been trying to sell that place.
Both for medical reasons and everything else.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 159
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
I can't stay here any longer. Okay?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If we have
further questions of you, we will ask you to
come back up.
MR. GORGONE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you like to
come
Gordon.
forward, potential buyer?
MS. VAN GORDON: Hi. I am Peggy Van
I represent the buyer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And would you
please spell your name for the record?
MS. VAN GORDON: Sure. It's -- my last
name? V-A-N G-O-R-D-O-N. In retrospect, like
Nicholas had given you his information, my
concern is with being the corner lot, with if
the house had been situated differently, then
this would not -- they're kind of losing it.
The corner lot is suffering with the exposure
on both side and at the same time, losing the
square footage that they need. If it wasn't
-- I think what Nicholas was trying to point
out is, that some of the lots that have been
granted pools in the past, aren't on corner
lots. They're situated throughout the block.
The house next door, which is on a corner lot,
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 160
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
which is a little higher ground was granted an
in-ground pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry, which
one are you referring to?
MS. VAN GORDON: Right behind him, I
don't know if that's Terry Place.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lot 121 or is it
Lot 1987 Would you like to look at the survey
and tell us which one you're referring to?
MS. VAN GORDON: I just know that it's
directly behind Nick's house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that the house
that has a stockade fence?
MS. VAN GORDON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's a little
higher in elevation?
MS. VAN GORDON: Yes. There is a
swimming pool there.
MR. PLANAMENTO: I have a survey of
Lot 198, if you would like to see it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure, if you
would just let this woman finish her testimony
and if you would like to submit that survey,
then it's fine. I would like for them to have
an opportunity to see it as well.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 161
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 DINIZIO:
cross here?
Can I do a little
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Because this is a
corner lot, that is really not your problem.
MS. VAN GORDON: It's not?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it's the fact that
the house is taking up so much of the lot.
You know, that is not your problem.
MS. VAN GORDON: You don't think that
is a set back because it was a corner?
not
MEMBER DINIZIO: Even the
a problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well,
what
setback is
she is pointing out is because she
two front yards, the setback is greater
those two --
MS. VAN GORDON: It
I think
has
side.
on
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
yard would be.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Lot
side
sticking point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: You
is, 15 feet on each
then what a
coverage is the
I agree.
know, whether this
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
is a corner lot or not, it's still 24% of the
lot coverage that is being filled up. And I
am just looking to put pressure to try and
reduce that some. Then we have to try and
look -- we have to go down the road. The
people have to come in, and you know, ask us
things. And I kind of want to keep that
percentage as iow as we possibly can, or at
least have good hard excuses for granting such
a large variance. So to my mind, I am looking
at this, and thinking, you know, get rid of a
deck. Get rid of a patio. Tuck the pool
right inside there and you probably have --
you're going to go over that lot coverage but
it's going to
for right now.
to go.
MS. VAN
size
though
know.
be less then what you're asking
And that's where I am trying
GORDON: What is the actual
of the deck because I don't have it?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks as
it's 21.4 feet wide and 30, but I
don't
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's the garage.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Maybe 12.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So maybe, it's
about half.
MS. VAN GORDON: And if they reduce the
size of the deck, would that be something that
you would consider then?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
GORDON: I am not saying take
away. It would be nice to
landing.
MS. VAN
the whole thing
walk out on the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The landing
doesn't count. In other words, a small
landing with steps, do not count in lot
coverage. If that existing deck is removed,
anything with grade does not count as lot
coverage. A driveway, a patio, that kind of
thing. That is why I suggest as a
possibility, if you wanted to bring the lot
coverage down and cause less of -- if the
potential owners or the potential buyers would
consider that, then we're going to have much
don't
survey
it
less of a substantial lot coverage. We
know what yet. We would have to have a
calculate the size of the deck and remove
and see how it reduces the lot coverage.
MS. VAN GORDON: Okay.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 164
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 able
pool.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Then I think you would
to find out how close you can build a
MS. VAN GORDON: Okay.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You can
where it is. Get a 2 or 3 foot
am really looking to move the pool,
looking to reduce the amount of lot
You can take that entire deck down
three steps down there and tell me
and that may just sound fine.
MS. VAN GORDON: And if
that they wanted half of that,
leave the pool
variance. I
just
coverage.
and put
what it is,
they decided
would that
still be fine?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, what can you
live with? That is what we're looking for
MS. VAN GORDON: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The only way that
I can see that you can reduce lot coverage,
the shed exists but they may be removing that,
but it wasn't really calculated in lot
coverage any way. So it's kind of moot. So
why don't we take
something
a moment -- is there
else that you would like to say?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 165
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. VAN GORDON: I would like the
Smythe's who are considering purchasing be
able to speak as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Certainly, they
will have a chance to do that. Maybe this
gentleman --
MR. MONTGOMERY: I am Kenneth
Montgomery. I am the neighbor adjacent to
property. I am --
sir?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On what side,
the
MR. MONTGOMERY: I am the one who wrote
the letter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we got your
letter. We just got copies of it.
MR. MONTGOMERY: That is to show you
the placement of our pool and the proposed
placement of the pool that the Gorgone
residence -- basically on top of each other.
The setback, I see from my property and
according to what was included, the survey map
that was included, request for the variance
was 3 feet from the property line. Not 5.3
feet from my property line.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know what, it
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 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
is 5 foot and 5 foot. I had to question that
too. The way that it was drawn, it looks
like --
MR. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. So it's a
little bit further. Any numbers that I may
have quoted, might be a little off in my
letter. As I pointed out in my letter, my
concern is not the fact that Mr. Gorgone can
not sell his house without erecting a pool.
That is not my concern. It's a depressed
market, and it's unfortunate for everybody.
Everybody has lost the value of their homes
because of the depressed real estate. My
concern is my quality of life. The pool
situated within feet of my own patio, because
my patio goes around our pool. Just sitting
out in the summer, would practically put the
other people who would be using the pool
practically in my patio. If someone decided
to do a cannonball in the pool, it would
probably wet my people sitting in my back
yard. That is what my concern is. My concern
is also, for the general quality of the
neighborhood. We're trying to preserve in the
Town of Southold. Open space and the (In
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 167
1
2
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Audible) of the area and this would just -- in
my opinion, overbuild the lot and make it
crowded. And as I pointed out, I moved from
Western Suffolk, Western Nassau, and one of
the primary motivations was to escape the same
type of crowding, and I thought I had
accomplished that. But it looks like it's
trying to be defeated. And I see no purpose
in rules and regulations in place, at every
turn, one can just apply for a variance. The
intent of those rules and laws put into place.
That's it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Would
you like to come forward?
MR. GORGONE: Okay. Let me add a
little light on this subject. I just read the
two letters of objection. I don't know (In
Audible) two years, I have been going through
a very nasty divorce. Okay. These two people
are the friends of the other half. What he is
talking about his pool, according to his map,
his pool is 12.1 from his property line, which
would put my pool another 5 feet from that.
So you're talking 17 feet away from each
other. Ail right, so anybody that does a
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 168
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
cannonball or whatever, his property is almost
4 to 5 feet at the top of his pool, because my
property is lower. So if somebody is going to
be in my pool and go up another 4 or 5 feet
and then another 17 feet, that's nonsense.
That is where this letter is coming from.
Both of them, all right. So it's very clear
with his own map, the pools are not as close
as they appear to be. Ail right. So -- but
that's the reason for these two letters.
That's the reason for these two objections. I
went to all my neighbors and these are the
only two I didn't go to, for specific reasons,
okay. But that is where the objection letters
are coming from. And this is way off from
what he just said about the pool and that
quote about a person doing cannonballs is
ridiculous, because his pool is about as high
as that counter from my property line. In
fact, this is getting to be nonsense. Thank
you very much.
MS. VAN GORDON: I would just like to
reiterate that the gentleman that has the pool
and just spoke, it seems like the first
person, it's okay for and the next person it
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 169
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
isn't. He came from Nassau County, a lot of
people came from Nassau County looking for a
better quality of life. We live in a
beautiful area and to enjoy your yard,
everybody should have that opportunity. And
just think that it's a little bit odd, that
it was on the other foot, one would expect
somebody else to okay the pool in his yard.
Somebody okayed the pool in his yard. These
I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's just make
sure the record reflects that this pool is not
before us for a 5 foot setback from the
property line. Those are conforming. It is
before us, 2 out of 30 feet and the much more
significant issue is the lot coverage, as Jim
and I have pointed out. So if there is a way
to remove the deck or reconfigure it or change
the size of the swimming pool, to reduce that
lot coverage, this Board would like to obtain
an amended proposal. To see if that can be
accomplished. The law requires us to grant
people are coming from Nassau County too, and
they would like a pool in their yard. And I
think that if they are willing to (In Audible)
they should be granted it.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 170
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1 the least relief from the code as we possibly
2 can. And we have six State statutes that
3 guide us in that. So what we try to do is
4 work out something to operate under the
5 requirements of the law.
MS. VAN GORDON: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you like
the potential buyers to say something?
MS. VAN GORDON: Yes.
MR. SMYTHE: Good afternoon. I am
Richard Smythe, I am the guy that wants the
pool. My wife, Linda. We have been looking
for a couple of months and we love the area.
We love the Town of Southold. We fell in love
with Mr. Gorgone's house, and everything about
it, we thought was absolutely wonderful.
Although when we started out, a pool is
something that is very important to us. For
children, grandchildren and as we eventually
retire, that is something that is important to
us, and the ultimate house. So it is
we think is an important part
And we said that from the
we can't have a pool, then we
something that
of this house.
beginning, if
would just politely say no, thank you and go
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 171
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
elsewhere. When we walked in here today, we
were pretty excited and thought, this is going
to happen. We felt that -- we don't know much
about it, but two feet, doesn't sound like
we're asking for much of that variance. I
understand where you're coming from now with
the square footage, which is a bigger
concerned. Also this is the first time that
we have heard that there is an objection in
the neighborhood. It's a little disconcerning
because one of the things that we liked about
it, is that neighborhood is something that we
thought we would fall in love with and want to
spend the rest of our life here. Hearing
there is some resistance, is a little bit
disconcerning. We would look at alternatives,
but quite frankly to cut the deck in half is
not something that we would like to do. We
look to be able to spend time outside, to
barbecue and sit with the family. The deck is
a very integral part of the house. Is that a
deal breaker? I don't know. The shed, that
we can move it or make it go away. That is
not a problem, whatever the Board desires. I
think that the deck -- I hate to call it
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 172
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
semantics, whether it is up here or down
there, but that is something that would be
important to us. So I think we would be
concerned if we would be back to the drawing
board. It took us a long time, summer till
now, to get where we are today, and if it's
another four or five months, we would
respectfully probably look elsewhere. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Other comments?
MR. MONTGOMERY: I would just like to
clarify. Our pool was in existence before we
bought the house. If I didn't have the pool,
I would be happier. It has also been there
since 1985, well before any adjoining houses,
except the one house, which is very far away
from it. Mr. Gorgone's house didn't exist at
that point. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Ken,
any
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So
MR. PLANAMENTO: Sorry.
what we --
Just again, I
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 173
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
know that these things sometimes have a lot of
personal issues at stake here. It's very
disheartening. My heart goes out to the
Smythe's. We all love and appreciate our
community. This dispute, which I think it's
unfortunate that we have to stand before the
pool
Board to request a variance for swimming
so that a house can be sold, in a less than
perfect market. Certainly your point about
lot coverage, Mr. Dinizio, is important. (In
Audible.) These lots were carved out right
after the second World War. The development
of the house was again between the then
Mr. & Mrs. Gorgone, was that this place was
their retirement. The home was built with
every perfect amenity. Everything done
without the forethought of what would happen,
if and when, the house was to be sold. So I
really ask that you give special thought to
this particular application, so that
Mr. Gorgone can move on with his life on a
personal level also.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you a
question, and see how the Board feels about
this. Based upon what Mr. Smythe has said, we
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 174
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
interrupt your
can close this hearing and we will make a
determination within 62 days, but we're
likely to do it in two weeks. That's the next
time that we meet on a Special Meeting on the
15th. So we can do that, we can also give
you, say a week, to discuss the matter of lot
coverage that we have --
MR. PLANAMENTO: I didn't mean to
train of thought, but I think
the decision, and this is more -- and I
understand that this is an unusual situation
where you have a buyer and a house for sale.
There are so many uncertainties. And to the
neighbors point, we don't know who the
Smythe's are. I think these are all
reasonable but in a normal transaction,
parties are not involved in this sort of
situation. I think that it is really a
question that might be posed of the Smythe's.
In all fairness, they have been extremely
patient. To get to contract was an extremely
long time. Unusually long just given the
hostilities between the two parties. So they
have been extremely patient and very polite.
In my professional opinion, doing all the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 175
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right things, along the road to get to where
we are today. I don't know what their
tolerance is to wait. I do know it's a
reasonable thing for your two week
deliberation or whatever is appropriate. But
I think that is a question, and I don~t mean
to put them on the spot, if you would ask
them, I believe Nick Gorgone and I, as the
applicant would prefer to move forward
expeditiously today. So that we know it's a
possibility or it's not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, here's the
thing. Let me just finish my thought, which
was as follows; we can do exactly that, which
is close this hearing, and based upon the
public hearing, it's transcript and the
information as presented, proceed to make a
determination on exactly what you're
proposing. The alternative, so it's not to
delay, to close this subject to receipt of a
either amended lot coverage from you, after
you have time to talk to your client, and move
that in or out, and let us know. You will
either then, say in a weeks time, produce a
reduced lot coverage for the Board to consider
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or you will say, no, it's this or not at all.
We can do it either way.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Or we can just grant a
certain amount of percentage.
Yes. That's
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
another option.
MR. PLANAMENTO: And then
structure the pool around where
is?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board has
often what we call "alternative relief." In
other words, you apply for 24%, and we say
22%. Figure it out yourself on how you want
to do it.
MR. PLANAMENTO: In all fairness, I
appreciate the alternatives you have given me
and I think it's necessarily our decision, the
buyers, and they're not even party to this
application, and then that is a constituency
to actually consummate a sale. So would you
allow us just a few minutes. Can we just
speak for a minute?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you can do
that.
just
ever the grant
MR. SMYTHE: Yes. Richard Smythe, I
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just had a question. What would be the
process -- the cycle, if we did have to go
back and redesign? Would we come back for
another application to the Board?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, sir. You
don't have to do that. We can close this
hearing and give you a certain amount of
time.
MR.
weeks,
SMYTHE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A week,
three weeks? If we close this
to receipt of an amended proposal, for the
coverage, then we will begin to make a
decision when we receive your amended
application. You won't have to come back
before us again. We have 62 days, by law,
after we receive that, the clock starts.
usually - we meet twice a week, and we
deliberate at either one of those meetings --
twice a month.
MR. SMYTHE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the next
is two weeks from today, and that
meeting
two
subject
lot
We
would be the earliest at which point we would
deliberate and make a determination. If you
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 178
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can get it in before that --
MR. SMYTHE: Two weeks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- within a
reasonable amount of time, give us a chance to
look it over, because we have to write a draft
decision and then the Board looks at it,
agrees with it, disagrees with it. You know,
and then we vote collectively.
MR. SMYTHE: Okay. And just so you
understand, the reason for the question is,
from our end, we kind of missed last summer,
and this house is going to require
construction of a pool, and
want to miss this summer.
we really don't
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just clear
something up? I am looking for less lot
coverage. If we eliminate that deck,
have two or three steps to go down to
I
make what you need --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
whole lot.
MR. SMYTHE: I understand.
don't care how much patio you make.
and you
a patio,
You can
that
You can cover the
MEMBER DINIZIO: If that is something
you can live with --
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 179
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. SMYTHE: To be honest with you, the
collective visual, it takes away a lot of the
character of the house. The living area is
right there. There are French doors that open
onto that deck. We just have to get
and honestly that might be hard to
right
pass that,
get pass.
MEMBER
aware, that is
can
DINIZIO: I just want you to be
the only place where I feel you
gain a percentage.
MR. SMYTHE: Right. Even making the
pool smaller will not do it?
MEMBER DINIZIO: If you make the pool
smaller, sure it will do it.
MR. SMYTHE: I thought you said that I
would have to go away with the deck?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Because of the 16 X 32
pool, you look where you can gain. Where you
can gain is from a patio as opposed to a deck.
That is where we look at that. We know what
lot coverage is. I know that sounds a little
bit ridiculous, how you cut up land and goes
to lot coverage, but you know, evidently, the
Town supports that a patio is not a structure.
And that is how they look it. So if you can
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 180
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
live with that, if you can somehow come to
grips with that. I know there is a French
door there. I think it's 10 X 10, can't
remember what an actual landing is, three
steps down to a patio. That can all be
brickway to a pool. Probably wouldn't make
difference to the Building Inspector.
a
to
leave the application
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This
maximum. That is another option.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If we can decide
the next two weeks, and you guys can take
or leave it, he will still
MR. SMYTHE:
them. Maybe we
Yeah, I will
will leave it
as it
is the
amount. And that would be entirely up
We're not going to design it for you.
MR. SMYTHE: I understand.
it
have the decision.
turn it over
up to you and
is and hear back
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here is the
point, we can also just simply make a decision
and say this is the maximum lot coverage that
this Board will allow, and then it would be up
to you to decide how or it's easier for you to
proceed. Maybe you cut back the deck a
certain amount and you cut back the pool a
certain
to you.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 181
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
from you, either approved or disapproved.
Here is what we can live with.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. SMYTHE: I'm sorry, just adding it
a note from our end. The request for the pool
did add, it's not that we can take a few feet
off the pool. Then it becomes, you know a
custom pool, and that much more money for
everything. To build it and put covers on it,
and so we would like to stick with a standard
size pool. Again, the cost of deconstructing
a deck, would also be a concern.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to ask you
a question, one of our Board members wanted in
the public record.
MR. SMYTHE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He had to leave.
He had suggested the possibility of rotating
the pool 90 degrees, keeping the setback, but
that would take it entirely out of the side
yard, and we can put it completely within the
rear yard. Are you following me? In other
words, instead of going this way, it would go
this way.
MR. SMYTHE: I see what you're saying.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
this
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Instead of going
way, it would go this way.
MR. SMYTHE: Okay. And that would be
better?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would take
away a variance. In other words, I don't
believe you're hearing two much concern about
two feet from the side yard; however, if you
want to look at this, you can propose that and
then you would eliminate a variance?
MR. SMYTHE: We can look at it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please you
to come to the microphone.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Of course. Hi.
would like just to add a thought to that
might be mistaken. This goes back to my
conversation with Vicki, the sort of
have
I
and I
designated area given the lot setbacks,
because the way the Town views the garage
of the house, because is where you're
proposing, because I had thought about that, I
spoke with the buyers originally through Peggy
Van Gordon, I think they're open to that, and
I am welcome to that. If you look it, the
buildable is 30 X 30 square, not a rectangle.
side
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 183
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And this pool is 32 feet. So you would always
have 2 feet, whether it's going south towards
the living room or 2 feet into the garage
area. So I think the bigger thing that I have
heard here, and we're going to deliberate in
full circle, ad nauseam, the point is what
Mr. Dinizio brought forward is lot coverage.
I don't fault his opinion. I completely hear
it. I think everyone in this room understands
it. The bigger question is, and what I have
heard from the buyers, that has prompted this
whole application, is they want to get on with
an answer, whether they can buy this house or
not buy this house. And I think to expedite
things and rather asking the Board to say what
you would grant us or say us coming back and
deliberating for a week about removing the
deck. Quite honestly, they don't want to
remove and I will share, whether it was an
oversight or mistake with the initial building
permit, it would have been my opinion,
unfortunately, that should have been
incorporated. Because it was attached to the
house, it kind of fell through the crack and
when we came up with the original lot
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 184
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
coverage, that the surveyor provided us with,
I don't want to suggest it's a glitch, but in
the application we knew that it would be under
25% lot coverage. Again, it's over the 20%, 4
point -- I forgot the exact number, but the
intent, given the location and the square
footage. And I think I am speaking for the
applicant and the procuring cost to do this,
we would rather just leave it in your able
hands. And we would again, request that you
politely reflect on sort of the neighborly
dispute issue, which I don't want to
disqualify again, but there is more at play
here then the suggestion of lot coverage in
any normal neighborhood situation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually our
Board Assistant, Ms. Toth has just pointed out
when you look at it, it's pretty obvious, the
reason why it's not so reasonably to rotate it
is because coming out and backing out of the
garage --
MR. PLANAMENTO: There is a turnaround.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have that
turnaround. So it's placed properly in the
most functional location as proposed.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 185
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. PLANAMENTO: This still goes back
to the original building permit for the house.
The owner, Mr. Gorgone just added onto the
house. It was literally on the shoulder of
the road. It would never be a question. Of
course the lot coverage would still be there,
if such a large house was built, but again, in
desire of developing this site for his own
retirement, he built the house that would meet
his needs. It's a gorgeous home. It's a true
asset to the Gooseneck Estates Community. And
if you drive through the neighborhood, there
is a lot of irregularities. Some have -- and
I don't want to sound like a whistleblower,
but sheds on their front lawn. I don't know
if the permits are there or not. They're
under 10 feet. I think the pool is only
increasing the value of the home and
increasing the value of the neighborhood,
overall. It's a beautiful home, and there is
a very lovely eager couple wanting to live in
the home, but to be a part of our community.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you
something. Can you supply the Board with a
list of nonconforming lot coverage's in the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 186
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
particular area?
MR. PLANAMENTO: As a realtor, I think
I can find out which houses are on smaller
lots, but these lots were carved out before
the current zoning. So I don't know how
pertinent that is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, one of our
-- I will tell you why. One of the State
statutes that we have to address is character
of the neighborhood, and if there are a number
of lots that have excessive lot coverage, then
it is characteristic of the neighborhood. If
all the other properties are conforming to the
code, then excessive lot coverage is not
characteristic.
MR. PLANAMENTO: I can certainly look
at size, but wouldn't it be one of two things,
and certainly I can go to the Clerk's Office,
or rather the Assessor's to get property cards
and research things, but wouldn't this Board
be privy to all of this information based on
whatever history of applicant's?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, we wouldn't be.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we are
privy, but we don't do research for the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 187
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
applicant's.
MR. PLANAMENTO: I was just saying if I
don't have access to that information, on
particular streets --
cards
that.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
of the neighborhood.
MR. PLANAMENTO: I
You can get property
can certainly do
MS. TOTH: That is what we would do.
MR. PLANAMENTO: I don't mind doing
this to facilitate the application moving
forward, but I still think and perhaps it's an
integral component of the discussion, but
again, a Board decision, I think the decision,
as I understood from just speaking with the
people involved,
request that the
submitted and to
that we prefer to just
application be reviewed as
please understand that there
are extraneous circumstances in regard to this
application, with regard to this application.
That, I personally again speaking as a
realtor, have seen things occurring of
nature, short of somebody trying to do
something outlandish with their property.
know, you don't have neighborly disputes,
this
You
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 188
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
maybe unmistaken. You sit on this Board. You
see these things on a daily basis, but I don't
think that this request -- you know, we're not
talking about the building effecting
somebody's sunlight. We're not talking about
the way a dock might impede the use of another
boater's dock. This is just a very quiet and
drawn up swimming pool. It's a seasonal use.
It's a personal decision to have or not to
have. And again, it really starts with the
fact that the home that was built is of the
maximum lot coverage. So in order to keep
everything as is, the integral offering of the
house that Nick Gorgone built, the only
solution is to grant the pool or to deny it.
I would hate to see that happen for reasons
that I shared before. It is the Board's
jurisdiction to make that decision and I think
everyone in this room would respect that
decision. There is a community quality of
life issue at stake here. And it does
perhaps, I don't want to say set a precedent,
but I do think that I do what the Board had
suggested whether as a hobby or part of this
conversation, I think I will find many
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 189
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
irregularities as a part of that nature in the
Town of Southold, where the people have been
granted some way, shape or form, something
special. And no doubt, I think this is one of
those special and unique opportunities.
Again, given the hardship of behind the
scenes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I can tell you, sir, I
have been on the Board for almost 25 years.
And we start hitting 23%, we start putting on
the brakes. You know, we have granted lot
coverage's of 27%. I can think of one, but it
was extreme conditions, and has and was being
on the waterfront lot. In other words, they
owned a lot of land but they couldn't use a
lot.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Of course, I have a
neighbor across the street from me --
MEMBER DINIZIO: We're looking at lot
you know, I live on a lot with similar
I have an exact same size swimming
size.
pool,
when
but my house is also the same --
MR. PLANAMENTO: Your house is smaller.
MEMBER DINIZIO: -- exact size it was
it was built in 1957.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PLANAMENTO: But from a realtor, I
am wearing a realtor's cap, if there was
another ready, willing and able buyer, and I
don't mean to sound unfriendly to this
particular buyer, it might be a different
story. Somebody might be completely happy
with the house without a pool.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We're not going down
that road --
MR. PLANAMENTO: No, I understand.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You're looking at both
sides. Our main reason to be here is listen
to people's story and then base our decisions
on those six conditions that we have. The
Chairwoman was suggesting that there is an
avenue for you to do that. We can not make
that assumption. I don't think you need to go
through the entire Town of Southold. You can
go around this block and if you find that
there are, you know, a sufficient amount of
lot coverage situations there, be it 22%, 29%,
whatever, then that speaks for the character
of the neighborhood.
MR. PLANAMENTO: What about the
character of the neighborhood when you have
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 191
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
sheds
on front lawns --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ail the Chairwoman
wanted to do was offer you a venue in which
you can give us some information that may help
you, but if you care not to take that, I will
make a decision. We will make a decision
based on what we heard here today, and without
the information that she was trying to illicit
from you. It's not our decision. It's your
decision.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The point is, is
that it is incumbent upon the applicant to
make their case before the Board. The Board
can not make the case for or against. We
based determinations on the public record and
the submission of information. There are some
neighborhood's here where it is not unusual to
have 25%, 29% lot coverage. But it's typical
of the neighborhood that has really small
lots.
MR. PLANAMENTO:
Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Often on the
water with some decks that go right up to a
bulkhead. Those have predated zoning. There
are all kinds of things out there that have
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 192
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
excessive lot coverage's. That is something
that then becomes characteristic of that area.
So proposal to increase lot coverage would not
be character of the neighborhood. You're
suggesting that is one way to present your
application, by saying, well we're proposing
24%
and of the properties in the area, there
are the following six that have lot coverage
beyond 20%.
conversion, what is and what
How would I get such specific
without dated surveys? And I
is my responsibility but --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
beyond the scope of
of
is not included.
information
understand that
Well, it may be
what you're granted -- I
was just going to say the way that you do that
is that you search for variances in that area
for lot coverage.
MEMBER DINIZIO: There are people that
MR. PLANAMENTO: But how would I -- I
think of a property card, and I look at it, it
shows a lot size and perhaps improvements.
But everything is not always recorded. And
course, there are people that do things that
are different. However one looks at one
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 193
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
come before us that do a bang-up job in
getting that information. I don't know how
get it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, primarily
by looking at Records Page, which is on the
Town's website, to see what variances were
to
granted in that area and what were for lot
coverage.
MS. ANDALORO: I wouldn't go pass --
you can even just go adjacent. I would go in
here. These are small. You can check the
whole area out. I would stick with these.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Without further, what
I would suggest is that I would like to ask
the Board, if we can use the suggestion that
you gave us to have one week, that will allow
me time to research this and get back to you.
I think I understood the Chairperson's
discussion, that it would not impede a
decision that comes from you at a later point,
then resubmit that information, and hopefully
you will use it for consideration to grant the
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here is the
longest process that we can imagine, would we
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can close this subject to receipt of whatever
information you wish to present to the Board.
The neighbor's also can have access to that
information. That is public information.
They can come to the office and see what you
submitted, file a Freedom Of Information Act
Form, if they wanted to. We do have to have
some time to look at it as a Board and write a
decision. I don't know whether we can do that
-- let's say you submit it in a week and we
can do it within a week. If we can, we will.
The longest that it would take, likely, would
be at the next meeting, which would be
March 1st. We can put it on for deliberations
then. What we're trying to do is give you
options.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Yes, I would like to
exercise that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can close this
hearing now and make a decision based on
whatever we got, and then you will know in two
weeks. It's really up to you. By the way, I
don't want to mislead you, I am not
necessarily going to conclude, without the
Board deliberations, on what the Board is
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
willing to
coverage.
MR.
heard
do. Including your proposed lot
PLANAMENTO: Of course.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, you have
kind of a flavor what it is that we're
trying to accomplish when we grant relief.
But that doesn't -- I don't think that you
should jump to any absolute conclusions.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Without a doubt.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board needs
to deliberate.
MR. PLANAMENTO: I ask that you close
the hearing with the one week period that I
can get you any additional documents, that you
can submit into the file, for consideration,
and then we will take it from there. Would
you invite us back or it's closed?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's closed.
MR. PLANAMENTO: That is what I
thought.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don't take any
additional testimony. I think we have heard
everything that we need to hear.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I don't see
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 196
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any reason for an adjournment to another date.
MR. PLANAMENTO: Good.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will close
this hearing and give you a week to submit
additional
and then we will proceed
as we possibly can.
MR. PLANAMENTO:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
sound to the Board? Jim?
else
point?
further
information, whatever you chose to,
to deliberate as soon
Thank you.
How does
that
MEMBER DINIZIO: That sounds good.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Way to go.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
that wishes to make any comments at this
Hearing no
am going to make a motion
receipt of
by the
point we will then
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
comments, I
to close this hearing subject to
additional information submitted
applicant's agent, at which
deliberate.
Is there a second?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
favor?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 197
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: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
**********************************************
(Whereupon, the public hearings for
February 2, 2012 concluded.)
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 198
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 ~curate record of the Hearings.
~essica~allo
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York
11741
Date: February 23, 2012
the
Public
a