HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-08/06/2018 OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex ��®� ®�r�® P.O. Box 1179
54375 State Route 25 ® �® Southold,NY 11971
(cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) s2,
Southold, NY zs' Telephone: 631765-1938
www.southoldtow:tmy.gov
RECEIVED
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE % \2�
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEP 1 3 2018 VZ'.21Pry\
PUBLIC MEETING
MINUTES s tholdTownClerk
August 6, 2018
6:00 p.m.
Present were: Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman
James H. Rich III, Vice-Chairman
Martin Sidor, Member
Pierce Rafferty, Member
Mary Eisenstein, Member
Heather Lanza, Planning Director
Mark Terry, Assistant Planning Director
Brian Cummings, Planner
Jessica Michaelis, Clerk Typist
SETTING OF THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Chairman Wilcenski: Good afternoon and welcome to the August 6, 2018 Planning
Board meeting. The first order of business is for the Board to set Monday, September
10, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, as the time and
place for the next regular Planning Board Meeting.
James H. Rich III: So moved.
Martin Sidor: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Martin. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Southold Town Planning Board Page 12 August 6, 2018
Motion carries.
SITE PLANS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT
SEQRA Type Classifications/Set Hearing:
Chairman Wilcenski: Eastern Front Brewing Retail —This site plan is for a proposed
1,902 sq. ft. retail store located in the front of an existing 5,417sq. ft. 2-story building,
with no change to the footprint. The remainder of the building consists of two existing
dwelling units. Also existing is a detached 360 sq. ft. garage. There are 12 parking stalls
proposed for this application on 0.62 acres in the HB Zoning District. The property is
located at 13100 Route 25, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-114-11-11.1
Pierce Rafferty:
WHEREAS, this Site Plan is for a proposed 1,902 sq. ft. retail store located in the front
of an existing 2-story building, with no change to the footprint. The remainder of the
building consists of two dwelling units. Also existing on site is a detached 360 sq. ft.
garage. There are 12 parking stalls proposed for this application on 0.62 acres in the
HB Zoning District, Mattituck; and
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR, Part 617.5 (c), determined that the proposed
action is a Type II Action as it falls within the following description for 6 NYCRR, Part
617.5(c)(7) construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, non-
residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area
and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consistent with local land
use controls, but not radio communication or microwave transmission facilities; be it
therefore
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has determined that this proposed
action is a Type II Action under SEQRA as described above.
James H. Rich III: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
Southold Town Planning Board Page 13 August 6, 2018
Pierce Rafferty: And be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board sets Monday, September 10,
2018 at 6:01 p.m. for a Public Hearing regarding the Site Plan entitled "Eastern Front
Retail" prepared by Douglas Pearsall dated July 12, 2018.
James H. Rich III: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Pierce, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
SITE PLANS
Determinations:
Chairman Wilcenski: Peconic Landing Duplex—This Site Plan is for the proposed
conversion of an existing 1-story 2,987 sq. ft. dwelling unit in a life care community from
a single to a double unit, with no expansion of living area, and including 4 parking stalls
in a Hamlet Density (HD) and R-80 split-zoned parcel totaling 143 acres. The property
is located at 1205 Route 25, #107 Thompson Boulevard, ±75' n/o Chickadee Lane &
Thompson Boulevard, Greenport. SCTM#1000-35-1-25
James H. Rich III:
WHEREAS, this Site Plan is for the proposed conversion of an existing 1-story 2,987
sq. ft. dwelling unit in a life care community from a single to a double unit, with no
expansion of living area, and including 4 parking stalls in a Hamlet Density (HD) and R-
80 split-zoned parcel totaling 143 acres; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2018, Charles Cuddy, authorized agent, submitted a Site Plan
Application for review; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, the Planning Bound accepted the application as
complete for review; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board,
pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR, Part 617.5
Southold Town Planning Board Page 14 August 6, 2018
(c), determined that the proposed action is a Type II Action as it falls within the following
description for 6 NYCRR, Part 617.5(c)(7) construction or expansion of a primary or
accessory/appurtenant, non-residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000
square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance
and consistent with local land use controls, but not radio communication or microwave
transmission facilities; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2018, the Planning Board, pursuant to Southold Town Code
§280-131 C., distributed the application to the required agencies for their comments;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is exempt from review by the Suffolk County Planning
Commission (SCPC); and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2018, the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program Coordinator reviewed the proposed project and determined it to be exempt
from the Southold Town LWRP policies; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, a Public Hearing was held and closed; and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2018, the Southold Town Fire Inspector reviewed and
determined that there was adequate fire protection and emergency access for the site;
and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2018, the Greenport Fire District determined there was
adequate fire protection for the site; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2018, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed the proposed
application and determined revisions were required in order to meet the minimum
requirements of Chapter 236 for Storm Water Management; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2018, the Southold Town Planning Board determined that all
applicable requirements of the Site Plan Regulations, Article XXIV, §280 — Site Plan
Approval of the Town of Southold, have been met; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2018, the Southold Town Chief Building Inspector reviewed
and certified the proposed use of Life Care Community as a permitted use in the Zoning
District; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has determined that this proposed
action is exempt from the policies of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program.
Martin Sidor: Second.
Southold Town Planning Board Page 15 August 6, 2018
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Martin. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
James H. Rich III: And be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approves the Site Plan entitled
"Peconic Landing Duplex", prepared by Frank B. Ryan A.I.A., dated October 1, 2017
and authorizes the Chairman to endorse the Site Plan.
Please also note the following requirements in the Southold Town Code relating to Site
Plans:
1. Any new lighting fixtures beyond those approved as part of the Lighting Plan
must conform to the Code and may require Planning Board approval depending
on their number, size, intensity and location. Fixtures shall be shielded so the
light source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways and shall focus
and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within
property boundaries and conform to §172 of the Town Code.
2. All storm water run-off from grading, driveways and gravel areas must be
contained on site.
3. Proposed storm water run-off containment systems must be inspected by the
Town Engineer at the time of installation. Please call the Southold Town
Engineer prior to beginning this work.
4. Approved Site Plans are valid for eighteen months from the date of approval,
within which time all proposed work must be completed, unless the Planning
Board grants an extension.
5. Any changes from the Approved Site Plan shall require Planning Board approval.
6. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Board must
inspect the site to ensure it is in conformity with the Approved Site Plan, and
issue a final site inspection approval letter. Should the site be found not in
conformance with the Approved Site Plan, no Certificate of Occupancy may be
issued unless the Planning Board approves the changes to the plan.
Southold Town Planning Board Page 16 August 6, 2018
Martin Sidor: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Martin. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
Chairman Wilcenski: Sparkling Pointe Warehouse —This Amended Site Plan is for
the proposed construction of a 1-story 3,196 sq. ft. building for warehouse storage, no
basement and 12 parking stalls including 6 land banked where there exists a 5,808 sq.
ft. building all on a 1.02 acre parcel in the Light Industrial Zoning District. The property
is located at 1270 CR 48, Southold. SCTM#1000-69-3-3
Martin Sidor:
WHEREAS, this amended Site Plan is for the proposed construction of a 1-story 3,196
sq. ft. building for warehouse storage, no basement and 12 parking stalls including 6
land banked where there exists a 5,808 sq. ft. building all on a 1.02 acre parcel in the
Light Industrial Zoning District, Southold; and
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2018, Robert Gruber, authorized agent, submitted an
amended Site Plan Application for review; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2018, the Planning Bound accepted the application as complete
for review; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2018, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR, Part 617.5 (c), determined that
the proposed action is a Type II Action as it falls within the following description for 6
NYCRR, Part 617.5(c)(7) construction or expansion of a primary or
accessory/appurtenant, non-residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000
square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance
and consistent with local land use controls, but not radio communication or microwave
transmission facilities. The action is for the construction of a 34' x 94' (3,196 sq. ft.)
warehouse storage building (not open to the public); and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2018, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
(SCDHS) granted approval to reference C10-18-0005 for a Warehouse @ 128GPD;
and
Southold Town Planning Board Page 17 August 6, 2018
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2018, the Planning Board, pursuant to Southold Town Code
§280-131 C., distributed the application to the required agencies for their comments;
and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2018, a Public Hearing was held and closed; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is exempt from review by the Suffolk County Planning
Commission (SCPC); and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2018, the Southold Town Fire Inspector reviewed and
determined that there was adequate fire protection and emergency access for the site;
and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2018, the Southold Fire District determined there was
adequate fire protection for the site; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2018, the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program Coordinator reviewed the proposed project and determined it to be consistent
with Southold Town LWRP policies with recommendations to the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2018, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed the proposed
application and determined the site plan met the minimum requirements of Chapter 236
for Storm Water Management; and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2018, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed the
proposed project and approved it as submitted; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, the Southold Town Planning Board determined that all
applicable requirements of the Site Plan Regulations, Article XXIV, §280 — Site Plan
Approval of the Town of Southold, have been met; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2018, the Southold Town Chief Building Inspector reviewed
the proposed plan and certified the Agricultural Storage Building use as permitted in the
Light Industrial Zoning District; therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has determined that this proposed
action is consistent with the policies of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program.
James H. Rich III: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Martin, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Southold Town Planning Board Page 18 August 6, 2018
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries
Martin Sidor: And be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board approves the amended Site
Plan with one (1) condition entitled "Sparkling Pointe Warehouse", prepared by
Robert J. Gruber R.A., dated December 21, 2017 and last revised March 15, 2018, and
authorizes the Chairman to endorse the Site Plan.
Conditions:
1. This site plan is for warehouse storage only and not open to the public.
James H. Rich III: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Martin, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries
Public Hearings Continued by Court Reporter Jessica DiLallo
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6:01 p.m. — Chloem, Patterson and Tuccio Resubdivision - This resubdivision
proposes to transfer 0.46 acres, from SCTM#1000-56.-4-24 to SCTM#1000-56.4-22.
Lot 24 will decrease from 27.84 acres to 27.38 acres and Lot 22 will increase from 1.06
acres to 1.53 acres in the MII Zoning District, Southold. See ZBA file 7166 for the area
variance to provide relief of the non-conforming lot size. SCTM#1000-56-4-22 & 24
6:02 p.m. — Latin Fuzion —This Site Plan Application is for the proposed conversion of
an existing 1,113 sq. ft. retail store to a sixteen (16) seat restaurant and installation of a
new sanitary system on 3.14 acres in the Hamlet Business Zoning District. The property
is located at 620 Traveler Street, Southold. SCTM#1000-61-1-13.1
Southold Town Planning Board Page 19 August 6, 2018
6:03 P.m. ,—Vineyard View—This proposed Residential Site Plan is for 50 multiple
dwelling units in seven buildings. All units are proposed to be offered for rent at rates
set by the federal government for affordability for the next 50 years. The plan includes
14 one-bedroom units, 22 two-bedroom units and 14 three-bedroom units, a 2,649 sq.
ft. community center, 104 parking spaces; and various other associated site
improvements, on a vacant 17.19-acre parcel of which 10 acres will be preserved as
open space (6.3 acres upland and 3.7 acres wetlands), in the Hamlet Density (HD)
Zoning District located on the s/s of County Road 48 ±1,600' n/e/o Chapel Lane ,
Greenport. SCTM#1000-40-3-1
6:04 p.m. —Verizon Wireless at Laurel Stone Cell Tower—This proposed Site Plan
is for a 120' tall wireless telecommunications facility monopole for one Verizon section
1 10' -120' a.g.l. and two AT&T antenna sections 90' - 1 10' a.g.l. and three (3) empty 10'
sections for possible future co-location (all concealed within the pole), along with a
2,500 sq. ft. area for proposed associated ground equipment. There are ±5,078 sq. ft.
of existing buildings including a stone supply yard and associated accessory structures,
all on 1.6 acres in the General Business Zoning District. The property is located at 7055
Route 25, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-122-6-35.4
APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
• July 9, 2018 TABLED
Chairman Wilcenski: We need a motion to table the approval of the minutes from July
9, 2018.
James H. Rich III: So moved.
Martin Sidor: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Martin. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
Chairman Wilcenski: We need a motion for adjournment.
Martin Sidor: So moved.
James H. Rich III: Second.
Southold Town Planning Board Page 110 August 6, 2018
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Martin, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None.
Motion carries.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
d2g�
Jessica Michaelis
dTranscribing Secretary
Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman
1
I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
3 PLANNING BOARD MEETING
4 ------------------------------------------- X
5
6
Southold, New York
7 August 6, 2018
6:00 P.M.
8 ,
9
10
11
12
13 Board Members Present:
14
15 DONALD WILCENSKI, Chairman
16 JAMES H. RICH, III, Board Member
17 PIERCE RAFFERTY, Board Member
18 MARTIN H. SIDOR, Board Member
19 MARY EISENSTEIN, Board Member
20
21 HEATHER LANZA, Planning Director
22 Mark Terry, Assistant Planning Director
23 Brian Cummings, Planner
24 Jessica Michaelis, Typist
25 William Duffy, Town Attorney
2
1
2 INDEX
3
4 NAME PAGE
5
6 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7
8 CHLOEM, PATTERSON & TUCCIO RESUBDIVISION 3-6
9 LATIN FUZION 7-9
10 VINEYARD VIEW 9-29
11 VERIZON WIRELESS AT LAUREL STONE 29-50
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
August 6, 2018 3
1 CHLOEM, PATTERSON & TUCCIO
2 RESUBDIVISION
3 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: This
4 resubdivison proposes to transfer
5 0.46 acres from SCTM#1000-56-4-22 to
6 SCTM#1000-56-4.22. Lot 24 will
7 decrease from 27.84 acres to 27.38
8 acres and Lot 22 will increase from
9 1.06 acres to 1.53 acres in the MII
10 Zoning District, Southold. Also ZBA
11 File #7166 for the area variance to
12 provide relief of the nonconforming
13 lot size. SCTM 1000-56-4-22 and 24.
14 At this point, if anybody would like
15 to address the Planning Board, step to
16 one of the podiums. State your name and
17 address your comments to the Board. And
18 before you leave, sign your name for the
19 record.
20 MR. MANWARING: Charles Manwaring,
21 owner of that property. I believe
22 our application is complete. If
23 anybody has any questions, I am here.
24 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Does anybody
25 have any questions for Mr. Manwaring?
August 6, 2018 4
1 Staff?
2 (No .Response.)
3 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
4 Would anybody else like to address
5 the Board on Chloem, Patterson and
6 Tucclo Resubdivision9
7 -If anybody would like to address the
8 Board, you can state your name and write
9 your name for the record?
10 (No Response.)
11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seeing none.
12 MEMBER RICH: Mr. Chairman, I make
13 a motion we close the hearing.
14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
15 Jim.
16 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Seconded.
17 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seconded by
18 Pierce to close the hearing.
19 Any discussion?
20 (No Response.)
21 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
22 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
23 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
24 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
25 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
August 6, 2018 5
1 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
2 I am sorry. I guess there was one
3 card that did not go to the neighboring
4 -- the affidavits weren't posted
5 properly. Just one. So Jim is going to
6 rescind his motion and we're going to
7 have to leave this hearing open until
8 the next public meeting.
9 Did you have the -- can you step to
10 the microphone
11 MR. LARK: Richard Lark. I was
12 made aware of it Friday. The
13 Assessors gave my secretary the wrong
14 address. But apparently to was
15 Breezy Point. They came in and
16 talked to the Planning Board. That
17 is what Heather told me. They were
18 aware of it. But it's okay.
19 MS. LANZA: I don't know if they
20 actually received the notice. And
21 I am not sure it was Breezy
22 Point.
23 MR. LARK: That's okay. If you
24 want to keep it open, that's fine.
25 We will mail it again. I got the
August 6, 2018 6
1 correct address this time from the
2 Assessors.
3 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. So as
4 long as we get the affidavit from you,
5 we will approve it on the 10th. So I
6 need a motion to hold this hearing open
7 until September 10th9
8 MR. LARK: September 10th. I will
9 put that on the notice then.
10 MEMBER RAFFERTY: So moved.
11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
12 Pierce.
13 MEMBER RICH: Second.
14 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seconded by Jim.
15 Any discussion?
16 (No Response.)
17 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
18 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
19 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
20 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
21 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
22 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
23 Motion carries.
24 Thank you.
25 ****************************************
August 6, 2018 7
1 LATIN FUZION
2 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: The second
3 public hearing that we have is Latin
4 Fuzion. This site plan application is
5 for the proposed conversion of an
6 existing 1,113 square feet retail store
7 to a 16 seat restaurant and installation
8 of a new sanitary system on 3.14 acres
9 in Hamlet Business Zoning District. The
10 property is located at 620 Traveler
11 Street in Southold.
12 SCTM# 1000-61-1-13.1.
13 At this time, if anybody would like
14 to address the Board on Latin Fuzion,
15 step to the one of the podiums, state
16 your name and write your name for the
17 record and please address the Board.
18 MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack for
19 the applicant. If there are any
20 questions of me, I would be glad to
21 answer.
22 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. We will
23 see if any Board Members have any
24 questions for Mr. Kimack?
25 MEMBER RICH: Just a
August 6, 2018 8
1 clarification, this is the old
2 (Inaudible) Jewelry Office?
3 MR. KIMACK: Correct. And I don't
4 think he left any diamonds over.
5 MEMBER RICH: I am sure.
6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Would anybody
7 else like to address the Board on
8 Latin Fuzion?
9 (No Response.)
10 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Anyone?
11 MEMBER RICH: Motion to close the
12 hearing.
13 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: We have a
14 motion to close the hearing by Jim.
15 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Second.
16 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seconded by
17 Pierce.
18 Any discussion?
19 (No Response. )
20 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
21 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
22 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
23 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
24 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
25 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
August 6, 2018 9
1 Motion carries.
2 Thank you.
3 ****************************************
4 VINEYARD VIEW
5 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: The third
6 public hearing we have is for
7 Vineyard View. This proposed
8 residential site plan is for a 50
9 multiple dwelling units in seven
10 buildings. All units are proposed to
11 be offered for rent at rates set by
12 the Federal Government for
13 affordability over the next 50 years.
14 The plan includes 14 one-bedroom
15 units, 22 two-bedroom units and
16 14 three-bedroom units, a total of
17 2,649 square feet community center,
18 104 parking spaces; various other
19 associated site improvements, on a
20 vacant 17.19 acre parcel of which
21 10 acres will be preserved as open
22 space. 6.3 acres upland and 3.7
23 acres wetland, in the Hamlet Density
24 Zoning District. The property is
25 located at south side of County Road
August 6, 2018 10
1 48 plus or minus 1,600 feet of
2 northeast corner of Chapel Lane and
3 County Road 48 Greenport,
4 SCTM#1000-40-3-1.
5 This meeting, was not held over.
6 This is the second public hearing.
7 With that, if anybody would like to
8 address the Board, please step to one of
9 the podiums, state your name and write
10 your name for the record and address
11 your comments to the Board.
12 MR. HANDLEMAN: Hi, I am Alan
13 Handleman, Vice President of
14 Development Conifer Realty. Confier
15 is a 40 year old company that manages
16 affordable housing. Specifically
17 what we develop, we build. What we
18 build, we own. What we own, we
19 manage. This involves that in all
20 aspects of the development you have
21 quality and long term care and
22 responsibility. Along with their
23 partners CBCLI, we have developed
24 over 700 units on Long Island. CBCLI
25 was the developer of the successful
August 6, 2018 11
1 cottages at Mattituck. CBCLI and
2 Conifer were invited into this
3 community by the Town officials
4 seeking to implement affordable
5 housing policy. We began by looking
6 for suitable sites. This site was
7 identified by property management
8 grew during a team building event at
9 a local winery. The site was
10 attractive on so many levels. Zoned
11 for multifamily use and had access to
12 utilities including Village of
13 Greenport's sewers. We familiarized
14 ourselves with the previous
15 multifamily proposal that never
16 progressed. We noted the New York
17 State DEC approved the project after
18 an extensive environmental review.
19 Insights from that process were
20 valuable in guiding us for our
21 planning of vineyard View. Vineyard
22 View with less than 50% of the
23 density along with a more contextual
24 design approach, meets the affordable
25 needs of the community while
August 6, 2018 12
1 respecting environmental
2 sensitivities. We're proposing 50
3 units, 14 one bedroom units, 20 two
4 bedroom units, 14 three bedroom units
5 and 7 buildings. There will be a
6 central village square that will
7 include a playground, a 2900 square
8 foot community building will be
9 located at the entrance. This will
10 house the leasing office, a community
11 room, fitness room and laundry
12 facilities. our funding sources met
13 us with a 50 year affordability. 50%
14 of the units will be affordable
15 households earning up to 50% of the
16 area median. 50% of the units will
17 be affordable to households earning
18 60% of the median income.
19 Additionally, we're committed to
20 maintaining 50% of the units as
21 affordable to households earning up
22 to 80% of AMI and perpetuity. This
23 measure is really unprecedented in
24 our experience in affordable housing.
25 We sought to learn about the
August 6, 2018 13
1 community and the need for affordable
2 housing. This included community
3 information sessions at the Southold
4 Community center, meetings with the
5 Town of Southold Housing Action
6 Committee, Northfork Chambers
7 President. Superintendent of the
8 Greenport and Southold schools, East
9 Marion and Orient Civic Groups, CEO
10 Of Peconic Landing CEO of Eastern
11 Long Island Hospital. The Mayor of
12 Greenport, Southold Fire Chief,
13 Village of Greenport Trustees, Town
14 of Southold Housing Action Committee
15 and Board Members of San Simeon By
16 the Sound. These meetings enhanced
17 our understanding of the Town and
18 finding affordable housing for
19 residents and key industries,
20 agriculture, marine and tourism.
21 With landlords realizing greater
22 revenue while renting during peek
23 season rather than operating year
24 round. The local approval process
25 has helped us realize some of the
August 6, 2018 14
1 concerns and sensitivities of the
2 community. Vineyard View will
3 incorporate will gain a LEED
4 Certification. A combination of rain
5 guards and subsurface stormwater
6 retention facilities and 10 foot
7 buffer to the adjacent wetlands will
8 ensure (Inaudible) and protect the
9 water quality of the wetlands. We
10 have committed to using organic
11 fertilizers and pest control
12 measures. We have began to assess
13 the solar energy panels at the site.
14 There will be a premium cost to this
15 and we're investigating it and will
16 seek funds accordingly. We recognize
17 that safety issues on County Road 48
18 and the speed limit production is
19 appropriate in the section of
20 roadway. It's our understanding that
21 the New York State Department of
22 Transportation has the authority to
23 set speed limits. And that a joint
24 request from the Town Board and the
25 County Highway Superintendent
August 6, 2018 15
1 initiates this process. When County
2 Road 48 was recently approved, the
3 shoulders were widened and sufficient
4 to include bicyclists. Unfortunately
5 at that time, pavement marking and
6 signage was not included to alert
7 motorists to their responsibility to
8 share the road. We commit to working
9 collaboratively with the Town to seek
10 a speed limit reduction and the
11 addition of appropriate signage along
12 North Road. At this time, I would
13 like to introduce our team; Gwen
14 O'Shea who is the Executive Director
15 of our partner CDCLI. Betty Perry,
16 my colleague and Conifer Regional
17 Property Manager and an east end
18 resident. And Robert (Inaudible)
19 Coordinator at Confider. Salvatore
20 Coco is the architect at BRC
21 Architects who designed the
22 buildings. Chris Dwyer of LKMA
23 Engineers is the primary civil on
24 this and Randy Bias of LKMA Engineers
25 is the traffic specialist and
August 6, 2018 16
1 engineer. And Judy Simonic, the
2 attorney, of the firm Forchelli,
3 Deegan and Terrana. I am available
4 to answer any questions as well as
5 our team. Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you,
7 Mr. Handleman, We will see who else
8 speaks and then we might ask you back
9 for some questions. Would anybody
10 else like to address the Board on
11 Vineyard View?
12 MS. SMITH: Hi. My name is Rona
13 Smith. I am Chair of the Housing
14 Advisory Commission. And we have
15 waited a long time to secure a rental
16 property like this. We actually
17 sought out Ed Conifer and we're happy
18 that they have partnered with CDC.
19 Everything that Don has -- they have
20 impressed us. They're performing the
21 way that we hoped that they would.
22 We particularly looking for a company
23 that would be around to manage the
24 property because the rental property
25 is of primary importance. And
August 6, 2018 17
1 continued to be impressed with the
2 way that they have approached any of
3 the issues that have come their way.
4 And we're excited about this. We
5 can't wait for them to get started.
6 Very excited. Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
8 Would anyone else like to address the
9 Board?
10 MR. FINNEGAN: Good evening.
11 Martin Finnegan, Twomey, Latham, Shea
12 Quadraro. I am here this evening on
13 behalf of the neighbors that live
14 across the street from the proposed
15 subject. They're Carol and Joseph
16 Paradino, Kevin Mannoox, Kamone
17 Retsoe, Michael Fineberg, Ronald and
18 Winnie Spillane, Donna and David
19 Campbell, Timothy and Georgia Quinn
20 and Joelene Sterne. I am not here to
21 make -- not in my backyard
22 presentation. All of our clients are
23 not opposed to the development.
24 They're not opposed to the concept or
25 the location. I did submit a letter
August 6, 2018 18
1 earlier today to the Board. And
2 outlines the concern which are
3 primarily involving safety and
4 primarily with respect to ingress and
5 egress from the site. I just want to
6 briefly underscore those points for
7 the Board. And I believe during the
8 course of the proceedings, work
9 sessions or whatever, that this Board
10 has requested or required about a
11 left hand turn lane for westbound
12 traffic on County Route 48. There
13 are similar such lanes. If you go to
14 the Cliff Side sight or San Simeon or
15 Chapel Lane, these left-hand turn
16 lanes seem to exist in very near
17 vicinity. For whatever reason, there
18 seems to have been some resistance by
19 the Board of Suffolk County DPW. But
20 our clients feel that this is an
21 essential component for safe ingress
22 and egress to the site. As everyone
23 knows, the speed limit there is 50
24 miles per hour. The traffic
25 congestion is greater than ever with,
August 6, 2018 19
1 you know, the ferry traffic
2 increasing. You know, people rushing
3 to and from the ferry, the lavender
4 farm. Local wineries and the growth
5 of Greenport as a tourist
6 destination. We all drive the road.
7 We know what it's like. And to
8 introduce an additional 50 families
9 here, it's going to clearly have an
10 impact. our clients have a
11 tremendous amount of difficulty just
12 getting out of their properties.
13 They're taking a left hand turn on
14 that stretch of the North Road, it's
15 virtually impossible on many days
16 during the week. So and obviously
17 we're also very well aware of the
18 recent accident -- the traffic
19 accident that occurred there. So I
20 think to some extent, I might be
21 preaching to the choir here. I don't
22 think that I need to convince you
23 that there is a safety issue. There
24 is just not enough. I guess we just
25 wanted to ask the Board to do
August 6, 2018 20
1 whatever you could do to revisit the
2 issue with the Suffolk County DPW.
3 And find a way -- some type of an
4 engineering solution has to exist to
5 enable this lane to fit there. I
6 recognize the road might be a little
7 more narrow on this particular area,
8 but just 16 feet up the road, there
9 has to be a way to make this happen.
10 The rest is essentially paint on the
11 road. So that is probably my clients
12 principle concern. Conifer has
13 touched on the need for a reduction
14 in speed. I think that is part and
15 parcel to this. You know, just up
16 the road to this is 40 miles per
17 hour. And that has been a traffic
18 calming mechanism that has worked for
19 the residents on either side of this
20 area. And it seems to be a critical
21 component here. I think the traffic
22 study that has been offered to date
23 is clearly not adequate to address
24 these issues. And we think it's very
25 important to have the Board require
August 6, 2018 21--,
1 the applicant to revisit that traffic
2 study that will actually enable you
3 to see how this development is going
4 to impact traffic safety in the area.
5 So those were the primary concerns.
6 As to the site itself, really, the
7 only comment was on the screening. I
8 talked to Chris about this -- about
9 all of these issues. My clients are
10 very happy that they seem to be of
11 like mind with respect to the safety
12 issues of course and with respect to
13 the screening issue. Visual impact
14 study seemed to come up a little
15 short on that. Right now there is a
16 scenic (Inaudible) and the hope is,
17 that we can encourage screening that
18 will maintain that. There seems to be
19 ample room to make that happen. You
20 know, these buildings while they
21 appear very nice, aren't exactly like
22 the other ones around them. Again, my
23 clients are not opposed to it, but
24 they would be happy not to look at
25 that every day. So if that can be
August 6, 2018 22
1 naturalized that screening that is
2 there now, that is what the request
3 is. So again, this is -- this is not
4 so much by way of opposition. By way
5 of comment. I think that everybody
6 recognizes the need for affordable
7 housing in this Town. And this site
8 is maybe suited for it. But we would
9 request that you take these points
10 into consideration as you evaluate
11 the situation moving forward. To the
12 extent that there would be any more
13 information presented for the record
14 tonight or any future, we would ask
15 to have the opportunity to comment on
16 that as well.
17 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you. All
18 of your points were well taken. I think
19 this Board and the staff will obviously
20 address all of your concerns, as well
21 as, everyone else's.
22 MR. FINNEGAN: Thank you, Donald.
23 I appreciate it.
24 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Would anyone else
25 like to address the Board?
August 6, 2018 23
1 MR. BIAS: Good evening,
2 everybody. My name is Ray Bias. I am
3 the aforementioned traffic engineer
4 that Alan referred to previously. I
5 am a professional -- since I have not
6 spoken before to this Board, 30
7 seconds on my fob history so to
8 speak. I am a professional engineer.
9 Professional traffic operations
10 engineer. That is a certification.
11 Professional transportation planner.
12 For the last 40 years, I have spent
13 my career in traffic engineering and
14 translation planning. Working
15 primarily for municipalities and
16 appearing before Board's like yours
17 to discuss traffic impacts like
18 development projects. I have
19 personally reviewed about 200 traffic
20 impact studies on private
21 developments on behalf of multiple
22 municipalities. I do have my resume
23 just in case you may want to refer to
24 it. It does list some of my other
25 qualification as well. I dust wanted
August 6, 2018 24
1 to say that, you know, put everything
2 in perspective. As you know, SEQRA,
3 looks at the incremental impact of a
4 project in terms of many facets.
5 Many different components. One of
6 them being traffic impact. Just to
7 put everything in perspective, County
8 Road 48 road probably has about 15 to
9 16,000 vehicles a day in the
10 summertime. That is an account in
11 two directions the entire day. And
12 we're talking here about a project of
13 50 units that is probably generate
14 about 30 trips in the peak hour. In
15 the peak hour of activity on County
16 Road 48, we're talking about 30
17 trips. That would average about 15
18 trips in and out. In the hour. In
19 the morning, there is more leaving
20 and more coming back in the evening
21 typically for a residential area like
22 this. So we're talking about overall
23 a car every two minutes. In the
24 context of the amount of traffic that
25 is already on the road way -- and I
August 6, 2018 25
1 am not trying to minimize the traffic
2 conditions on the roadway because it
3 is tough to get out in the summer
4 time. Particularly to make a left
5 turn is very difficult. I am sure
6 people make right turns and come to a
7 point where they can turn around to
8 make a left turn. In terms of an
9 incremental impact, this project does
10 not -- it's not a significant traffic
11 generator. So I would like to make
12 that point. In addition, we have done
13 in our firm, in terms of the EAF, we
14 have given you .information that is
15 typically in an EAF. Typically you
16 fill in the blanks, how many trips
17 per day. And check the box. No
18 significant impact. In that case,
19 one might look at it and say, well,
20 there is no significant impact. In
21 the FDAF, we have provided
22 information on accident analysis,
23 three year accident period. We have
24 looked at accident trends in the
25 area. We found that the accident rate
August 6, 2018 26
1 along County Road 48. There is about
2 half of the statewide similar type
3 roadway. We also found out that
4 two-thirds of the accidents are deer
5 strikes along the roadway. And then
6 looked at the remaining accidents and
7 found that there is this mattering of
8 different types of accidents. Usually
9 you look for trends in an accident
10 history in terms of, what can we do
11 to mitigate a safety problem? Well,
12 there is no apparent trend in the
13 non-deer type accidents that we lead
14 to any traffic mitigation. I am
15 really not trying to minimize the
16 concerns of the people who live along
17 this roadway because it's a very busy
18 roadway. Particularly in the
19 summertime and during those times
20 when you have traffic that comes from
21 the ferry. Leaving the ferry and also
22 when people are going to the ferry
23 and maybe exceeding the speed limit
24 because they're trying to make their
25 ferry. That being said, we would be
August 6, 2018 27
1 happy to address the concerns of the
2 letter. I don't think we have seen
3 the letter but I would be happy to
4 address those concerns in writing to
5 your satisfaction.
6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: I think we will
7 do that. We will have a letter
8 produced.
9 MR. BIAS: Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Would anyone
11 else like to address the Board on
12 Vineyard View?
13 MS. SIMONIC: Good evening. My
14 name is Judy Simonic. I am an
15 attorney with Forchelli, Deegan and
16 Terrana, and I am appearing this
17 evening on behalf of the applicant.
18 As the Board knows, this is the fifth
19 meeting that we have been at, public
20 hearing, if it's possible to close
21 the public hearing and keep the
22 record open for our response to the
23 letter and further information if the
24 Board sees fit. We believe that we
25 have submitted all records and
August 6, 2018 28
1 information to the Board for the
2 Board to close the public hearing and
3 ultimately render a determination.
4 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
5 Would anybody else like to address the
6 Board?
7 How does the Board to take the
8 attorney's recommendation to close the
9 hearing and leave it open for two weeks
10 for public response?
11 MEMBER RICH: I make a motion that
12 we close the hearing and leave it
13 open for two weeks for time for
14 written comment in the meeting in two
15 weeks.
16 MEMBER SIDOR: Second.
17 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
18 Jim. Seconded by Martin.
19 Any discussion
20 (No Response. )
21 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
22 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
23 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
24 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
25 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
August 6, 2018 29
1 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
2 Motion carries.
3 Thank you.
4 ****************************************
5 VERIZON WIRELESS AT LAUREL STONE
6 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: The fourth
7 public hearing that we have is for
8 Verizon Wireless at Laurel Stone. This
9 proposed site plan is for a 120 foot
10 tall wireless telecommunications
11 facility monopole for Verizon section
12 110'-120' a.g.l. and two AT&T antennas
13 sections, 90'-110', a.g.l. and three
14 empty 10 foot sections for possible
15 future co-location, all concealed within
16 the pole, along with a 2,500 square feet
17 area for proposed associated ground
18 equipment. There are plus or minus
19 5,078 square feet of existing buildings
20 including a stone supply yard and
21 associated structures, all on 1.6 acres
22 in the General Business Zoning
23 District. The property is located at
24 7055 Route 25, in Mattituck.
25 SCTM41000-122-6-35.4.
August 6, 2018 30
1 At this point, I will open the
2 floor up to comments and please address
3 your comments to the Board.
4 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you,
5 Mr. Chairman. John Coughlin,
6 attorney for the applicants. I would
7 dust add to the description that in
8 addition to Verizon and AT&T we have
9 Mattituck Fire District proposing to
10 co-locate their antenna atop the
11 proposed facility. The Board heard
12 testimony from Mr. Kenter who is the
13 manager at the fire district's
14 managing consultant, he is here this
15 evening. Following the last months
16 meeting, in addition to addressing
17 the open notice issue, we were in
18 further contact with Citiscape. They
19 posed a few additional questions.
20 Mr. Kenter responded in writing. I
21 believe the Board has copies of
22 Mr. Kenter's most recent letter. In
23 addition, we submitted a letter from
24 the project manager of Sprint.
25 Although Sprint was not ready to
August 6, 2018 31
1 proceed with the project at
2 inception, which goes back a couple
3 of years, they have indicated their
4 intent to co-locate. So one of those
5 vacant open canisters for future
6 co-location appears to likely taken
7 by Sprint. In addition, we have
8 provided the Board with an FAA
9 notice. The one that was originally
10 obtained by the applicant had
11 expired. Those were good for 18
12 months. This is good till 2020.
13 Again, just to summarize where we
14 left off, there were a few questions
15 posed of the tower location. The fire
16 district's, Mr. Kenter, spoke about
17 the need for the western portion of
18 the district to get back to
19 communicating to Riverhead. Mr. John
20 Harrison was in the record speaking
21 to that point. Additionally, you
22 have the affidavit from Tonya Negron
23 from Elite Towers, explaining why
24 this site is preferable as opposed to
25 pother sites to the east. Above and
August 6, 2018 32
1 beyond the need for the fire district
2 (Inaudible) possible. The site of
3 the proposed facility, Mr. Kenter
4 addressed that in his earlier letter
5 and his testimony and in his newest
6 letter. You have the maps and
7 materials both from Verizon Wireless
8 and AT&T explaining the need by each
9 of those operators. Explaining their
10 proposed height. I believe that has
11 been addressed. So again, that is
12 summarizing where we are in the most
13 recent materials. Mr. Kenter is
14 here. Ms. Negron is here. All of us
15 are available for questions of the
16 Board or any other interested
17 parties.
18 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Okay. Does
19 anyone have any questions for
20 Mr. Coughlin?
21 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Mr. Chair, I
22 have a few questions?
23 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Sure. Go
24 ahead.
25 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Mr. Coughlin,
August 6, 2018 33
1 would you explain the function of
2 Elite Towers with this project?
3 MR. COUGHLIN: Certainly. I can
4 speak to that and Ms. Negron can
5 speak to that as well. Elite Towers
6 is the company that develops the
7 towers. They construct the tower.
8 They lease the space from Laurel
9 Stone and they basically serve as a
10 managing agent to coordinate
11 different operators who are going to
12 locate on the tower.
13 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: So they start
14 out for locations for towers?
15 MR. COUGHLIN: Correct. We have
16 relationship with the different
17 operators, emergency service
18 operators and licensed wireless
19 carriers and who have a need for a
20 facility in the area of Laurel.
21 Close to the Town line and Elite goes
22 out and tries to find the appropriate
23 site.
24 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: And they
25 moving forward, does Elite Tower own
August 6, 2018 34
1 the tower then?
2 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes. They own the
3 tower but they're not an operating
4 entity.
5 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: So they will
6 always own the tower?
7 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes.
8 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: All right.
9 Just a few other questions for
10 clarifications. What is the distance
11 from the proposed tower and the
12 Peconic medical Center since that
13 was one of the important
14 characteristics?
15 MR. COUGHLIN: I believe Mr. Kenter
16 stated 1.3 miles each way for both the
17 main Mattituck station and Peconic but
18 I can have him come up and confirm
19 that --
20 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: So you're
21 saying it's 1.3 miles from the
22 proposed tower to Peconic Medical
23 Center?
24 MR. COUGHLIN: I believe that is
25 correct.
August 6, 2018 35
1 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Just make sure
2 before you speak, you state your name
3 for the record. This is being
4 recorded. So we know who is speaking.
5 So John before you speak, just please do
6 the same.
7 MR. COUGHLIN: Will do.
8 MR. KENTER: Good evening. Dennis
9 Kenter, president of LI
10 Telecommunications. We service the
11 Mattituck Fire District's fire
12 communication radio systems. Your
13 question was the distance from
14 Peconic Bay Medical Center to the
15 proposed Laurel Stone location, I
16 don't currently have that information
17 for you. I will look in my notes
18 to see if it's in there, if not, I
19 will get back to the Board with
20 that.
21 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: So the
22 second part to that question is, what
23 is the distance from the Penny Tower
24 on County Route 48 and Sound Avenue
25 to the Peconic Medical Center?
August 6, 2018 36
1 MR. KENTER: I am not involved
2 with that tower or anything at that
3 location. So I have absolutely no
4 information on that tower.
5 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Oh --
6 MR. KENTER: Mattituck Fire
7 District does not have any
8 communications on the Penny Tower at
9 all.
10 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: So you would
11 not have any information in terms of
12 what that tower holds?
13 MR. KENTER: No, I can't tell you
14 the height. I can't tell you if there
15 is room on the tower to facilitate the
16 district. I have no information on that
17 tower whatsoever.
18 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Who has that
19 information?
20 MR. KENTER: I honestly don't know.
21 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Mr. Coughlin,
22 who has that information?
23 MR. COUGHLIN: I have information
24 on that tower in my office but I
25 believe that tower -- John Coughlin.
August 6, 2018 37
1 Coming back up to speak for purposes
2 of clarifying the record. I believe
3 Penny Lumbar Tower is only 80 feet.
4 And the fire district has said that
5 the site needs to be in vicinity of
6 Laurel and needs to be at 120 feet.
7 So I would say just based on that --
8 I can confirm the distance for you,
9 certainly. I am not adverse to
10 getting that distance for you.
11 But based on the need for elevation
12 and the location that the fire
13 district wants to be located in,
14 that wouldn't be an appropriate
15 site.
16 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: I think that
17 tower is about 100 feet tall.
18 Anyway. So if someone could find out
19 the answer to those questions,
20 please?
21 MR. COUGHLIN: Absolutely.
22 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Anything else?
23 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: I have some
24 more questions but I will see if
25 anyone else has any questions.
August 6, 2018 38
1 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: I just have
2 clarification on your letter,
3 Mr. Kenter. Just for purposes of
4 putting this in perspective. You
5 wrote on the last -- the letter to
6 Mr. Coughlin and we received copies
7 of it. It says the Main Mattituck Fire
8 Department Station House on Pike
9 Street are mounted at the following
10 height, 126.7 feet, 66.8 and 62.9.
11 These antennas are not being abandoned
12 just improved. Can you dust explain --
13 there are three different sets of
14 antennas and what they're used for and
15 if the antennas -- the amount that the
16 main house is 126.7, what would be the
17 helpful of the antenna that you would
18 seek at the new location?
19 MR. KENTER: So on the second page
20 where you're showing three different
21 heights, you have to vertically
22 separate the antennas for clear
23 communications. The lower antennas,
24 the one at the 66.8 and the 62.9, the
25 62.9 is a controlled station antenna
August 6, 2018 39
1 that is towards Noyack to control the
2 backup system at Noyack. The antenna at
3 the 66.8 is a backup antenna and in
4 place of the primary antenna at the top
5 of the monopole, if that does fail. And
6 then the one that is being utilized, is
7 the one noted at the 126.7 mounted
8 height on Pike Street.
9 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: And right now,
10 it's in use. And how far are your
11 communications good from that point?
12 MR. KENTER: We do cover the district
13 with the mobile radio. It's our
14 portable radios that we're having
15 problems with. Because they're low to
16 the ground and they're less power. When
17 we went to try and clear the local
18 topography and trees so we can get a
19 little bit of better signal into our
20 communication systems, which is why
21 we're looking for the further west of
22 the site. So the mobile radios going to
23 Peconic Bay Medical Center or mutual
24 aide to Riverhead Fire or Jamesport
25 Fire, which is on the mobiles. And then
August 6, 2018 40
1 the portables, you can have better
2 communications on the west-end of the
3 district where we are having some issues
4 right now.
5 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: How much higher
6 -- your proposed application, how much
7 higher would the new towers that I
8 think you wrote also, that you would
9 move the main functions of that tower to
10 the new facility?
11 MR. KENTER: Right now we have both
12 the fire department pagers that the
13 firefighters carry, they get transmitted
14 out for a call or a test from the Pike
15 Street location. And then in addition to
16 that, the primary operations channel is
17 also at that location. Because the
18 firehouse sits kind of in a hole, we're
19 having a hard time capturing the
20 portable radios. So the testing that
21 would be done, if we remove the
22 operations channel from Pike Street over
23 to the Laurel Stone location, we will
24 pick up the other elevation, which is
25 kind of a hindrance for us today. So
August 6, 2018 41
1 that is why we want to use that for
2 two-way radio operations. And we will
3 maintain paging out of Headquarter's.
4 That is done for a couple of reasons.
5 One we have redundancy and backup. And
6 what we need is to get communications up
7 to the pagers. So we can handle that at
8 that Headquarter's. And two, by
9 splitting the system, we're able to get
10 a little more power out of each system.
11 So we can actually operate at a full
12 license potential.
13 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: But the height is
14 -- I get your point.
15 MR. KENTER: The biggest difference is
16 the land elevation and the location.
17 That is what is really helping us.
18 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: And the land
19 elevation, the new whips that would be
20 on top of this, that would be at what
21 height?
22 MR. KENTER: John has that elevation
23 for you.
24 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
25 MR. COUGHLIN: John Coughlin. The
August 6, 2018 42
1 fire district's proposed antenna
2 would be mounted on top of the 120
3 foot pole that is proposed. The
4 specification that Mr. Kenter
5 provided indicates that this is a 94
6 inch antenna, that is just a shade
7 under 8 feet. So the center line of
8 that would be 124, give or take a
9 couple of inches. So comparable to
10 the antenna at Pike.
11 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: So 3ust so I
12 understand this, Mr. Kenter, the height
13 isn't the most imperative thing here,
14 it's the location?
15 MR. KENTER: Actually both. Need the
16 height because of the land elevation to
17 clear the trees. We're not cleaning the
18 trees at Montauk Headquarter's. So if
19 you're driving around and looking at the
20 monopole at the top for the fire
21 communications, we're just being blocked
22 from all the local trees, which causes
23 us the problems with the portable
24 radios. By going to the Laurel Stone
25 location, it actually gives us two
August 6, 2018 43
1 benefits. one, it's a further west site
2 so we can get better coverage. Two,
3 because the land elevation is higher
4 and we're clearing trees much better
5 and therefore have better portable
6 coverage. So that is kind of what we're
7 doing. We want the portables to work
8 with the fire department. The mobile
9 radios can get through almost anything
10 because of the high powered roof top
11 antennas and 40 watt radios. The
12 portables that are 4-watt radios that
13 are on your body affect the
14 effectiveness of it.
15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you. That
16 answered my question.
17 Does anyone else have any questions9
18 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: I do.
19 Mr. Coughlin, so if I understand --
20 thank you very much for this
21 publication by the way --
22 MR. COUGHLIN: Thank you. I did
23 not prepare it.
24 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: So I am
25 dust checking in here. Separate from
August 6, 2018 44
1 the fire district, it's stated that
2 AT&T and Verizon were coming in to
3 fill a gap. I didn't see any
4 information in this publication.
5 What is the data that you have
6 arrived at to make that statement,
7 that there is a gap?
8 MR. COUGHLIN: What you have is
9 the visual study. And the reason
10 why its Verizon and AT&T are not
11 clear to you is, their antennas are
12 inside the tower. The only visual
13 element is the tower itself. And
14 then the whip, what the fire district
15 is proposing to locate on top, which
16 you really can't see in the photo
17 simulations because of how narrow it
18 is. The materials that actually
19 speak to both Verizon and AT&T's need
20 for their respective facilities, are
21 these maps that I imagine are also in
22 the packet, but I have additional's
23 if you need. Verizon did an -- The
24 Town Code requires that each
25 applicant rates the coverage's needs
August 6, 2018 45
1 and the proposed coverage at
2 different decibel levels to
3 demonstrate how the proposed site
4 would serve a user inside a building,
5 inside a vehicle, on a street. This
6 is a map that Verizon generated
7 showing the proposed facility and the
8 expected reliable building coverage.
9 It's the green shade and the expected
10 reliable vehicle coverage is the
11 yellow shade. Included in this
12 report, is an analysis of the loss of
13 coverage that Verizon's coverage
14 would suffer if the tower were
15 reduced. That was a question
16 raised by both staff and the
17 consultant. Verizon's engineer
18 indicated that if the tower had to
19 be reduced, they would lose 56% of
20 the proposed vehicle coverage and
21 41% of the in-building coverage.
22 AT&T also did a similar analysis in
23 that regard. And if the tower were
24 reduced, they would lose 47% of their
25 1n-building coverage and 38% of the
August 6, 2018 46
1 proposed in-vehicle coverage.
2 And each of these experts both
3 stated that this is a significant
4 loss.
5 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Thank you for
6 that. Use one followup question
7 regarding the Penny Tower. I would
8 like to know the distance as the crow
9 flies, the proposed site and the
10 Penny Tower, and is the Penny Tower
11 utilizing all of its functional
12 ability?
13 MR. COUGHLIN: I will give the
14 Board as much information as I have
15 on that. I will do that.
16 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Thank you so
17 much.
18 MR. COUGHLIN: Absolutely.
19 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Does the Board
20 have any other questions?
21 (No Response.)
22 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Any members?
23 Staff?
24 MEMBER SIDOR: On Parcel 35.7 it
25 was deemed not usable because of the
August 6, 2018 47
1 long term lease. Define that for me,
2 what does that mean?
3 MR. COUGHLIN: I am sorry --
4 please come up and speak as to the
5 leasing question.
6 MR. SCHMIDT: Edward Schmidt. The
7 question?
8 MEMBER SIDOR: The parcel 35.7 was
9 not deemed usable because it required
10 a long-term lease. Exactly define for
11 me a long-term lease and why would
12 that be -- have a negative effect on
13 a parcel?
14 MR. SCHMIDT: Well, we have a 5
15 year from July. A 5 year lease with
16 the owner from that property. So the
17 property is basically tied up for a 5
18 year period.
19 MEMBER SIDOR: Thank you.
20 MR. SCHMIDT: And I know the owner
21 personally and he's not interested in
22 a tower. We renewed the lease
23 recently and we addressed that with
24 him and he said that he's not
25 interested in a tower. Down the road,
August 6, 2018 48
1 he said he's' hoping to put up a
2 storage building back there. So a
3 tower would interfere with that.
4 MEMBER SIDOR: Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you.
6 Anyone else9
7 (No Response.)
8 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Thank you very
9 much. I would like to close the
10 hearing and leave the application open
11 for indefinitely until we get the
12 answers --
13 MR. COUGHLIN: I suspect we would
14 be able to get those answers to you
15 in the two week period.
16 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Keep the
17 hearing open for a two week period to
18 get the answers for the questions
19 today. And we will get them to you in
20 writing?
21 MR. COUGHLIN: Very good.
22 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: I need a
23 motion?
24 MEMBER RICH: I make a motion we
25 leave the public hearing open until
August 6, 2018 49
1 our next meeting for written comments
2 only.
3 MS. LANZA: May I suggest some
4 wording? That you keep the public
5 hearing open for written comments
6 until you receive answers to your
7 satisfaction?
8 MEMBER RICH: I make a motion that
9 we keep the hearing open for written
10 comments until we hear answers to our
11 satisfaction.
12 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Motion made by
13 Jim.
14 MEMBER SIDOR: Second.
15 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Seconded by
16 Martin.
17 Any discussion?
18 (No Response.)
19 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: All in favor?
20 MEMBER EISENSTEIN: Aye.
21 MEMBER RAFFERTY: Aye.
22 MEMBER RICH: Aye.
23 MEMBER SIDOR: Aye.
24 CHAIRMAN WILCENSKI: Aye.
25 Motion carries.
August 6, 2018 50
1 Thank you very much.
2 ****************************************
3
4 (Whereupon, the meeting
5 concluded.)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
August 6, 2018 51
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5
6 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
7 foregoing transcript of audio recorded
8 Meeting/Public Hearings was prepared
9 using required electronic transcription
10 equipment and is a true and accurate
11 record of the meeting.
12
13
14 Signature:
15 Jessica DiLallo
16
17
18 Date: August 21, 2018
19
20
21
22
Lac'
23
24
25 RECEIVE®
SEP 1 3 2018@-
e4�� C1.
P
n
S'guthold Town Clerk