Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/22/2002 HEAR NLbrs J 16 131 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD AUGUST 22,2002 (Prepared by Paula Quintieri) Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer Member Lydia A.Tortora(absent until 8:50) Member George Horning Member Ruth Oliva Member Vincent Orlando Board Secretary Linda Kowalski PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9:50 p.m.Appl.No. 5084—640 Church Street LLC CHAIRMAN: This is an ongoing hearing. We'd like Mr. McCarthy to come up, since Mr. McCarthy was tardy at the last hearing and did not arrive; we have to discuss with him certain things. Is there anything you would like to open the hearing with Mr.McCarthy? TOM MCCARTHY: I apologize for my tardiness. It was my mistake that I was not here. I didn't understand that we were going to be on the calendar that evening, because I didn't ask that question specifically enough to your office. CHAIRMAN: Let me just say to the entire group that is here,when a person is tardy they get to the end of the schedule, so that is the reason why we are at the end of our agenda for this particular application. Just so everybody is aware of that. We're ready to hear from you. TOM MCCARTHY: I guess one of the substitute issues today that we had not discussed in the past, or at least was not advertised was the issue of 280A access from 48. I believe it were to go back and look at the record we had offered to work together with the church to improve the right-of-way that travels across the church's property to whatever it is necessary to a reasonable or acceptable to the neighbors or the church itself,because the church owns the right-of-way. We offer to do that to whatever the specifications that are necessary. We had spoken about this before but we hadn't amended the application to include that within the public hearing. CHAIRMAN: What have you done, the last hearing that we had you had supplied us with a second map indicating an additional change or a proposal of an additional change. I don't seem to have that right in front of me, but I'll look for it in a second. Have there been any other changes, anything other that you have proposed either you or your client in solving some of the variance aspects of this application? TOM MCCARTHY: No, I believe that we had submitted to you a possibility for an amendment. We have not made that application to the Planning Board. To the Planning Board we've made our application as you've seen our original. With all due respect to the principal Building Inspector that sent us to the Zoning Board and to this Board, I still feel that the issues that are in front of us are, I'm in disagreement with regarding the bulk schedule, the nonconforming bulk schedule,the front yard setback,the rear yard setback and the distance on the street. Those are really the issues that we, myself and Mr. Chituk wanted to get answered from this Board in an official fashion before we were to come up with any other official application because we feel wherever we've located this building is a legal location. We also understand that there are a lot of other issues here, they're complex issues that we've all read about in the papers lately. There's been issues that the Town Board has been involved in and trying to solve. Many different opinions as to what is the right thing to do, and we're kind of here with our hat in our hands for a piece of property Page 2,August 22,2002 Transcript of Public Heaiing Zoning Board of Appeals that was zoned in a particular fashion in which to improve it according to what we see as the law. And we respect the members of the church and the neighbors and we're trying to work together so that we can also be a good neighbor and to whatever end that is, but still within our rights in a light industrial district with the improvements that we are looking to make with this property. CHAIRMAN: We need you to cut the building down. You need to make it smaller. So that's an issue that concerns me. That's just my opinion. I have not; we have not deliberated upon this because we have not closed the hearing, conceivably. But the last discussion I had with you and Mr. Chituk was that if this building was to go forward it's going to be a model building. TOM MCCARTHY: That's understood. CHAIRMAN: But, it is just too large. So we need you to look at that aspect of it; you and your client. And I'll pass it over to Mrs.Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: You have contended that you are not subject to the provisions of 100-143A,which states, "all structures shall be set back 100 feet from the right-of-way",correct? You've maintained that it's not a right-of-way? TOM MCCARTHY: I maintained that it is a right-of-way and that it's not a street. MEMBER TORTORA: That's not what the Code says. The Code says, "All structures shall be set back 100 feet from the right-of-way". According to your own map, it is a right-of-way, an undisputed right-of- way. TOM MCCARTHY: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: So as to the issue of whether this Board is willing to rule that it's not a right-of- way and not subject to the provisions of 100-143A, I can guarantee you I am going to, I can't read it any other way. The law is the law,the Code is the Code,it says what it says and yes it is. That's number one. TOM MCARTHY: Mrs.Tortora,May I ask you a'question? MEMBER TORTORA: Sure,go ahead. TOM MCCARTHY: What is your opinion on 100-244 for nonconforming lots? Under the definition it says the Section is intended to provide a minimum standards for granting a Building Permit, for the principal building of lots,which are recognized under,recognized under the Town and have not merged. MEMBER TORTORA: Are we talking about something in this Notice of Disapproval? TOM MCCARTHY: It is that particular issue of 100-244 is really where I state my case and it was listed several times in my response and in my application to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the reason for my being here is both the variance and an interpretation. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, what about the provision in the Code that says where two parts of the Code are conflicting and more stringent part of the Code applies? TOM MCCARTHY: I don't know. I am looking at the nonconforming lots and I feel that the nonconforming bulk schedule was intended to address lots that are smaller than the standard bulk schedule. And in this case, the standard bulk schedule would say that this lot may be 40,000 square feet and we have less than that. So that anticipates giving relief from the main setbacks. MEMBER TORTORA: What you're asking for would be an exception to the way the Building Department has historically applied the Code in this matter. It would be a deviation from past practice. Page 3,August 22,2002 Transcript of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals TOM MCCARTHY: I went to look at particular instances and have the opportunity to speak with him. CHAIRMAN: We have no problems with it. MEMBER TORTORA: That's entirely up to you. What I'd like to know a couple of things. I'd like to know really, why you need a 4800 square foot building. Because the size of the building is keenly tied to the degree of the variances that you need, so we asked this on several occasions, but I really don't have a clear understanding of why they need that size building. TOM MCCARTHY: I can let Mr. Chituk speak to that,but have you know that in addition to what he will offer to you,I know that he keeps his equipment and supplies and likes to keep them indoors or work on his equipment during the winter that needs periodic maintenance while he's not actively engaged in installing or servicing swimming pools. And he stores his goods in there;he stores his vehicles and his equipment. MEMBER TORTORA: That doesn't answer the question. At the initial hearing that this question was asked, and it was asked by several Board Members,I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong,Mr. Chituk said that he would be storing two or three pool kits at a time. He indicated that the pool kits were eight foot wide by 20 foot long or 160 square feet each, or a total of 380 square feet. He indicated that he would have one truck on the property at the time. He indicated that he would not be doing any retail sales whether he would be storing some chemicals but very little. That doesn't get me anywhere near 5,000 square feet. You're original site plan indicates nine parking spots on the right-of-way, a loading dock, a ramp; on the side, a crushed concrete parking area near the office and on the north, a crushed concrete parking area near the loading dock and ramp. That does not indicate to me a small operation and that to this day; you have not been able to account for why you need 5,000 square feet. So I'm asking you to produce that for the record. That should not be a complicated matter. There are dozens of pool companies on the East End who could put that down in writing. TOM MCCARTHY: Do you have an opinion Mrs. Tortora, what size is appropriate for Mr. Chituk's business? MEMBER TORTORA: I'm asking you. I'm asking you to prove to this Board why you need 5,000 square feet. The burden of proof is not on this Board,by law it is on you. You are requesting the variance. TOM MCCARTHY: I'm requesting an Interpretation first and I guess based on that Interpretation, then perhaps we need to re-shuffle our cards and take a look at the reasons why we were denied and what our relief may be from that and what Mr. Chituk would like to do. MEMBER TORTORA: You need 280 access,correct? TOM MCCARTHY: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: That's not an Interpretation. You need a rear yard variance. That's not an Interpretation. TOM MCCARTHY: I believe the rear yard is set forth in the nonconforming bulk schedule additionally. MEMBER TORTORA: Then we're going to have to re-advertise for an Interpretation according to that. TOM MCCARTHY: My application is plan and it's stated that, throughout that Mrs. Tortora that I was looking for an Interpretation and additional relief if it was found,that a variance was required. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I think Tom what happened was at the hearing, you asked for an Interpretation but it wasn't typed in writing. It hasn't been applied for in writing. That's why it hasn't been advertised. TOM MCCARTHY: My original application that was submitted to the Board. � t Page 4,August 22,2002 Transcript of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh yes, you checked Interpretation here, but you didn't say the Section.You left the Section blank. TOM MCCARTHY: Okay, so we'll go another month and then maybe we can deal with that issue, if that's what the pleasure of the Board is. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure we can deal with that issue. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You're asking for an Interpretation of a 100-244B are you Tom? TOM MCCARTHY: 100-244A which,yes and B,the minimum standards yes. CHAIRMAN: Can I just say something Tom? TOM MCCARTHY: Sure. CHAIRMAN: And, of course,we're at the third hearing,when you file for an Interpretation you should do it as a separate application. Because when you do that we identify that aspect of it. Notwithstanding the fact that these nice people that are here tonight have issues that are totally different than what we're discussing. TOM MCCARTHY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN: And the problem is that when you embody it into an application, and I know that I've discussed this with you on the telephone, not the issue of the separate Interpretation application, but of the issue of your concern, concerning the discourse that you just gave Mrs. Tortora regarding your opinions of these issues. But we should have had you do a separate Interpretation issue. We did that in Gardner's Bay Estates, and we've basically done it that way because what it does is, it stands out and those are issues that we may choose to hold the other application in abeyance until such time that these particular issues come to bear. TOM MCCARTHY: I can understand that,and appreciate that. It's not a new issue that I'm bringing up.. It was on my original application. We checked the boxes and I did ask for an Interpretation whatever you deem to be necessary. But it was directly on here. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm just saying it's my mistake as much as it is anybody else's because we should have told you to file separately for that. Okay. That was a mistake that I made. Notwithstanding that mistake,if you're not willing to go forward with this until we make these Interpretations, and then let's make the Interpretations let's ask you to file that application separately and we'll hold this in abeyance until we deal with those two Interpretations. Because,at this point,all we're doing is spinning our wheels. Okay. TOM MCCARTHY: We'd like to be able to move forward, but we're looking for guidance as to what is applicable from this Board. Do we put the Board in the shoes of Mr. Chituk to say 5,000 is too big or 2,000 is too small. I think we all recognize that the underlying issues are not just those of the setbacks in this particular application,although we're all hanging our hat on them. CHAIRMAN: Let me just say this to you, okay, and I have to say this to the general public in general. 1991 we had before us an application for a fast food restaurant. I'm nowhere comparing this to a residential community where there's an industrial piece of property that exists. For nine hours and thirty-seven minutes I listened to testimony. Over a period of three separate hearings. To this date,I still have people coming up to me and saying, why did you grant that? We granted it because it was allowed in the district. And that is the way we're still going with it unless some legislative change occurs that stops us from doing so. Please remember for everybody that is in this audience, that we are an appellate Board, we don't do legislative things. This Zoning is still in place as we sit before you, and that's the way it's going to remain Page 5,August 22,2002 Transcript of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals again unless there's a change. What we're trying to do is to get this applicant to say to us, that maybe I don't need 4800 square feet. Maybe I need less. TOM MCCARTHY: I think I could ask Mr. Chituk to come up and speak with you and express his ideas. CHAIRMAN: But we're spinning our wheels if you want us to deal with the Interpretation first. And I know you've made that determination and several times both to me on the telephone prior to the actual submission of this application, and post the submission of this application; probably at every hearing that we've had. So I really think that we should just have you make the application for the Interpretation. Let's deal with the Interpretation first and then we'll go on after we make that determination. I think that's really the way to go. I said the exact same thing to Mr. Bressler, exactly eight months ago on the Walz application, which I will not go into the merits on at this particular point in Gardener's Bay Estates and he came in and he said I need an Interpretation and I said well you're going to have to make it separately. And I think that's what we'll have to do at this point and I sincerely apologize for taking everybody's time, including yours,up to this particular point. TOM MCCARTHY: I have a question for you Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN: Right. TOM MCCARTHY: If Mr. Chituk this evening was to say,well 4500 feet is okay or 4,000 feet is okay or 3500 or 3,000 or 2500 or 2000,how would this Board proceed? What issues are there left to discuss while everyone is here this evening CHAIRMAN: The placement of the building on the property, the overall landscaping that's going to be done, the fencing that's going to be done, the gating that's going to be done, the paving of the right-of-way, the individual lessening of the impact of the speed of the cars or trucks on that right-of-way. Every issue that this community has shown will be addressed in that decision. And I will be chastised to the nth degree by the Planning Board because we will be doing some site plans at the same time, because we don't want it to leave here without site plan. I don't mean their definitive site plan, but the major site plan issues that would concern us under the actual construction of this site. TOM MCCARTHY: Mr. Chairman you've made it clear that this will be a model building and we're in favor of doing that. If the Board is in favor of the alternate site plan and alternate site plan,we did supply a secondary site plan but you did not feel that perhaps were granted for necessitated different variances, then what was applied for. CHAIRMAN: No, but what it did was it put the building back a little bit farther, I happen to like that particular one. TOM MCCARTHY: I think it works better for us. CHAIRMAN: I like the building smaller and that is. But I like it back farther and I like the huge yard in the front because it gives you more of an advantage to screen from these nice neighbors that are here. And quite honestly I don't give a didly about the variance aspect, as opposed to what the overall aspect of the building is going to look like in its finished fashion. TOM MCCARTHY: I'd be happy to take a seat and listen to any of the other folks that are here this evening as far as those substantive issues to give us direction on what may be acceptable to them and guidance from the Board on what may be acceptable to you. CHAIRMAN: What do you want us to do with the Interpretation? TOM MCCARTHY: I'd like to hear form the community and perhaps I can get up again after they have spoken after they have spoken to address any of those issues. Page 6,August 22,2002 Transcript of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll start with the Community Attorney. Yes ma'am. I don't think I've had the pleasure of meeting you ma'am. I understand you're an attorney? REGINA SELTZER, ESQ.: I am Regina Seltzer. I'm delighted to meet you. Even though it is almost 10:30. CHAIRMAN: This is early for us Ms. Seltzer. Very early. This is just the early twilight for us. REGINA SELTZER, ESQ.: I'm afraid that it's more than merely twilight for me. I think you can hear me, can't you. CHAIRMAN: We can now. REGINA SELTZER, ESQ.: All right. Let me say I'm not going to discuss any of the issues because it's clear to me that you are all extremely familiar with the issues and I'm going to let the people in the community discuss it. I'm an attorney. I'm representing Miss Cross, and I'm going to limit my comments to the legal issues that I perceive to be the case here. First of all I congratulate you. I'm really impressed with the extent of work that you all have done on this application. It's really very impressive. And I think the community is probably very, very pleased to know that you all taken the time to do that. Let me then just go quickly because it is so late into the points that I think are important. Under Town Law, Section 267, you have the authority to issue variances. What those variances do is they pen-nit somebody like the applicant to do something that is not legal as far as the Code of this Town is concerned. But you're authority to grant that kind of exception to the Code isn't unlimited. And one of the limitations is those variances going to have any kind of adverse impact on the adjoining property and the adjoining community. I have to tell you that from the small amount that I have been able to gather from the information that I been able to research and from the community comments and from Miss Cross's comments, it seems to me clear that while this is now zoned L Industrial and you can indeed put an industrial building on here, it would be totally illegal to unconscionable to put in the kind of industrial structure that is being proposed. Now, first of all the fact that there are going to be chemicals stored there is an immediate signal that you have to be concerned because if there is a fire, if there is any kind of emergency that occurs, the fact that there are toxic materials stored there is an immediate danger to Miss Cross and to all of the people who live right near the lot. Now the other thing that I feel is really, really important for you to realize and perhaps you do realize it and if so,I'm sorry I'm being redundant is that Section 100-235A of the Town of Southold Zoning Code states that no building shall be erected on a lot that does not have direct access to a public street in accordance with Town Law 280A. I know you all know this, but I just want to emphasize that Town Law 280 states that no permit for the erection of a building shall be issued unless a street with an access to such structure has been placed on the official map and been suitably improved. This, as the applicant indicated, and as you all agreed, there is no street here. This is a land locked piece of property. This is a right-of-way that was granted and that right-of-way on the assumption that this was going to be residential property and that these people who are using the right-of-way were getting in and out to their homes. There was never any thought or any intention of having trucks or any other kind of massive equipment. I've measured that road, that road is a dirt road 15 feet. You couldn't get an ambulance in there. You couldn't get an emergency vehicle in there and part of Section 100-235 says that you're mandated to have a road upon which emergency vehicles can have access. It's impossible, there is no way whether they reduce the size of the building or not, there is no way that they can get emergency vehicles on that 15 foot road. The other parts that I believe are part of the application as far as the variances that they want, is what you are talking about, which is the setbacks and I'm not going to go into that since you've obviously discussed it at great length and the part which is 100-142 which is the bulk area in parking. Under your laws you have to have 40,000 square feet for an industrial site. And why did the Town say that? The Town says that and made that decision about 40,000 square feet because they are aware of the fact that when you have an industrial zoned area you are trying to make sure that it is not going to impact in any adverse way whatever the uses upon any of the adjoining property owners. This property is approximately 28,000 square feet. Why would you want to give this person, this applicant, and a variance at all? It seems to me that the Ll Zoning in this particular spot,was poorly thought out. But it's there now, and I agree with you that you do not have the right or the authority to change it. But you also have no authority to give variances that are going to make no sense, that are going to go contrary to the intent of i Page 7,August 22,2002 Transcript of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals your whole Zoning Code, that are going to adversely affect the safety and health and the welfare of Miss Cross and all of the people adjacent to it. And unless there are some extenuating circumstances, and I don't know of any extenuating circumstances, and this if anything, is a self-created hardship because the person who purchased this property knew exactly what they were purchasing. It seems to me there is no justification none, to give this variance at this particular time, whether they reduce the size of the building or not for this use and I hope that you will all take all the things I said into consideration. I'm going to let the other people here who have come and who have spent all this time waiting,give you the opportunity of hearing their views. It is my legal opinion that there is absolutely no justification for giving a variance to this property at this time. Thank you. If you have any questions I'll be glad to. CHAIRMAN: No we're going to reserve comment on those questions. Yes,Reverend how are you tonight sir? REVEREND FULFORD: I'm doing good. How are you? CHAIRMAN: I just had to explain to you the reason why this hearing ended up to be the last hearing. I apologize for that and I hope it doesn't affect your day tomorrow. I know it will effect my day tomorrow. REVEREND FULFORD: It's going to affect mine but I'm going to stick it out. But I'm going to say something tonight and then I'm just going to leave. I apologize for leaving you all here,but I just got to get back on the South side. My wife and I supposed to be taking our son to college, so she'll probably end up taking him with a friend,but I thought I end up rest up because I've been running all day. But I just wanted to say tonight that I'm Reverend Cornelius Fulford, and I'm pastor for the First Baptist Church in Cutchogue and my whole concern is as a member of the church and also don't forget I live around that area. To go over what the lawyer was just saying, it was in the paper that a big deed was found me and the trustees Richard Turpen, if you read it. Now I got a call from our church lawyer and a long time ago the church owned all the property. But they cut it up in pieces and they sold it. And at the time they did, they did big deeds back then and a lot of times when you look at the papers of the Town of Southold, the church name was still on some of those deeds. So we go a call to appoint that Mr. bought the place, somehow that our name was on this,where it said we must be getting the land cleared so once you get your document paper and says you can sign it so you can clear the land. Anybody that buys land from the church standpoint from the road standpoint, then I don't want the church to be the one that keeps from anybody buying land that they can develop. So what we did was we went and signed the document to the point that our name was on with the street. At the same time they concluded somehow or another that the easement to the property. My concern is that that easement like the lawyer says was a dirt road and was used for them to get back and forth. It wasn't used for heavy traffic,because church would come out there. It was the side of the road to the church. So my concern always been is that this coming in the community and right on top of the development that's there because there's no other place to go then to me that is not safety for the people in the community and so I myself, I always try to be firm when it comes to people so I can look at the real thing, the benefit of the people that is in that area. That should be all that I am concerned about whatever.is going in that area. That at this particular time we did not know also that it wouldn't be for somebody to start a business there. Because it was for access, easement for the residents. Because we came here and we also asked if you have an easement that the church owned is there any way we could stop anybody from getting in and out. The thing was that you can't land lock somebody from getting in their houses or whatever and so that's a way that the road was since it forces them to come there. Not for business and trucks to come there or whatever. So at the same time we own the road. So because we own the road, if somebody gets hurt and it don't have to be a member of our church (inaudible — speaking too rapidly)you never know what's going to happen. So if somebody get hurt from the company, from the pool company that that they're going to be in there working and going back and forth if somebody get hurt and even though he might have insurance and we might have insurance, but they're still going to sue us. And that is something that the church along with the members that does not want that to even go through. We don't want them bargaining suits and we know this because we own the road. So if I had the opportunity myself I would let nobody use that road no more than those people that are in there because it's just a dirt road its just an easement. It's not even a highway to go to the highway;it's just an easement to go back and forth to their home. That's why we're here tonight and that's the reason why want you to think this out thoroughly. We want you to use the best judgment when it comes to that,but at the same time always t Page 8,August 22,2002 Transcript of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals think about the benefit of the people in that area. That's why a lot of people are down there, they have the information they feel that it's best not to. He met with us and we sat down with a meeting because he was even thinking about fixing the road up. Fixing the road up is one thing,but at the same time you still liable, or we're still liable because it's still not a public road that goes back and forth. If he puts his business there and then the house,he's going to have traffic and having trucks back and forth in there and at the same time people live there and raise their families there and their children there. And at the same time the church is there. So anything could possibly happen. So that's the reason why we are here tonight to voice our opinion. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes ma'am. Excuse me for pointing at you but that's the only way I can indicate that you're next. VIOLA CROSS: I'm Viola Cross and I'm right behind the church, across from the property that is in discussion. Now I've lived there almost 20 years and it's a very quiet neighborhood,we don't have a lot of traffic and we have these children. Now I am a disabled person and also Mrs.Brown who is not here today she is disabled and she lives right in front of the property. Now with the chemicals and what have you being in there, it's not safe and we know it's not safe. And with the traffic that passes it's going to be something different because I'm used to being, I'm retired and I'm back there because it's quiet and nobody disturbs us. I am totally against the building because I understand it will be a steel building and to wake up in the morning and look at a big piece of steel is not going to be very relaxing. I feel that the people that have been there for years this being the only property in the 20's that people of color could buy, so we have been there, we have taken everything that has come along from that landfill and now that it's being recapped and they're fixing it up everybody wants in. I am totally against it and it will disrupt our mode of living. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes? GWEN SCHROEDER: Hi, Gwen Schroeder,North Fork Environmental Council. One of the issues that I know that you folks are not directly dealing with is supply of water to the property. I just, I want to read this into the record or at least summarize this letter from Steve Jones from the Suffolk County Water Authority to Josh Horton and they say the Water Authority is saying equivocally that they will not provide water to any new uses and they feel this commercial use is definitely a new use. In order to provide water to those commercial establishments that may crop up in that community, the Town would really have to look at the water maps'again. And they would have to go through the SEQRA process again and hold public hearings again. I know that the applicant has every right to pursue his application because the zoning allows him to. But I think the future of that whole area is in question. Nobody knows ultimately what the zoning will be there in the end and the Town, in fact, has hired or is in the process of hiring environmental consultants to do a land re-study for that area to see what the best possible use is. So I want to submit this letter from Steve Jones into the record and the other question I had was is it bothers me that the applicant can't quantify the amount of pool chemicals that are going to be stored at the facility and I have something here from the EPA and if he's going to be storing equipment and petroleum products, one of the problems that, and with my limited knowledge of pool chemicals, is that if it mixes with inappropriate substances that can be very volatile. I think that at the very least,there should be some clear ideas of what's going to be stored there, how much is going to be stored there, and I'm not sure all of this fall under your purvey but, personally I feel that this community has not been treated well by Southold Town. We really have to use utmost care with this application. I know that if a pool company was going to be in my neighborhood I would be very concerned. I think that Mr. McCarthy is a very bright businessman and he knew going into this venture, what was at stake. I just ask that you consider these things in your deliberations tonight. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Sure,I'm ready. MIKE DOMINO: Thank you very much. I am Mike Domino I'm a Southold resident and a member of the Anti-Bias Task Force, and with all due respect we listened here at this late hour to a number of discussions concerning the esthetics and the applicants and the attorneys that have been extremely cooperative. They agreed to information at previous hearings to members of this community. I'd like to remind you did not Page 9,August 22,2002 Transcript of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals oppose the commercial venture they just raised questions concerning safety, size of the building asked to provide documentation, why they needed such a big building, what were they going to do about a fire and so forth. And none of these have been provided at this point. I too,I share those concerns, concerns about the chemicals, concerns about the fire department. Also I'd like to raise the issue of traffic. And the traffic commission is studying this the landfill because it has been identified by Ty Cochran as a hotspot, and there have been numerous accidents there. Because of the down slope of the road the limited sight, the speed of the vehicles to put commercial venture there that it will have large trucks trying to move in to turn in on a road that's only 15 foot wide is not going to make the area any safer. Not only to the members of this community, but to everyone else who lives in the landfill/compost in the future? So I really question that you need to do that. I also want to mention that I'm going to grieve it. When someone comes before the Board they have to prove a hardship or should be able to prove a hardship when they ask for and that hasn't been demonstrated to my satisfaction. The applicant stands to benefit from the property no matter how it is sold. I would also like to mention a buffer zone. Very often we try to mitigate the impact on the community with buffer zones and these are never maintained or their bond in perpetuity. So we may be able to mitigate the situation in the initial stages. But it doesn't guarantee that this community will be safe or will be protected from hazards long term and that's a considering point. Because many of the issues that arise it deals with chronic not acute illnesses; and the last thing it seems to me that there's possibly a better use would be to re-zone this area that is now light industry to residential office. That would seem to be a better possibility for everybody including the applicant. Residential office seems to be better for everybody and we've still have LIO and we'd still have Agricultural you'd still have Commercial and you would have Residential Office. This is a point that the Anti-Bias Task Force has asked the Town Board to consider. I realize that you're not an appellate and that's not your responsibility. But I want to bring that point out that is open for consideration from this point on. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr.Domino. Is there anybody else? Mr.Wickham we'll be right with you. TOM WICKHAM: My name is Tom Wickham, Main Road in Cutchogue and I have personal knowledge over the years of many of the homes and families who live in that community. The applicant in this hearing appears to have the right to put up a modest commercial building to support his business. The multiple variances he is seeking would, if granted,result in a much larger building,which would negatively impact the quality of life of the residents in that community. Those residents have a same quality of life rights as the rest of us. But in this case, the Town has a special responsibility to insure their welfare because of the Towns ownership and decisions regarding the adjacent landfill. I urge the Board to express this responsibility by allowing the applicant only the building permitted without variances. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Sir in the back? I would like, and I apologize for this but we would like to wrap this up in about 15 minutes. So yes ma'am? Lady in the blue. MRS : I'm I live in East Marion and I'm on the Anti-Bias Task Force and I'll only take two minutes. I am in some sense amazed that we have a contrast of people who were complaining about looking at an artistic esthetic deer at some distance, and we are considering having a community looking at a steel building as though the people in that community don't have an esthetic sense, which, of course,I would have to assume they do. And that although they had been literally dumped on for a number of years, they have done their best to make their own place as comfortable and as attractive as they can. So if you consider looking at the deer a reasonable complaint for their neighbors,I certainly hope you would consider a reasonable complaint for Viola not to have to look at the steel building including her neighbors. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Who else would like to speak? Mr.McCarthy I guess you're up. REGINA SELTZER: I just wanted to ask would it be possible for you to put my name and address and send me any notification that you will have and any comments or any other things that you might have with respect to this hearing,any future hearing? CHAIRMAN: Ma'am, we're going to set that future hearing right now tonight, so you don't have to worry about it. Page 10,August 22,2002 Transcript of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But we would still like to have your name and address. REGINA SELTZER: It's Regina Seltzer, 30 South Brewster Lane,Belcroft,NY 11713. Thank you very, very much. CHAIRMAN: We're ready Mr.McCarthy. TOM MCCARTHY: Just a few comments based on the other speakers. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you a question is the right-of-way 28 feet wide or is the right-of-way 15 feet wide? TOM MCCARTHY: The right-of-way is 28 feet wide. CHAIRMAN: It is paved at 15 feet or it is stoned. TOM MCCARTHY: It's traveled. I don't know exactly if its blue stone crushed stone,dirt. MRS. : May 1 clarify that since I've just been there? On the map and on your survey the driveway is marked 28 feet. If you actually go there, you will see that there are trees growing all along there. There's grass, that the actual walk able drivable area is 15 feet and it's just packed dirt. And I'm sure if you have a bad storm,which we haven't had unfortunately for a while, it.wouldn't be a mess and a muddy mess at that. I think they must really have a hard time keeping it, but they're doing a good job of trying to keep it nice. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me sir,we're ready. TOM MCCARTHY: If you go to the right-of-way, our application is different because we're a commercial application and there's another 280A application that's before your Board. The Board and the Applicant has worked together to find a reasonable degree of improvement for the right-of-way, for whatever we see is possible. And we're willing to do that, because the right-of-way is 28 feet wide. So if the Board deems that it needs to be 16 feet whether it needs to be blue stone,whether it needs to be paved,if trees need to be trimmed, so that it's 16 feet in height I believe also is a portion of the Code for emergency vehicles, we're willing to accommodate those requirements. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER OLIVA: Emergency provision of the Code is 15 x 15. TOM MCCARTHY: 15 x 15; whatever it is we're happy to comply with that. I'm a little surprised,I know the Anti-Bias Task Force has been very actively involved with the church and I read the letter to the editor today and also in it from the other speakers that there's a proposal, that they would consider going to Residential Office. I don't know if the speakers have looked at what Residential Office will allow, you could certainly have a restaurant I believe in Residential Office. I don't know if you'd want to consider that sort of a change of zone application for that area because I think it would really compound the issues and compound the problems if you were to change that area to RO without changing some of the allowable uses within our. Mr. Wickham,I appreciate his comments, and his last comment only to allow a building,which would be allowed without variances. If this Board were to determine that the 100-foot setback from the right-of-ways as we discussed with Mrs. Tortora before is appropriate and the 70-foot rear yard is appropriate, that would give us a 30-foot negative building envelope. So I don't know what size building Mr. Wickham would propose to put on this property, because if the Code in the nonconforming section is to apply to this property and our front yard needs to be 100 our rear yard needs to be 70,we have a 140 foot piece of property, so I don't know what size Mr. Wickham was thinking about when he said whatever is allowable without a variance. 1 Page 11,August 22,2002 Transcript of Public Healing Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: That's kind of strange because I'm confused. Because the second plan that you gave us showed an 80 foot building,30-foot front and 30 foot in the rear,right? Is that right? TOM MCCARTHY: That was to require a variance. So if the comment was without a variance, and this Board says that I need to be setback 100 feet from the right-of.--way, and the rear yard is 70 feet from the rear yard, that's 170 feet. I have a 140-foot deep lot that creates a negative building envelope of 30 feet. If we're looking at the bulk schedule setbacks and not the nonconforming bulk schedule setbacks. We're happy to work together with the community for buffer zones if the community,members of the community, I have not heard from this evening say yes, move the building, yes put it here, yes put it there, I'd like to speak with them and open that conversation which I believe we had several months ago. But at that time,it wasn't necessarily the location of the building which was their issue,it was the other things that are perhaps not being dealt with at the Town Board level about whether or not we should be left to do anything at all. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not sure where to go because you requested an Interpretation before any action is taken and right now we're looking at the variance aspects, but you really don't want to address the variance aspects because you want us to do an Interpretation which really requires you to file a separate application. CHAIRMAN: That's my whole issue at this point. MEMBER TORTORA: And it would have to be re-advertised. I mean,you've kind of have our hands tied behind our back and,at the same time,we're saying,oh gee,let's go forward. TOM MCCARTHY: I appreciate you saying before I sat down before I mentioned that I would sit down just to hear whatever the substitutive issues are of locating that building on the site and I'm still happy to discuss that with the Board. As far as front yard, rear yard and side yard setbacks go, I'd love to have an open conversation with the Board as to what the Board may feel is appropriate for the location of the building on the property or any members of the community that are here. I'm happy to have that conversation. But I haven't, to be honest with you, received any feedback from the Board except from the Chairman that he favored an alternative plan but we really didn't speak about what that alternative plan would be as far as the front yard, side yard, and rear yard. Because they would involve again, different variances than what we've applied for. So I'm happy to receive any feedback with anyone on the Board or in the audience has to offer to us if that means reshaping the site plan that would be more amenable. MEMBER TORTORA: The variance goes to the need for the size of the building. That is Town Law. You won't address that. You will not say why you need such a big building. You won't explain,you won't give any kind of analysis of it. TOM MCCARTHY: I'd be happy to have Mr. Chituk come up and speak what I did offer to you, and you said that I won't explain anything, is his trucks, his equipment and perhaps he can give you a list of what he'd like to have in building truck room to work on things. CHAIRMAN: Why don't you just have him submit it to us? MEMBER TOROTRA: We've been asking you this for three hearings. MEMBER OLIVA: Mr. McCarthy what do you want first? Do you want the Interpretation or do you want us to address the variances? Which comes first? TOM MCCARTHY: I'd like to have a conversation with the Board and the community as to if we were to move the building, if we were to move the building which may in fact change whether we go for an Interpretation or a different variance, where would it be and what would be necessary in order to do that. Because I'm not willing to go back with come up with another scenario without feedback from this Board and from the community as to what may be acceptable to anything. Page 12,August 22,2002 Transcript of Public Heariug Zoning Board of Appeals MEMBER OLIVA: What the community is trying to tell you is that according to the Code this is an adverse to their health and welfare and safety. And,therefore,the variance should not be granted at all. TOM MCCARTHY: I understand that. MEMBER OLIVA: And that is, now how are you going to, you better sit down and discuss with the community what you feel is agreeable to both of them. But I don't think that's agreeable to them at all. TOM MCCARTHY: I think we have to bring it to objective terms that are the Board can decide on an issue the variance is for, which I believe would be setbacks. And I believe it has to be still to objective terms. CHAIRMAN: Can I say something? We're going to wrap this up on October 3rd, at a Special Meeting. Yes. We are going to finish this; it's going to be done. It's incumbent upon you to file a separate application for the Interpretation, if you so chose to of which we will advertise. I don't know if we'll advertise it for that night,but we'll advertise it. What I need you to do is to take that alternate plan,modify it, push it back closer to the rear of the property, or the side yard of the property closer to the fence of the landfill,but not to prevent fire vehicles from going in to the side of it,between the building and the fence. I need you to change the configuration of the exterior of the building and I need to see a nice landscaping plan in reference to what you intend to do around the per ferity of the property and the normal ingress and egress from the right-of-way and we will then,I'd like you to submit that plan and submit this plan to us no later than our next meeting which is around the 22"d of September so that we have time to look at it. And send a copy to counsel and we'll see what we can do with that plan. That's the best I can do for you at this time Mr.McCarthy to be honest with you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The only thing we would need to know before you recess this if he is definitely filing for an Interpretation and when are you going to put it on the calendar. Because you'd have to put it on the calendar to have a decision before October P. CHAIRMAN: No there won't be any decision. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So why are you recessing this to October 3rd if you don't have an application yet? CHAIRMAN: I am leaving it open. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Without a date Jerry. You need a new Board resolution anyway, so you might as well do them together. CHAIRMAN: Well,that's the issue I'm not getting a determination. Are you going to file for a separate? TOM MCCARTHY: I need to be able to speak with my client and seem what the ramifications are of that versus moving the building. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR. CHITUK: I'll move the building. I'll make the building smaller and I'll move it. We won't have to go through that other thing. CHAIRMAN: Okay. That's it October 3rd;we'll see you then. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION