Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/21/2003 HEAR 1 v 2 � fi TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 4 --------------------------------------------X 5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D 6 7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S 8 9 --------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 August 21, 2003 12 9 : 00 a.m. 13 14 Board Members Present 15 LYDIA A. TORTORA, Chairwoman 16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 17 GEORGE HORNING, Board Member 18 RUTH OLIVA, Board Member 19 VINCENT ORLANDO, Board Member 20 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 21 22 23 ORIGINAL 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I' d like to start the public hearings, and the first 3 hearing is a carryover hearing on behalf of E. and R. Trippe . And I would like to know if 4 there' s someone here in the audience who would like to speak on behalf of the application? 5 MR. HAMM: Good morning, Steven Hamm, 45 Hampton Road, Southampton, for the 6 applicant . I just have a few brief comments . 7 After the last hearing, I went to the building department and went over the 8 plans that were before you at that hearing and was advised that the office and closet should . 9 be removed on the garage level and the vestibule changing room and a supply closet on 10 the first level be combined into a single room, and that would satisfy the design aspect 11 of this project . And the architects revised the 12 plans, which I sent to you, I sent them simultaneously to the building department . As 13 I indicated in my letter to you, they raised the goal posts again. Mr. Verity had some 14 comments and suggested that the bathroom wall be eliminated so that there is a half bath as 15 well as a vestibule and changing room. all be a single room. 16 If you' re inclined to grant this application, I would ask to keep that bathroom 17 wall just for the sake of privacy, but if it is eliminated and we change the name of the 18 exercise room -- that was just a name change not a design change -- according to the 19 building department that structure would be acceptable from a design point of view and 20 would be, if placed in a rear yard in accordance with the requirement for accessory 21 structures, would not need any variance, of course we do need the variance for the front 22 yard location. My only other comment, and I 23 didn' t get the chance to address this at the last hearing, opposing counsel had suggested 24 at both hearings, actually in May and in June, that this was a self-created hardship. Now 25 you may .see alternatives which we do not, but this is certainly not a self-created hardship COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 3 1 2 as indicated in my -- by the survey in my May memorandum. This structure has been in this 3 location about five feet .off the rear property line since prior to 1957 . The Trippes did 4 expand it; they have a C.O. for that expansion, but they have no rear yard and 5 historically this property has had no rear yard, so it is a case of a practical 6 difficulty at least in that respect . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I am in 7 receipt of your August 8th letter at which time you said that you had gone back to the 8 building department, and the building department is now suggesting that the wall in 9 the bathroom be taken down so that that' s part of the main room? 10 MR. HAMM: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s all one 11 room? MR. HAMM: The wall between the 12 bathroom and the changing room, not the wall -- 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . The plans that you have submitted don' t reflect 14 that though. MR. HAMM: No. After my meeting 15 with the building department, after the June hearing, he suggested that the only changes 16 that needed to be made to allow that to be sustainable from a design point of view would 17 be the elimination of an office and closet, which would be in a prior plan, and the 18, combination of a vestibule and changing room, which had been separate rooms in that earlier 19 plan, and .the elimination of a closet which was adjacent to the vestibule . 20 I , therefore, had the architect change the plans, and I sent them to you and 21 copied them to Damon Rollis of the building department, ask that he confirm with you that 22 that was, in fact, the case . He called me subsequently, I had been away in early August, 23 and on my return, I spoke to him and he said on further review with Michael Verity that 24 they wanted a further change, the elimination of that bathroom wall, that that would allow 25 the structure to not need a variance . So, I did not make a further -- I COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 4 1 2 did not ask the architect to change the plan again; however, if that' s something that' s 3 necessary, I will . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Here' s the 4 issue : We want to keep the hearings moving. We have nothing other than your comments as to 5 what the building department is required and . . is not required. We have nothing 6 substantiating the fact that Mr. Verity said this, or Mr. Rollis said that in the record. 7 We need that at this point . MR. HAMM: All right . 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We can' t go off of hearsay. 9 MR. HAMM: And I asked them to so state that, and they said it was not their 10 practice, but I will get them to submit whatever you need. I' ll go over there this 11 morning. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Since this 12 process is involved in a revised plan, which we all agree is necessary to keep this as an 13 accessory structure, which you are applying for, then I don' t think it would be 14 inappropriate for you to submit an amended plan to them and ask for an amended notice of 15 disapproval . If, indeed, the building department is no longer going to deem this as 16 a second dwelling as in the original notice of disapproval . Because the initial notice of 17 disapproval said by design this structure was a second dwelling. 18 MR. HAMM: Right . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If you' re 19 telling me that the building department will now deem this as an accessory structure if you 20 make the following changes . MR. HAMM: That' s right . 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So you need an amended notice of disapproval and this 22 Board needs an amended notice of disapproval reflecting the changes . 23 MR. HAMM: Would this Board consider this design as proposed in the last 24 plan with a variance to allow a bathroom wall where it is, then, if that' s not the case, 25 then I will -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Our COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 5 1 2 jurisdiction is appellate only in this matter. Our jurisdiction is limited to 3 reviewing the determinations of the building department . The building department has 4 determined that by design this is a second dwelling. If you had redesigned the structure 5 in light of the building department, then by law, an amended notice of disapproval is 6 required. So that we have on our record substantiation then it' s no longer before us, 7 as you have said. MR. HAMM: Well, that' s right and 8 I will certainly do that, if you need that, or if you could rule on the location, but I guess 9 if it' s tied together, then I' ll do as you say. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible, so we can stop 11 going around and around and around with these hearings . Let' s see what the Board members 12 have. Mr. Horning. 13 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I think the site plan needs to be altered to be more 14 accommodating to what the codes are . I'm not too concerned about walls inside the building, 15 but I am concerned with the usage of the building, and if, in fact, indeed it is a 16 second dwelling. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 17 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As I 18 started out, Mr. Hamm, just quickly, the site is an interesting one because it really is a 19 hill, and it really truncates the existing driveway, and for the life of me, I can' t 20 understand why the Trippes want to put it in this location. Of course, a picture is 21 basically an interesting thing, but the site inspection really brought a whole world of 22 issues out, and there' s a lot of overhead easement wires involved, and so on, and so 23 forth, and we understand that; but, for the life of me, if I was constructing it, and I'm 24 not putting myself in your client' s position or in your position, I would push it back 25 farther up the hill as we had originally discussed at one point, and that is it would COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 1 2 make things so much easier. And again, I realize that some of those issues are utility 3 issues . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I will make 4 one other comment too. If it sees fit to somehow design it to be attached to the 5 existing building, then they would alleviate probably 50 percent of the current problem. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s something that Mr. Hamm, you touched upon. 7 MR. HAMM: I had the architect, I wanted him back here, but he couldn' t come, to 8 address that issue . I thought it had been addressed and then you were going to confirm 9 the topography, but it sounds as though in your view what he says doesn' t make sense as 10 far as the design; that there is room to attach it . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What you have, Mr. Hamm, is a very, very beautiful 12 house sitting on a parapet, and with this huge, huge beautifully foliated lawn and 13 garden area, and they want to build it right into that garden area and actually reroute the 14 driveway, and just for the life of me I don' t understand. 15 MR. HAMM: I think that garden area is what they were trying to preserve by 16 having it farther away from the house . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They' re 17 going to wreck it anyway with the construction, but the point is there appears 18 to be room on the gazebo portion of the house, which is probably the northeasterly portion of 19 the house; isn' t that true? MR. HAMM: That would be 20 northeast, right . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To 21 somehow attach that and then discuss where the placement of the pool should be . 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Orlando. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As the 23 other board members said, . we all did visit the site, and we got a hands-on look at the 24 terrain of the area, which is unique, difficult on a hill, being on the side of the 25 hill to that put that addition in that location, but I agree with the other board COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 7 1 2 members that maybe we should look into having it attached to the house . 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . Oliva? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: For brevity I 4 agree with the other members of the board. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Hamm? 5 MR. HAMM: Well, is there any point in going back for disapproval? It 6 sounds as though I could come back here with disapproval eliminating all the design 7 questions asking for this location, and you would tell me, we don' t like this location; we 8 think you have an alternative, and, therefore, denied. That' s the sense I get from these 9 comments . And I think I don' t -- short of bringing the architect back to argue with you, 10 I think maybe I should discuss this with the Trippes, and I' ll leave this open and do as 11 you say for the time being. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By the 12 way, I just want to point out they were not there; only the baby-sitter was there . We 13 actually didn' t go up into the house . We stayed within the area of these proposed 14 improvements . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Hamm, 15 what would you like to do at this point? MR. HAMM: Can you put me .down for 16 the 25th of September? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, we 17 cannot . MR. HAMM: I imagine it would be 18 resolved in some way before the next hearing anyway, but I would like the opportunity -- 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: October 23rd. MR. HAMM: 23rd, okay. 20 MS . KOLOWSKI : 9 : 30 , would that be okay with you, Mr. Hamm? 21 MR. HAMM: Okay. MS . ROSEBLUM: Could I just -- 22 Helen Roseblum, 1287 East Main Street in Riverhead, for the neighbors, the 23 Olinskis and I have no further comments than any of yours other than they matched my 24 client' s feelings as well . It' s just that all of these letters and revised plans, and so 25 forth, would have been complete news to me had I not been to see Linda yesterday on another COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 8 1 2 matter. I would request that I be copied with all of these things as they emanate from Mr. 3 Hamm' s office . MS . KOWALSKI : Mr. Hamm, we would 4 need to ask you if you would furnish those to Mrs . Roseblum. 5 MR. HAMM: Absolutely. I apologize for lack of doing so last time . 6 MS . ROSEBLUM: What time is it on the 23rd? 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the hearing on 8 October 23rd at 9 : 30 a.m. ; is that convenient for you? 9 MR. HAMM: That' s fine . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that 10 convenient for you? MS . ROSEBLUM: Yes . 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Anyone like to second that motion? 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor? 13 (Whereupon, all Board members responded in favor. ) 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion carried. 15 The next hearing is on behalf of Debra Victoroff . Is there someone here who 16 would like to speak on behalf of the application? 17 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes . Jim Fitzgerald for Miss Victoroff . 18 I think we know that many of the factors involved in this request for variance 19 at the last meeting. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Bring the 20 microphone up so we can hear you. You' re such a small man that we' re not able to hear you. 21 MR. FITZGERALD: How' s that? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Better, thank 22 you. MR. FITZGERALD: The Board had a 23 number of suggestions and concerns, and we revised the plan in an attempt to accommodate 24 those concerns, and you have a copy of the new proposed plan. The new plan -- Oh, and also 25 just to address the question of the location of the swimming pool, as I advised the Board, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 9 1 2 I went back to the building department and Mr. Rollis indicated that since the pool and 3 the surrounding deck was attached to the house, it was not considered an accessory 4 structure but rather as an .attached part of the house; and, therefore, its location was 5 not a problem and not a problem to the building department, therefore, was not part 6 of the disapproval . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I ' d like to 7 just go over the revised plan and the revised plan shows the 27 and a half foot front yard 8 setback to Dogwood Lane, and it shows a 25 rear yard setback, at its closest point for 9 the deck addition. The only thing that is of a little 10 bit of concern is that if you look at the new map that you submitted, the eight by 20 deck, 11 because of the property angle at a slight slant, I would guesstimate that that deck will 12 be on the -- I guess it would be the east corner, east side? 13 MR. FITZGERALD: The eight by 20 deck, that' s west . 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The 25 is west? 15 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah. It' s at the west end, I think. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The east end of the deck, if you look at the property angle 17 of the rear yard, I think that you' ll probably find that it will be slightly less than 25 18 feet . MR. FITZGERALD: I 'm sure it will . 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So that that number may not be accurate . 20 MR. FITZGERALD : Scale' s to 23 feet at the western end. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So the closest point is not 25, it' s 23 . 22 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see if 23 there' s anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor. 24 MR. FITZGERALD: Excuse me, I have a few brief comments, very brief . I 25 think I should make the point that all the while the two adjoining lots are essentially COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 10 1 2 the same depth. The one on the west is a little deeper, the one on the right is a 3 little less deep. The house that we' re proposing, just the house, is only 24 feet 4 deep. So that, regardless of whether it was a deck or not, we would not be able to meet both 5 the front and the backyard setback requirements, as presumably neither of the 6 adjoining houses do; although, I haven' t measured them. The point being that .they' re 7 all shallow lots and putting a relatively shallow house on it ought to be acceptable . 8 So I think the point really is as we have just discussed, is the fact that it 9 sticks out another eight feet into that rear yard setback. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. 12 Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor or against 13 this application? MS . ROSEBLUM: Yes . Helen 14 Roseblum, 1287 East Main Street, Riverhead. I have just met this morning with a group of 15 adjacent landowners, Mr. and Mrs . Karensik, who are here, Jenny Curley, who is their 16 daughter, and Thomas Rusakis, who is also here . You granted them an adjournment of a 17 couple of months, and they had spent that time with another attorney, who recently told them 18 he couldn' t take their case, that he feels there' s a conflict . So they came to me 19 yesterday, and I haven' t exactly had a lot of time to go over the file, and I met with them 20 this morning. But there are a couple of things 21 that I did want to say. The first thing is that the notice of disapproval identifies the 22 lot as being approximately 13 , 000-plus square feet . The applicant herself indicates that 23 it' s 89-plus square feet, 8948 ; so that is a material problem in the notice of the 24 disapproval, and the reason it becomes a problem is for a couple of reasons . One is 25 that it changes some of the setbacks because you've made certain revisions in that zone, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 11 1 2 and it also, I believe, requires them to get an additional variance for lot coverage . 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: One moment . As far as the setbacks for a 13 , 000 square 4 foot lot or for an 8 , 000 square foot lot, the setbacks are identical . 5 MS . ROSEBLUM: My understanding is if there' s less than 10, 000 square feet, the 6 setbacks have changed slightly. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There have 7 been proposals to make those changes . Those changes have not been acted upon by the town 8 board; so the current code exists . MS . ROSEBLUM: Oh, okay. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Your point is well-taken regarding lot coverage because lot 10 coverage on a 13 , 000 square foot lot versus the surveyor' s 8 , 948 square feet is accurate . 11 MS . ROSE13LUM: Well, the -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s 12 accurate, it would need reassessment . MS . ROSEBLUM: There would need to 13 be a variance for that? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I don' t know 14 because I don' t have a breakdown for 'lot . coverage . The lot coverage from the notice of 15 disapproval states that the construction consists of 11 percent . However, if the lot 16 is as the survey clearly indicates, 8 , 948 square feet, then we would have to have a 17 breakdown, or we would have to have a review by the building department to determine 18 whether or not the proposed plan exceeds lot coverage . 19 I'm just going to propose to Mr. Fitzgerald -- I did not see that before, 20 but that is a very valid point . Do you have any other thoughts on 21 this? MS . ROSEBLUM: Naturally,. again, 22 I'm very new to this, we have some other concerns, naturally. We just received a 23 single and separate search that needs to be studied. It appears some of the D chains 24 don' t match. I want to look at that more closely. 25 Another big issue is whether or not there are wetlands . We had had an COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 12 1 2 informal visual inspection done by Mr. Bowman of land use, and he indicated that there were 3 some fresh water wetlands, so we would like the trustees, who said they would like to come 4 out to take a look and notify the DEC if there should be a remapping. I think we also have 5 pictures, apparently there' s always been standing water on the lot, but that goes into 6 SEQRA and other types of environmental stuff . So I think initially, what I would 7 like to do is ask for some time to familiarize myself with the file, ask that this matter be 8 adjourned so that you get what you need and also so that the trustees do what they feel 9 they want to do. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We will grant 10 an adjournment, but as far as any further adjournments after this, it will not 11 happen. We granted an adjournment because the neighbors wished to obtain an attorney, and 12 now you tell me they obtained an attorney and because of a conflict the attorney could not 13 handle the case, and therefore you came on board. In all fairness to Mr. Fitzgerald and 14 his client, we would like to conclude this at the next hearing. 15 MS . ROSEBLUM: And I explained that to my -- I said that to my clients . And 16 they said., you know, we've used the two months, besides talking to the other attorney, 17 we've used the two months, it' s been productive . We have come up with what we feel 18 are some real issues . But I did explain to them that time has to go on and things have to 19 progress . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. 20 Mr. Fitzgerald, we are going to need to have a. breakdown of the lot coverage that' s proposed 21 based on .the actual survey. The eight thousand not 13 , 000 square feet, that is 22 something you' ll have to get corrected with the building department so that they can 23 review it to see if, indeed, you exceed lot coverage or if you don' t . It may be the plans 24 do not exceed the lot coverage, but we can' t guess, and the building department needs to 25 make that correction for the record. The only other thing I have is COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 13 1 2 that on the survey you don' t show -- on the plan, you do not show any steps to the deck. 3 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Are we 4 falling off the deck? MR. FITZGERALD: One would hope 5 not . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I just want 6 to know. MR. FITZGERALD: The steps will be 7 shown, and they will not intrude any further into the setback. 8 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Will we need any further notice of disapproval? 9 MR. FITZGERALD: With regard to the wetlands, we have a letter of 10 nonjurisdiction from the DEC indicating there are no wetlands on the property that they 11 found in an onsite inspection. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. 12 MS . ROSEBLUM: I have to disagree with that . I have a letter; I' m looking at 13 it . The letter of non-jurisdiction, it merely states that it' s more than a hundred feet from 14 regulated freshwater wetlands, therefore there' s no jurisdiction. That' s not an 15 indication, number one, that they do not need to come in and remap and take another look. 16 We' re not disputing the letter of non-jurisdiction, and what it says . What 17 we' re saying is that their maps are very old. We have an independent person saying that 18 there are fragmites and there are also a number of freshwater trees and other plants . 19 We want the DEC to come back and take another look. I couldn' t disagree with how he' s 20 characterizing it . They do say that it' s more than one hundred feet from freshwater 21 wetlands, but their maps are very, very old. MR. FITZGERALD: This was not done 22 from a map. It was done from an onsite inspection. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Please address the Board. 24 MR. FITZGERALD: Would you tell the attorney that the DEC letter of 25 nonjurisdiction was a result of an onsite inspection and not the result of in-office COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 14 1 2 review of the existing old maps . MS . ROSEBLUM: It may be, it' s 3 based on the information you submitted. So I don' t know that . 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' re going to get this information cleared up, and this 5 is going to be adjourned until October 23rd. You will go back to the building department 6 and have them revise and indicate the correct lot coverage, the lot size; see if there is an 7 issue with lot coverage so that we can go forward with that . I don' t know if there is 8 owe or not, but certainly it would have an impact . 9 MR. . FITZGERALD: Do we have the time? 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: October 23rd at 9 :40 . 11 MR. FITZGERALD: Our lucky time . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that good 12 for you? MS . ROSEBLUM: Thank you for your 13 courtesy, it' s very much appreciated. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I 'm going to 14 make a motion to adjourn the hearing to October 23rd. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 16 (Whereupon, the Board Members responded in favor. ) 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion' s carried. 18 The next hearing is on behalf of Charles Bocklet . Is there someone here who 19 would like to speak on behalf of that application? 20 03 MRS . WOOD: Is that in the name of Charles Bocklet? It' s an acre and a half 21 owned by his wife . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just a 22 moment . The application MRS . WOOD: Is he the tax payer of 23 record? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, he is . 24 Now we have to let Mr. Strang go first then you can speak. Just sit down, Mrs . Wood. 25 MRS . WOOD : I have to tell you another thing, I have taken medication for COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 15 1 2 sinus and my ears . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Why don' t you 3 sit here in the front row, that way you can hear. Please state your name for the record? 4 MR. STRANG: Good morning, I'm Garrett Strang, architect, 1.230 Travelers 5 Street, Southold, representing the Bocklets in this application. 6 Essentially, what we have here is there' s an existing improved lot with a one 7 and a half story frame dwelling that was built in my estimation probably in the ' 40s . Town 8 records indicate that it was in existence prior to 1961, but there' s no indication as to 9 exactly when the house was built . The existing house has a. setback to the easterly 10 property line of 39 feet . There originally existed a screen porch addition to the house, 11 which has a setback to that same easterly property line of 35 feet . 12 At a point several years ago, the owner of the property engaged a contractor to 13 take that screen porch and enclose it . The contractor secured a permit from the Trustees, 14 cause he was aware that he needed to do that, but he never applied for a building permit 15 because he felt the fact that the screen porch already existed and all he was going to do was 16 enclose it, that he didn' t need a building permit . So this obviously is inaccurate . 17 So one prong of this particular application is for this Board to address the 18 issue of enclosing that porch with the pre-existing nonconforming setback so we can 19 proceed with getting the building permit and CO for the work as it exists, which was 20 completed several years ago. The other prong of the application 21 has to do 'with my client' s desire to have a screen porch addition in front of the enclosed 22 porch, and by "in front of" I mean toward the water side, which due to the nature of the 23 fact that the house is askew on the property and the property line runs at an angle to the 24 house, would further reduce that yard to 32 feet if the variance were to be granted for 25 this proposed new screen porch. It' s, again, to remain and can be COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 16 1 2 conditioned as such to remain unenclosed to perpetuity if that' s the Board' s desire . So 3 we' re looking for an additional reduction, if you will, of three more feet to the side yard. 4 As I previously mentioned, it' s sort of a unique situation in that the house 5 sits askew to the property, and that the house was existing prior to the adoption of zoning, 6 kind of a unique situation at that point when the house was built, it would have been 7 assumed that the east side would have been a side yard and not a rear yard, but once zoning 8 came into place and definitions of front yards, side yards and rear yards were made and 9 because the relationship to the property to Robinson Lane that east yard is defined as 10 being a rear yard, and obviously necessitates a larger setback that it would if it were a 11 side yard. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So you want 12 to extend the enclosed porch or part of the deck that' s already there . I saw the porch; 13 you want to further extend that roof? MR. STRANG: The enclosed porch, 14 yes . They' d like to push that out another ten feet and have it as a roofed over screened 15 portion of the addition. It would line up with the open porch that' s there in the center 16 of the house now. So again, it would be symmetrical . They want to do it on both 17 sides, but the other side doesn' t require a variance . 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: A couple of things here . 19 MR. STRANG: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The enclosed 20 porch that you' re asking for a variance for now, it' s non-conforming. 21 MR. STRANG: That' s correct . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you have 22 a CO for the existing 39 foot setback? MR. STRANG: To the best of my 23 knowledge there' s a CO on the house as it existed prior to the enclosure of the porch. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There' s been quite a few additions onto this house, though; 25 if you go back and look at the assessor' s card, there' s not even a faint resemblance COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 17 1 2 between the assessor' s card and what is here as it exists now. 3 MR. STRANG: I reviewed the assessor' s card with the building department 4 and they didn' t have any challenge with that . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This was not 5 here . MR. STRANG: The porch was always 6 here . The porch that' s now enclosed was originally a screen porch and has been there 7 for years . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As the 8 other side looks now? MR. STRANG: Yes, exactly. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' re not starting off with a setback of 35 feet because 10 that was simply built without a CO; we' re starting off with a setback from what you' re 11 telling me that existed of 39 feet? MR. STRANG: Well, the 39 feet is 12 to the house . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Correct . 13 MR. STRANG: The porch was on the house originally, and that' s the 35 feet, but 14 it was an open porch, a screen porch or an open porch, not enclosed as it presently is 15 today? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you have a 16 CO on that as it was? MR. STRANG: No, because -- oh, as 17 it was before, I believe -- well, I have to research that because I was of the 18 understanding from the building department that the CO included that original porch on 19 both sides of the house, as well as the one in the center that sticks out even further. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Can you get us a copy of the CO on that so that we know 21 what we' re dealing with? MR. STRANG: Absolutely. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: My only comment is it' s a very large piece of 23 property. Your original application was for three lots combined. Since that time, you 24 have revised the application to say that it is only this lot . That it has nothing to do with 25 the two lots to the north. MR. STRANG: That was an error in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 18 1 2 my application and having listed the three tax map numbers on the application. I should have 3 just listed the lot in question, which is Lot No. 2 . 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s Number 1 and Number 2, it is a large lot, and I'm not 5 at all convinced that there is a need to continually reduce the required 50 foot 6 setback and to continually go from 39 to 35 to 32 . Yes, symmetrically it looks very nice, 7 but you do have a lot of options and it certainly -- 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It' s as built, you know, all of it . 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This part of it . This is not built? 10 MR. ORLANDO: That' s done . MR. STRANG: Well, the setback to 11 32 feet is there, and that' s the one that existed as a porch and is now an enclosed 12 porch, if you will . That' s already existing. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: But you want 13 to extend it . MR. STRANG: We want to extend as 14 part of our request for relief since we haven' t done that yet, so that' s up to the 15 Board' s discretion. May I approach? (Whereupon, Mr. Strang approached 16 the dais . ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is the 17 as built . There' s two porches? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s 18 get this down here . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This one is 19 built . This is one you want to extend, right (indicating) ? 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is built . 21 MR. STRANG: What' s existing, this was the original screen porch, which they 22 then enclosed. That' s the one that doesn' t have a CO for the enclosed part of it . I'm of 23 the belief, and so is the building department, that it had a CO as an open screen porch. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And that' s the one we want to know if it had an open CO. 25 MR. STRANG: Right, and I ' ll research that . This is a proposed addition, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 19 1 2 it does not exist there now (indicating) . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s a 3 covered porch there now. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: He wants to 4 extend it . MR. STRANG: We want to extend in 5 front . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Existing 6 covered porch. MR. STRANG: I want to come out on 7 ten feet with either open or screened. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It' s open 8 now. MR. STRANG: There' s no roof on 9 it . Just a deck. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was 10 there, it' s roofed. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: There is a 11 part that' s roofed, he wants to extend the roof ten feet . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there a deck there now? 13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes, I saw it . 14 MR. STRANG: I have to look at the survey, I don' t know if there' s a deck. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Covered with a roof over it with cedar posts, right, 16 with cedar posts? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Here' s a deck 17 that comes out here and he wants to extend it . 18 MR. STRANG: This is the survey that I'm working from. The survey shows this, 19 which was the screen porch which is now a room and nothing in front of it . 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You have to go look at it, it' s there . 21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I agree . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because 22 that' s why he wants to make the exact same covered porch on the other side for symmetry. 23 MR. STRANG: Nothing in front of this is proposed to be new -- I 'm sorry, this 24 is open, existing, he wants to bring this over this line straight across . 25 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is it showing on the plans? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 20 1 2 MR. STRANG: It' s shown on my plan. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : This already has a roof . 4 MR. STRANG: That' s the room that' s enclosed. 5 MR. ORLANDO: In front of it is a covered porch? 6 MR. STRANG: I' ll have to double check that, because -- 7 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Because I even asked the person, you mean you want to 8 move that and extend it more over the deck area? 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They built that when they built the enclosed porch. 10 MR. STRANG: Do you have a copy? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would 11 you mention to them that I' ll be over this weekend, unless there' s terrible rain? 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s correct . 13 MR. STRANG: I ' ll look at it myself, right after this meeting. We have an 14 alien encounter here, and they popped in a deck I'm not aware of . 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think we should find that out . 16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Strang, would you provide some photos, please? 17 MR. STRANG: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We've got to 18 get moving here so I' d like to see if there' s anyone in the audience . We' re going to have 19 to hold this open, Garrett, to .confirm whether or not it' s as built or a mirage . 20 Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or against 21 this application? Mrs . Wood, did you want to say 22 something? MRS . WOOD : My name is Patricia 23 Wood. I am the widow of Edward Wood, property owners from the Town of Southold. My family 24 goes back one hundred years . We own 3 . 70 acres of land, which has been kept in its 25 virgin state practically until -- up until now. We have had two neighbors . We had one COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 21 1 2 by the name of Frank Robinson, and we had one by the name of Elsie Adams . Our deed clearly 3 identifies that there are to be no roads; that there is to be a buffer zone; that there is to 4 be no building on either side . I am here to state right now that they have been violated 5 to a degree of disgrace . Mr. Bocklet purchased the property 6 from a Mr. Beauchamp, who has now gone on to see his maker. There have been a series of 7 development unlike which I have ever seen in the Town of Southold. For a property. of three 8 acres, divided between him and his wife . My question to you is this : Who owns what on the 9 bluff? The Frank Robinson house and another property that bends into Robinson' s Lane, I 10 have lived through a series of horrors . There have been permits granted, an environmentally 11 sensitive bluff has been weakened that if any other thing goes on, there will be a collapse 12 of the bluff, a seawall that protected Indian Neck for many, many years after the hurricane 13 has been demolished. My seawall is threatened by the abuses set forth by the Bocklet 14 ownership. I want my record to reflect that I 15 request every, every permit that was granted by the Trustees, by the Town, that I have 16 never received any information on who granted what . Why have I got a chimney opposite my 17 chimney, within spitting distance with a going fireplace that they cook on at night, three in 18 the morning, two in the morning, cars running up and down the bluff . If Southold is to 19 preserve any, any, any of its heritage, they better put a stop to this again. Again, I 20 strongly, strongly, resent and request that there be no further permits granted on my 21 property. My buffer zone had been violated. There is a free-standing building on which 22 they received -- they said -- a permit to build a garage a little distance from their 23 regular home which emerges as a two-story place . They bought the Robinson property, 24 which was a one-story house, is now a three- story house . I request an inspection of the 25 entire property, whoever it was that issued these permits; and, a denial, a denial of any COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 22 1 2 furthers granting of any building at or near the bluff, which is very, very, serious . 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Can I interrupt you and let me ask you a question? 4 MRS . WOOD: I urgently -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let me ask 5 you a question. You said that you had in your deed -- 6 MRS . WOOD: I'm sorry, I cannot hear you. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You said that in your deed, in the deed that it said that 8 there is to be no further building along that property line; do you have a copy of tha.t that 9 you could give to the Board? MRS . WOOD: Pardon me? 10 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Maybe write her a note . 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You said in your deed, you said there would be no further 12 building. MRS . WOOD: My deed clearly states 13 there is no easement right to go across my property, which is anything across, and which 14 developed Indian Neck. There are no papers, LIPA cannot show it, Long Island Lighting 15 didn' t have it; I have no information from the town on it, and yet, when I came down one 16 night, wire hit me, which was down on my property, which upset me no end. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Can -- MRS . WOOD: Here I want to say 18 this : I have leaned back to try to be as fair as I can. I didn' t say anything about the 19 easement as yet . I requested Mr. Bocklet, if he is doing all these things, to take and 20 request a change of an Indian Neck resident and becoming a Robinson Lane person, with an 21 acre and a half, down to where they get their lighting. I did not want his wires going 22 across . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going to 23 have to stop you right now because we have to keep our hearings going. We' re going to leave 24 this hearing open. Would you please give the Board, bring a copy of your deed into our 25 office? MRS . WOOD: Absolutely. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 23 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much and we will look at all of the 3 questions that you have raised. MRS . WOOD: When did you want it? 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: At your convenience . 5 MRS . WOOD: I request a denial of this . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. 7 Mr. Strang, we are going to adjourn the hearing and you heard some of 8 those comments . I hope you' re prepared to answer those comments . I do note that in the 9 survey there is, I guess, that there' s two dwellings on this property? 10 MR. STRANG: After I had made the application, it became evident to me -- it was 11 brought to my attention that there was previous applications before this Board on 12 this property, which I researched, one of which allowed for a swimming pool and a side 13 or front yard, which exists . Another of which prior to that allowed for the conversion of an 14 existing barn to become a caretaker' s cottage, with the provision that at least 80 , 000 square 15 feet be allocated to the, I' ll say, the front lot, which is the waterfront lot; and although 16 it was a condition of the ZBA, it was never done as a lot line change or anything, so I 17 believe, if I understood the wording of the decision at that time, it was with the 18 understanding that no further development on that middle lot could occur, since it would be 19 considered allocated toward the front lot to gain the 80 , 000 square foot minimum. That' s 20 the only history that I was able to find on it . 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Right now. You have three lots . This application is, 22 you' re maintaining that you only have one lot, is for one lot, and yet you have two principal 23 dwellings on it, and there is no CO for that; is that correct? 24 MR. STRANG: I 'm not sure . I believe, going through this process with the 25 building department, they felt that everything on Lot Number 1, Tax Lot Map Number 1 -- 2 , COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 24 1 '2 I'm sorry, is in order. And they wrote the disapproval accordingly, that it was relative 3 only to the improved lot . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: But the 4 caretaker' s cottage, which has now somehow become a second-story dwelling, the zoning 5 board required that there be 80 , 000 square feet? 6 MR. STRANG: That' s correct . MS . KOYSKI : Also the 7 disapproval by the building department, they mention in there that they require a single 8 and separate search in the future, that it was not necessary to review at this time . 9 MR. STRANG: Right . MS . KOW KI : So they didn' t 10 finish their review. MR. STRANG: Okay. That being 11 understood, the middle lot, which is vacant at the present time is understood based on the 12 previous condition of the variance that it is merged partially or part of it is merged 13 with the -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Waterfront 14 lot? MR. STRANG: -- with the 15 waterfront lot to gain the 80 , 000 square foot necessary for the two dwellings . 16 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Even if you merge it, you still have two principal 17 dwellings, on one lot . MR. STRANG: That was permitted 18 per variance if there was 80 , 000 square feet . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: For a 19 caretaker' s cottage . MR. STRANG: For a caretaker' s 20 cottage . MS . KOV4SKI : On all three lots . 21 MR. STRANG: No, no, just on the two . The northerly-most lot was described in 22 the hearing and continues to be a single and separate lot with no need to merge it with the 23 other two. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I' ll tell you 24 what, we' re going to have to go back and try to sort out this . 25 MR. STRANG: It is quite convoluted, and I'm learning as I go . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 25 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there anyone else in the audience who has any 3 questions or comments? MR. HORNING: I have a question. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, Mr. Horning. 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We would like evidence of what is going on on those 6 other two lots, any information; is there any intention of relocating the driveway? 7 MR. STRANG: To the best of my knowledge, no. 8 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Also, can you provide the names of the live-in 9 caretakers, please? MR. STRANG: Sure . 10 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And how long any particular caretaker has been there 11 since the construction of the building or renovation thereof . 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And show us the 80, 000 square feet that' s required under. 13 the prior appeal . One of the things that the Board' s very reluctant to do, Mr. Strang, the 14 Board renders decisions throughout the year, then the application comes back before us and 15 we look at it and we say, gee, you didn' t comply with the conditions that we set forth 16 ten, 15 years ago; yet you' re back here for more and more variances, and it. gets rather 17 discouraging. MR. STRANG: I can appreciate your 18 position with respect to that . I was somewhat blind-sided by the fact that the existence of 19 these other variances that preceded my application. I was lead to believe that this 20 was the first application made on this property, incorrectly so. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I 'm not faulting you. Let' s clear up the record here, 22 let' s get a copy of all the CO' s; let' s see where we' re in compliance, where we' re not in 23 compliance, and we' re going to, if the Board pleases, we' re going to adjourn this to 24 October 23rd at 9 : 50 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 25 Strang, am I entering this property -- if you go over there now, would you just tell the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 26 1 2 Bocklets or whoever' s there that Mr. Horning and I will be over at lunchtime today and 3 we' re just going to do a brief inspection of the area that we've been discussing. 4 MR STRANG: Fine . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Could you 5 possibly put this off beyond October? MR. STRANG: I'm going to go to 6 ask that ' cause I' ll be out of the country on that date . 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next hearing date -- 8 MR. STRANG: -- well, the 23rd that was suggested, so the next date after 9 that -- MS . KOV&SKI : Would be November 10 20th at 9 : 30 a.m. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: How is that 11 for you? MR. STRANG: That would be fine . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? Am I entering this 13 property from Robinson Lane or through Mrs . Wood' s property? 14 MR. STRANG: Robinson Lane . There is no encroachment on Mrs . Wood' s property 15 that I'm aware of . Just talking about utilities . 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' re going to have that clarified. I'm going to make a 17 motion to adjourn this to November 20th at 9 : 30 a.m. . 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor? 19 (All Board Members responded in favor. ) 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next hearing -- I thank you Mr. Strang -- 21 MR. STRANG: Thank you, sorry for the confusion. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: -- is on behalf of Donald Annino -- am I pronouncing 23 that right? MR. ANNINO: That' s perfectly all 24 right . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Good morning. 25 MR. ANNINO: Good morning, Board Members . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 27 1 2 I submitted an amended application requesting relief of a ten foot setback as of 3 8/1/03 to add an addition to the side of the house, 12 feet in a southerly direction, and 4 the depth of 22 .4 , and the survey came back, the surveyor changed it to 22 . 5 . The building 5 department researched the adjacent properties and came up with an average they told me of 6 setback of 34 . 7 . To my knowledge, this building, which was- built in approximately 7 1955, is one of the oldest . The house immediately adjacent to it may be one or two 8 years older, presently owned by William Stevens . The other houses are all more 9 recently constructed. That pretty much -- 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We do have your amended survey. We have all the 11 information. It seems fairly clear. I don' t have any questions at this time . Mr. Horning? 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: 'No . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . Oliva? 13 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No . I was down there and actually, the others might be 14 34 ; they vary. I don' t have a problem. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Orlando. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You saved my one big question. 16 MR. ANNINO: Yes, sir. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And I 17 couldn' t figure out why you wanted to put in that addition kind of off-center to the 18 initial, original plan. I was confused and I was there . I was going to ask you -- 19 MR. ANNINO: You sound like my son. 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : He' s a smart man, your son. 21 MR. ANNINO: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : But, I have 22 no problem with this . This is fine . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see if 23 there' s anyone in the audience that has any comments or questions . 24 MR. ANNINO : May I kind of go back to this? 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The original plan was a more expensive addition. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 28 1 2 MR. ANNINO: Yes, it was . Going back 15 feet and 20 foot width coming back up 3 and so forth, and, of course, the land behind our lot was owned by the same people, the 4 Antonsons, and brother-in-law and so forth, and they subdivided the land. And when they 5 subdivided it, they made it a nonconforming lot, so on and so forth. And I thought .I had 6 enough room going back in that direction, . that' s why we did it, and then found out, no, 7 we didn' t meet the 50 foot setback. But we had enough room to the side, so that' s why we 8 went out . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Seems to have 9 worked out well . Let' s see if there' s anyone in the audience that has any questions or 10 comments regarding this application? Do the Board Members have any further questions? I'm 11 going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 12 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor? 13 (All Board Members responded in favor. ) 14 MR. ANNINO: One question: Could you give me an idea of what later is? 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We are a little short of staff right now. We are going 16 to do the best we can, but we are. quite overloaded. 17 MR. ANNINO: I realize that, and I appreciate all of the help and advice people 18 have been giving me from the Board. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Whether you 19 wanted it or not . MR. ANNINO: From here and the 20 building department, believe me, I appreciate it . Thank you very much. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re welcome . 22 The next hearing is on behalf of Donald and Vivian Sonnenborn 23 MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert, Boulevard Planning East, Architects . 24 . The application we have in front of you guys today is basically to construct a 25 second story addition over an existing garage and extend a deck that exists currently on the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 29 1 2 house to the edge of the property. The property is a narrow, 3 nonconforming lot . The deck extends toward the side yard. It' s an open structure and 4 minor in size as it relates to the scale of the property and the house . It' s set well 5 back from any of the wetlands . We already have a DEC permit for this project . 6 The application is basically in the character of the neighborhood. Most of 7 the surrounding properties on other either side have the same problems . Most of them are 8 very narrow and the houses, the side yards on all the houses don' t comply, and that' s it for 9 our application. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let me ask a 10 couple of questions . How did you end up three feet from the property line to begin with on a 11 huge lot? MR. LEHNERT: That was the 12 existing house . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Which was 13 built when? MR. LEHNERT: Which was built, I 14 figure it was built sometime in the 160s ' cause there are existing COs for the house as 15 it sits . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have a 16 site plan here; I don' t have a survey in the file . 17 MR. LEHNERT: You should have one . I 've got one if you need it . 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We would all like copies . 19 MS . KOLOWSKI : Full page survey, there were sections of it that were given -- 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: On the survey, I have a part of a survey. I don' t 21 have a date of who it was prepared for, by, stamped seal, any other information. 22 Your site plan indicates that there is an existing side yard setback for the 23 house of three feet? MR. LEHNERT: Yes . 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s not confirmed on the survey. The only place it 25 says house three feet -- this, I guess it would be this corner right down here COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (63,1) 878-8047 30 1 2 (indicating) , but the survey does not coincide with what you have on the plan, because what 3 you' re showing on the plans shows a little jut? 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Five foot setback. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And what you' re showing on the side site plan shows a 6 little jut into the second story addition. MR. LEHNERT: Yes . 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And the survey shows that as a straight wall, the side 8 of the house being 21 . 7, which is correct? MR. LEHNERT: The site plan is 9 showing additions to the project . The addition on the front of existing garage is 10 going to be -- the 5 . 1 is actually less than what' s there now -- I mean, more than what' s 11 existing now, it' s 4 . 9 . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The existing 12 house is 21 . 7 . The second story addition is -- looks as though, according to the 13 survey, it looks as though you' re extending that second story addition further south; is 14 that correct? MR. LEHNERT: To the edge of the 15 existing garage . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Does it go 16 beyond the original footprint? MR. LEHNERT : No, it does not go 17 beyond it, not to the south. We' re extending the existing garage to the north. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you tell us which one the garage is again? 19 MR. LEHNERT : Can I just show you guys? 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sometimes it' s -- 21 MR. LEHNERT: If you look at the property, this is the existing house, this 22 piece over here is the existing garage (indicating) . That' s .as it sits now. We' re 23 proposing to do the addition out in front and -- well, this is the deck, this piece is 24 just the deck and we' re going to go over the existing garage, with the second story, 25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Not over the deck? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 31 1 2 MR. LEHNERT: Not over the deck. The second story addition is actually 3 smaller than the footprint below. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The notches 4 were confusing. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Right . 5 Because the two didn' t jive . MR. LEHNERT: The way the roof 6 works, the walls are set in. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: As far as the 7 deck, is there any reason why you can' t keep that in line with the house? 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: With the five foot setback instead of two foot? 9 MR. LEHNERT: Well, it' s three at that point . We' re just trying to keep a 10 straight line to the house for aesthetics . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Can you tell 11 me how you can maintain anything at two feet from somebody' s property line (indicating) ? 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s more than two feet . 13 MR. LEHNERT: It' s a deck. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You can' t 14 walk; you can' t paint without going on someone else' s property; and while this may be 15 existing, let' s not make it any worse . MR. LEHNERT: Okay. We can keep 16 the three feet with the deck. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Board 17 Members, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No, ma' am. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My only 19 concern is I hope you don' t have any cesspool problems, because you' re not getting back 20 there. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see if 21 there' s anyone in the audience who has any questions about this application. 22 Yes, sir, please state your name for the record. 23 MR. SHER: My name is Michael Sher. I live next door on the property line 24 that they' re proposing to make their addition. I have no problem -- 25 MS . KOSKI : Sir, spell your last name, please . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 32 1 2 MR. SHER: S-H-E-R. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Which side, 3 sir? MR. SHER: On the side they' re 4 making the extension. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 5 very much. MR. SHER: I just wanted to say 6 that I have no problem with the extension and if they have to paint on my property, it' s 7 fine . I think it can only benefit the area by making it more symmetrical, and a nicer 8 looking home . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I' d like to 9 note if there are any further comments . Seeing no hands, I'm going to make a motion to 10 close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 12 (All board Members responded in favor. ) 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion carried. 14 The next hearing is on behalf of Linda Fasbach. Is there someone here who 15 would like to speak on her behalf? MR. KRAMER: Hi, my name is Meryl 16 Kramer, I'm the architect on the project . I would like to say that the 17 proposed addition is a very modest one . It' s 197 square feet . The addition is on an 18 existing bedroom that is really inadequate to be used as a bedroom. It is -- doesn' t have 19 any closets and really has barely enough room for the minimal furniture, which is a bed and 20 two night tables . So the proposed addition, I believe you have a copy of the plan, is just 21 to have some closet space with a bed and two night tables . And, like I said, I think 22 you' ll agree it' s fairly modest . The proposed addition is not out 23 of scale with the neighborhood, Most of the houses are of similar scale . The lots are 24 mostly nonconforming lots with side yard setback violations . And I believe that the 25 proposed addition will improve the appearance of the house and address the streetscape more COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 33 1 2 than what is there right now. In addition, the existing deck, I 3 made recommendations to the owners, and they plan to do improvements to the deck in terms 4 of a railing itself . Right now what is there was there when they purchased it, and it' s not 5 meeting today' s code in terms of the railing. So I've recommended that they replace the 6 railing with a railing that is the proper height and design. And Richard Lark will 7 address the other issues with regard to that deck. And the owner, Linda Fasbach, will 8 address a little bit more about her concerns or requirements . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The questions is why the four feet extension and 10 not exhume it into, the existing side yard? MS . KRAMER: Mostly for 11 cross-ventilation, so that we can get some air moving through the space . 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The other question is, you' re here for three variances . 13 MS . KRAMER: Correct . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re here 14 for lot coverage, and you' re here for the existing deck, that you' re talking about does 15 not have a CO; it was built out without any COs or permits or anything. 16 MS . KRAMER: Richard Lark will address that; that was basically something 17 that the owner and I both thought, were led to believe was approved prior to the purchase of 18 the property. But they' ll address that issue . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They didn' t 19 have a CO when they purchased the property? MS . KRAMER: They thought that 20 they did. They have a Trustee' s permit, but nothing else . They will address those 21 issues . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The lot 22 coverage, you' re going to address the lot coverage issues? 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That got delegated. 24 MS . KRAMER: Well, obviously the existing is in violation and the new is going 25 to also be in violation. We pared the addition down as much as we could by making it COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 34 1 2 a functional space . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The question 3 is simply, let me get right to the question: The existing lot coverage, is what? 4 MS . KRAMER: You should have a copy of it . It' s 31 . 4 , we' re proposing 33 . 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The existing lot coverage is 31 .4 with the deck. 6 MS . KRAMER: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: With the 7 deck? MS . KRAMER: Yes, with 8 everything. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And with the 9 new extension? MS . KRAMER: It raises it to 33 10 percent . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Because the 11 notice of disapproval had said that the lot coverage was 27 percent and with the deck is 12 33 . So you' re saying that with the deck it is 31, and with the new .addition it' s 33? 13 MS . KRAMER: 33 . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that 14 accurate? MS . KRAMER: That' s what I have on 15 my site data sheet that was submitted. I don' t know -- there were a couple of typos 16 that Linda and I were working on this disapproval . We thought that we got them all 17 this worked out, but may be we did not . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It was 18 confusing. The building department said in . the notice of disapproval they said it was 27 19 with the deck -- without the deck, and with the deck it' s 33 , but there' s no mention of 20 the new addition. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We' ll need 21 a new amended notice of disapproval . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mine says 22 31 . MS . KRAMER: There were several -- 23 there were different issues of that disapprovals because there were several typos, 24 or errors . Mine says 31 . 4 as well . It was amended on July 17th; do you have that one? 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have the July 22nd one . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 35 1 2 MS . KRAMER: Yes, but it was amended July 17th. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, correct . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s correct . 5 MS . KOW( 'SKI : It' s in the file . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see if 6 there are any further questions . Mr. Lark? MS . FASBACH: Good morning, I'm 7 Linda Fasbach, the owner of the property, and I just came forward to answer a few more of 8 your questions . My husband and I bought our house 9 about five and a half years ago, and it was a second home at that time . So the room size 10 was adequate for us for weekends and for occasional winter weeks that we came out to 11 Southold and out to Greenport . Two years ago we sold our house in 12 Nassau County and made this our primary and legal residence . And last year I retired and 13 moved out here on a full-time basis . What was really cozy and quaint in terms of a ten foot 14 by ten foot bedroom on the first floor, is really not adequate when you' re living in the 15 space full time . My husband has no closet at all . I have a closet that' s very inaccessible 16 in terms of trying to get things from the closet in terms of its layout, and actually, 17 that ten foot extension plus four feet will give us a nice size, not a huge bedroom but a 18 nice size bedroom for us . It' s the only bedroom on the first floor. We' d like to stay 19 on the first floor, and the second floor bedroom space we only use in the summer as 20 it' s not heated. We have a floor register, one of the old registers and so only the first 21 floor of our house is heated in the winter time . 22 In terms of the deck, and. I 'm going to let Mr. Lark discuss this a little 23 bit more . I' ll be honest, I was shocked when we found out we did not have the CO. When we 24 bought the house, we bought the house "as is . " It really needed a lot of TLC, and so with the 25 broker, we asked her to please get a CO for the deck. What we were given was a permit COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 36 1 2 that grandfathered the deck, and my husband and I were really surprised to learn that this 3 was not actually the CO that we needed. We really were shocked. We only found this out 4 recently. We went to the broker who sold us 5 the house, and we were under the impression that she had gotten all the "T' s" crossed and 6 " I' s" dotted, and unfortunately she didn' t, but Mr. Lark can discuss this a little more . 7 Are there any questions? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Not at this 8 time. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I have 9 one . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: - Mr. Horning. 10 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I don' t know if you can, but perhaps your architect, 11 can you more thoroughly explain this cross ventilation theory? 12 MS . FASBACH: Quite honestly, we' re on the water, so the way the bedroom is 13 situated, I don' t know if you've inspected the property, it' s actually facing the west, and 14 we have one window on the west side and right now one window' s facing south. By having the 15 four foot extension from the house, it gives us both an eastern exposure, west -- actually 16 north, east, south and west, which gives us cross ventilation so we can .catch the breezes 17 from all directions . Personally I don't like air conditioning. I really like natural flow 18 of air. And when we were designing this room we really thought that this could be the way 19 to capture all the breezes without having to put in air conditioning. 20 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: One further question: Is there some way you could 21 continue to retain the side yard setback; you' re only talking about windows? 22 MS . FASBACH: I mean this is something I' d have to discuss with the 23 architect, naturally. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: If you 24 would, please . MS . FASBACH: Yeah. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 37 1 2 or against the application? MS . FASBACH: Thank you. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. 4 MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, for the applicant, Linda 5 Fasbach. Here again, at the building 6 department I think the Board needs a little bit of history, which you don' t have in the 7 record. The immediate prior owner was 8 Larry Mitchell of Mitchell restaurant family, and he had purchased the property on_ July 24, 9 1978 . At that time, when Mr. Mitchell purchased it, he had a preexisting CO. I'm 10 going to hand that up to you, ' cause the house was built way prior to 1957 . As a matter of 11 fact, all the lots in this whole area are all 50 foot wide going from Bay Shore Road down to 12 the bay, and I' ll cover that again on the lot coverage because the file map talks that there 13 was no bulkhead or anything in those days . It was a 1927 filed map, and the lot size was to 14 the high water mark. They've all been virtually -- yes, all have been bulkheaded at 15 my last inspection down there . So it' s a question whether you' re going to measure the 16 lot from the bulkhead or the legal title, to the high water mark. We' re back to that issue 17 again. Anyway, when Mr. Mitchell bought 18 he had got a pre CO, because there was a bank involved at the time, and he had purchased the 19 property. Sometime in late ' 78, 179 sometime 20 in that time frame ' cause I talked to Larry after this problem emanated when they found 21 out they didn' t have everything. There was a storm, and the closed porch, there was a small 22 deck that went off of the small porch down to, in effect, the beach. He, for reasons best 23 known to him, built this thing in 178 or ' 79 like a fortress . There' s pilings, this is 24 never going to suffer a hurricane loss, he told me, when he built this thing. It was 25 substantial . I've got some photographs taken by the broker in 1997 of it, and I'm going to COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 38 1 2 hand them up to you. He built it really substantial, and, it' s true, he expanded what 3 was there prior to him purchasing it, whatever was there prior to zoning, he did expand it; 4 there' s no question about it, and Larry admits it . But he did a pretty good job in building 5 the thing and it' s held the test of time through all the storms we've had since 1980 . 6 Because of the exposure that they face there, when you got get a northeaster, it gets pretty 7 snotty that backyard area. Then when Linda Fasbach bought it 8 in late 1997, they bought it without a bank because it was a second home, and the question 9 of the CO, and the deck, and bulkhead, and all of that came up. The broker, and I got the 10 correspondence, went to the trustees and what they, the trustees called the "grandfather 11 permit" which they issued for the deck, they looked at the bulkhead and looked at the whole 12 deck and said it was fine . Then they went ahead with that preexisting CO and purchased 13 it . And I think it was represented to them at the time that that was all that was 14 needed. Of course, we all know that something should have been done about that deck and 15 Larry was less than forthcoming on that issue, and they did not know, and there was no one, 16 apparently to check it for them, and life went on until they decided to do this bedroom 17 application, and the building department went down there and looked and said, hey, you don' t 18 have a CO for the deck. Originally they couldn' t even find the. CO for the place, but I 19 do have the original CO, I was able to find it . 20 So at this time, without any further ado, I wish to hand up to the Board, 21 on the issue the preexisting CO, which shows that the house was built prior to zoning that 22 was dated July 21st ' 78 . I have a broker' s photographer taken some time in ' 97, ' 98 of 23 the rear, standing on the beach which gives an oblique view of the deck, and then, in 24 November ' 97, the broker' s application with a survey and showing basically all of the 25 dimensions, and then the grandfathered permit from the Board of Trustees dated 12/18/97 . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 39 1 2 And when Mrs . Fasbach found out about this, she went back to the board and on June 18th 3 they looked at it again, said it was fine and gave her approval to transfer that 4 pre-existing permit over to her. These are quite law-abiding people, and they were 5 shocked by all this happening, and the trustees said everything was fine . She also 6 got, so there would be no problem, a letter of nonjurisdiction, a letter dated May of this 7 year from the DEC. So I think you should have that in your file . 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You need to give that to the Board secretary. We' re going 9 to have to move this along because we are running behind. 10 MR. LARK: I only got two more comments . So you have that . As to the 11 application for the 197 foot addition, when you look at it from the front, it is a plus . 12 And, as I said, this 1927 map had all 50 foot lots, and I respectfully submit to you that 13 the application for variance considering the standards in the town law for granting an area 14 variance are met here for this application, and there will be no adverse impact . I did 15 look at the neighborhood again. A lot of the lot coverages are similar, if not larger, 16 because of the expansions of houses . And keep in mind for your deliberations, that this . 17 property in the front yard, ten foot off the street is the garage, as there are a couple 18 other properties down there . This addition will still be behind the garage . The side 19 which they' re coming out four foot is not very -- talk to the next door neighbor and the 20 next door neighbor says she' s fine there' s still plenty of room to go around. The other 21 comment I had to laugh, because it was my first comment where' s your cesspool? The 22 cesspool' s in the front, in the driveway area, so that' s okay, and it' s serviced by public 23 water, as you know. So that' s basically all I have . 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There are a couple of comments . We recognize that it is a 25 small lot and that there are limited possibilities for expansion on the lot . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 40 1 2 However, I think in keeping with Mr. Goehringer' s comment, the Board, because 3 you are requesting such a substantial variance in terms of lot coverage, I think the Board is 4 looking to mitigate the side yard variance to the extent that we can, and, in keeping with 5 Mr. Goehringer' s comment of moving that flush to the house, we can' t have everything. We 6 have 33 percent lot coverage . MR. LARK: I understand that . 7 That might not be accurate; that might be from the bulkhead. If you measure to the high 8 water, that might be from the bulkhead. I want to warn you on that . Because I looked at 9 that, because I looked at some of the other houses in the area which have more in terms of 10 the lot coverage, and I question if you go to the high water mark, which is the legal 11 ownership, of course, with that percentage just what it is . There' s no question it' s in 12 excess of 20 percent, that I 'm not arguing that issue at all, but whether it' s 27 'or 13 whether it' s 33 , I don' t know. You know, but it is true that what she' s proposing with the 14 197 square feet is an- additional almost two percent, that' s about what it boils down to. 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We need a firm figure on the lot coverage because there 16 is a discrepancy. I have the breakdown on her site plan, the lot coverage . You don' t have 17 to come back for that, you can send it to us in writing, because there is a discrepancy in 18 the notice of disapproval and this is the July 17th notice of disapproval, which says the 19 total lot coverage prior to the as-built deck was 27 percent . 20 MR. LARK: I understand that . I saw that also, and I'm not sure that' s 21 accurate . That' s something the surveyor will tell us . 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Somebody has to. 23 MS . KRAMER: I'm pretty sure that the numbers on the site plan are accurate and 24 that 27 percent, I guess, is something that Damon came up with by subtracting the deck, 25 just so that he could show what the percent is without the deck, that was never included in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 41 1 2 my calculations . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re 3 suggesting to use your figures that it would be 33 point what percent? 4 MS . KRAMER: 33 for the proposed and 31 . 4 for the existing. 5 MS . KOLOWSKI : Is that to the high water line? 6 MS . KRAMER: Yes . MR. LARK: You did go to the high 7 water line? MS . KRAMER: Yes . And other thing 8 I wanted to address was the comment earlier about can you do the addition without going, 9 without encroaching on the side yard. Obviously, we can do it, but I respect Mrs . 10 Fasbach' s desire to not use air conditioning, which I think is very -- in today' s world, is 11 a very nice thing to do, and to be able to design an addition to take advantage of the 12 water breeze is, in my opinion, what I call green architecture, something to preserve the 13 environment and to use the advantages of nature . And the idea that they' re living on 14 the street side of the house, and they've chosen to make their bedroom on the street 15 side as opposed to people that want that massive master bedroom with the deck and the 16 view and everything. . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There are pros 17 and cons about it because essentially, just as she wants the sea breeze, the town code wants 18 separation and distances between houses, which is the purpose and function of the setback to 19 begin with. Are there any more comments? Any 20 more questions? Seeing no hands -- yes, Mrs . Fasbach. 21 MS . FASBACH: I believe you have also received letters from our neighbors? 22 CHAIRWOMAN .TORTORA: Yes, we have those in our records . 23 MS . FASBACH: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Seeing no 24 hands, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 42 1 2 favor. (All Board Members responded in 3 favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' re going 4 to take a ten minute break right now and then we will resume at exactly ten minutes after 5 11 : 00 . I make a motion to recess . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Board Members 7 responded in favor, and a ten minute recess was taken. ) 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Make a motion to reconvene? 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor? 10 (Whereupon, all members responded in favor. ) 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Before we get to the second hearing, the attorney for the 12 applicant, Linda Fasbach, has asked that we do not close the hearing and reserve decision, 13 and would like an -opportunity to submit a revised plan. Therefore, I want to make a 14 motion to rescind the prior motion closing the hearing reserving decision. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Make a motion 16 now to adjourn the hearing until the next available calendar date, which would be. 17 October 23rd at what time, Madam Secretary? MS . KOWALSKI : At 9 : 50 a.m. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: At 9 : 50 in the morning, I' ll make that motion. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in 20 favor. (Whereupon, all Board Members 21 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. 22 The next hearing is on behalf of Andrew Nikolich. 23 MR. NIKOLICH: My name is Andrew Nickolich, and I am the owner and the 24 applicant . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What would 25 you like to tell us? MR. NIKOLICH: I would like to COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 43 1 2 give you a brief history. I purchased the property, 850 Budds Pond Road in April 2001 . 3 The house had an existing deck and a shed on the property. Prior of closing, I found out 4 that the deck didn' t have a CO. The only permit that existed was the DEC permit to 5 build the deck; and subsequently, I proceeded to legalize and obtained the CO for the deck, 6 and I discovered that the deck is within 55 -- 53 feet from the bulkhead. So my application 7 is here to reconstruct it as it is, the same size, and to rebuild the accessory 8 building. I did obtain a DEC and Southold Board of Trustees permit . 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have a copy of the site plan here . The site plan, I 10 am trying to determine, is 54 feet from the bulkhead? 11 MR. NIKOLICH: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And is to 12 reconstruct the deck. And the only other question I had was, there is, I notice in both 13 the trustee and the DEC, the size of the deck is somewhat slightly different . I realize 14 it' s an irregular shaped deck but perhaps you could confirm what the size of the deck is for 15 us . MR. NIKOLICH: Yes . I believe I 16 made a drawing, exact drawing. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I have ,50 and 17 a half feet, and then it' s irregular shape because I believe it goes down to about eight 18 feet? MR. NIKOLICH: May I approach the 19 bench? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . 20 MR. NIKOLICH: This is the drawing. 21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You have the deck now is three levels, and you want to make 22 it one level? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s 23 plateaued. MR. NIKOLICH: Yes . I want to 24 make it one level and on the side of the deck is a jacuzzi and with a stockade fence, I was 25 thinking of putting a jacuzzi in the deck. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' ll have COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 44 1 2 to speak at the dais so we. can pick this up for the record, please . 3 The only other question I have is the eight by ten shed -- 4 MR. NIKOLICH: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: -- that would 5 be about five feet from the bulkhead? MR. NIKOLICH: No, 15, 16 feet 6 from the bulkhead. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: There was a 7 shed there before? MR. NIKOLICH: There was a shed 8 there before . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, let' s 9 see if the board members have any questions . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I have 10 none . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 11 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was 12 down inspecting the property, seems to be in order, and your application seems to be 13 accurate . Thank you for the presentation. MR. NIKOLICH: Thank you. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Orlando. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Is the shed 15 going to be stick built or prefabricated? MR. NIKOLICH: I am going to build 16 it . I believe I submitted a drawing of the size and dimensions, and I 'm going to side it 17 similar to, the house, same siding, what the house has . 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I don' t think the microphone picked up what you said 19 before, you chose not to insert the Jacuzzi into the deck? 20 MR. NIKOLICH: Yes . I made the decision not to insert a jacuzzi into the 21 deck. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Okay, no 22 other questions . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Will you 23 have a jacuzzi? MR. NIKOLICH: There is a jacuzzi 24 on the property next to the deck and a stockade fence surrounding it, which I intend 25 to eliminate . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The jacuzzi COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 45 1 2 and fence are to be removed? MR. NIKOLICH: Yes . 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Any questions from the audience? 4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You didn' t ask me . 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just a moment . Any questions from anyone in the 6 audience? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I was 7 there, besides I wanted to tell him he has a very nice coy pond. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Very important for the record to note a nice coy 9 pond. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How many 10 coy were in the pond? MR. NIKOLICH: About 16 . 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I 'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 12 decision to later. All in favor. (Whereupon, a Members of the Board 13 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 14 hearing is on behalf of Joseph Dorothy and Susan Ulrich. Is there anyone here who would 15 like to speak on behalf of the applicants? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Jim 16 Fitzgerald on behalf of the Ulrichs . We have a deck that has been in 17 existence for over 30 years which Mr. Ulrich built with his own hands at a time when he 18 thought it was okay to do it without a building permit, and it has existed all these 19 years . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: How many 20 years has this deck been there? MR. FITZGERALD : Thirty. 21 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No, no, no. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s 22 been painted. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It looks 23 like it' s brand new, but let' s chalk it up to the paint . 24 MR. FITZGERALD: It was built in the early ' 70s . The paint was made some time 25 later. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You' re COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 46 1 2 incorporating the deck with the stairs down to the lower deck to the dock, it was all built 3 about the same time? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes . Well, over 4 a period of time . I'm not sure that it was all under construction. The Ulrichs are here 5 and can answer that question specifically, if you would like . Would you like? 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes . MR. ULRICH: Yes, all around the 7 same time . It just kind of grew like topsy. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s a very 8 well-kept., 30 year old deck. MR. ULRICH. I told any man that 9 put a nail in it he was fired, there' s nothing but screws and bolts and built to stay. 10 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: In what year, sir? 11 MR. ULRICH: Around ' 73 , I think, and we have had as many as 40 people out on 12 the deck at a party, and nothing shook. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 13 very much. Board Members, any questions? Mr. Horning? 14 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 15 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had 16 an extensive discussion with your wife last Saturday regarding this deck, and I am with 17 the belief that the deck has been there the amount of time that you are telling us it' s 18 been there . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Orlando. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The purpose of coming here today is? 20 MR. ULRICH: To get a CO -- to get a permit to get a CO. 21 MR. FITZGERALD: Getting things in order. 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Coming up to compliance? 23 MR. ULRICH: Yeah. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Because your 24 rear yard setback should have been 50 feet and you' re asking for additional feet? 25 MR.. FITZGERALD: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Are your COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 47 1 2 clients looking to sell the house? MR. FITZGERALD: I don' t believe 3 so. As a matter of fact, their plans are to add a dormer and it was Mr. Ulrich' s 4 understanding that it would be necessary to .present to the building department COs for all 5 the existing structures before they would consider an application for new structure . 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s what I was trying to get at . The purpose of coming 7 here today was to get a CO for this before they can do future plans on the house . 8 MR. FITZGERALD: To .get a variance approved to get a building permit to get a CO. 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But not to sell the house? 10 MR. ULRICH: I'm a cancer victim for the last five years . My position in this 11 world is very tenuous . If I go, whether Dorothy will want to keep a house this size or 12 not is her decision. I feel it should be marketable . What more can I say? And it' s 13 not marketable without a CO. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . Oliva? 14 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No further questions . I must say it is a beautiful deck 15 for 30 years old. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Anyone in the 16 audience who would like to speak in favor or against the application? Seeing no hands, I 17 move to make a motion to close hearing and reserve decision until later. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 19 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion carried. 21 MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Ulrich says how much later? 22 MS . KOLOWSKI : Could be three or four weeks . 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. 24 The next hearing is on behalf of Ann Marie Kelly. Is there someone here who 25 would like to speak on behalf of the application? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 48 1 2 MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Before you 3 begin, Mr. Anderson -- MR. ANDERSON: Uh-huh. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Yes . 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I know that you' re representing the applicant . The 6 question that is of concern is that the plan that was reviewed by the building 7 department -- MR. ANDERSON: Right . 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: -- and the plan that you submitted on August 15th are 9 substantially different, and this plan that -- I don' t see any indication that the plan that 10 you are now submitting to us has been reviewed by the building department . 11 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. We received a letter from the secretary yesterday perhaps 12 and the concern there had to do with the foundation. Was the foundation changing over 13 the previous plan. The answer is no. The project that we have before us 14 entails raising the house to comply with FEMA. There is no expansion of the foundation; , 15 there' s no change to the foundation over the previous plan, and that is noted in the 16 building inspector' s notice of denial that it will be elevated to comply with FEMA. 17 The difference in the plans is that since the original application was made 18 the size of the second floor dwelling, the second floor addition was scaled back for 19 budgetary reasons and the barn, which is out in the back, is no longer going to be 20 relocated. The purpose of showing you that plan was to show its smaller addition so that 21 there would be no confusion later on. But there are no changes to it that would. affect 22 our variance application or a building permit or anything else . 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s just so dramatically different from the initial plan 24 that was submitted and reviewed by the building department . 25 MR. ANDERSON: It is the same house, less porches, less the second story COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 49 1 2 addition has been reduced additionally. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The new 3 walkway that you -- is that a walkway next to the stone driveway that was in the original 4 one? MR. ANDERSON: Your question is -- 5 I'm sorry? MS . KOLOWSKI : There' s a section 6 on the new map that you' re not identifying or labeling on the site map, we' re not sure what 7 that is . It' s a new area that you added to the map. 8 MR. ANDERSON: Are you referring to the porch? 9 MS . KOWALSKI : The backward L next to the existing house on the west side . 10 MR. ANDERSON: Can you show me? MS . KOLOWSKI : West side of the 11 house, backward L? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' re 12 looking at May 15th, the very first . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Here' s the 13 May 15th, Bruce, here . MR. ANDERSON: We've removed 14 it . The reason why they look different is because we are taking things away from it . 15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The whole shape has changed. 16 MR. ANDERSON: Shape has not changed. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The 15 foot setback, that exists? 18 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, that exists . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s not 19 shown on the original plan. MR. ANDERSON: That setback exists 20 and always has existed, and I can show you a previous survey that was done in 193 that will 21 show the same 43 foot setback, if that will help you. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I 'm saying that you say the proposed porch that exists, 23 that is not shown on the original plan? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct . 24 Oh, I thought you were referring to what it connects to, which is the porch. All they' re 25 doing is squaring it off . This is what you' re referring to. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 50 1 2 All they' re doing is continuing it . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is the 3 fence, the old one . The new one, they' re going to -- 4 MR. ANDERSON: That' s the new one . I'm looking at the new one now. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So on that side you've added a proposed porch, correct? 6 MR. ANDERSON: Correct . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. And is 7 it 47 feet to the proposed porch in the new setback? 8 MR. ANDERSON: 47 feet from the existing porch to the front lot line, so that 9 would be 75 . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' re just 10 trying to get our bearing here because it was submitted at such a late date . It' s very, 11 very difficult for us to try to review these when you submit something so close to a 12 hearing date . MR. ANDERSON: As I 've said, 13 we've scaled it back. We've come before you to ask for less . 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Give us more time to review it in proper time because in 15 all reality, the Board has set this down for a public hearing a month and a half ago, and the 16 paperwork really should have been in before that . 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The majority of the Board has not seen this . 18 We' re looking at it as we see it here with you here . 19 MR. ANDERSON: It' s fine . It' s just the same plan, all we've done is scale it 20 back. I can walk you through it . If you need time to deliberate on it . We' re here . The 21 Kelly' s are here . MS . KOWALSKI : Usually what 22 happens when you amend it on the map, submit it to the building department in writing and 23 get a new review for a notice of disapproval on the new plan and then the hearing would 24 have been adjourned or canceled, just in the future, so you know, Bruce . 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think some of the Board members are a little concerned COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 51 1 2 because they really have not seen this . MR. ANDERSON: That' s fine . Let 3 us walk you through it; take your time to review it . That will be perfectly 4 acceptable . I don' t think you' re going to have a problem with it . It' s very simple . 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you when I took all the plans, George 6 and I just took both plans and held them right up to each other, and the only difference is 7 that porch that was .in question; and that we' re going from a full two-story, full-blown 8 out two story construction which was originally proposed, to a really one, one and 9 a half story construction. MR. ANDERSON: Right . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that the footprint is correct except for that 11 little portion on the side which has the same setback of 14 feet . 12 MR. ANDERSON: That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you 13 can only do that, Bruce, when you hold up both plans together like this and actually look at 14 them. MR. ANDERSON: Right . 15 MS . KOWALSKI : Would you have any elevation maps or anything that would help you 16 can give us, something for the file? MR. ANDERSON: Yes . Extra sets 17 for the file, if you wish and we have them up here. We also have photos of. the house as 18 they exist today. MS . KOWALSKI : Bruce, just for the 19 future so you know, they can all look at them while you' re doing your presentation. Thanks . 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I 'm going to ask you to be as quick as possible because we 21 are very far behind. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. What we have 22 here is a 17, 000 square foot property. In the R40 zone . It' s a preexisting nonconforming 23 lot . It has a dwelling on it . The dwelling was built I believe in the ' 20s; there' s 24 actually a picture of the dwelling out in the hallway after the ' 38 hurricane . The existing 25 dwelling would be 47 feet from the front lot line, 18 feet from the right of way, the area COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 52 1 2 of the dwelling is 18 . 11 square feet; there is, we would add a porch, there' s a porch of 3 425 square feet; and there is a barn in the rear of the property that consists of the 515 4 square feet . Existing coverage today is 15 . 9 percent . 5 The first survey you had featured a larger second story addition that would 6 have -- the area would have been 1, 018 square feet, with an easterly portion of 47 square 7 feet and a westerly portion of 210 square feet . That plan showed a barn relocation, 8 which is no longer proposed. Under that scenario coverage would have been 17 percent . 9 The plan that we are asking approval for today, dated August 14th prepared 10 by Fox Land Surveying futures a second story addition reduced to 423 square feet, a roof 11 deck that extends over there approximately 210 square feet, an easterly porch of 154 square 12 feet and a patio in the rear of 96 square feet . As I said, that second .story addition 13 has been reduced from 1, 018 square feet to 423 square feet, the westerly portion is 14 eliminated. There is no relocation of the barn, and these have been driven by budgetary 15 constraints . This dwelling will be raised eight 16 inches to comply with FEMA regulations . The . reason six is required and we' re going with 17 eight is because that is the height of a block, so there will be an extra course of 18 block and that brings the house in compliance with FEMA regulations . 19 It is important to note, and your notice of disapproval notes that there is 20 nothing we are doing here that would increase the degree of nonconformity. It will be no 21 closer to a front lot line, no closer to a side lot line, no closer to a rear lot line . 22 We are here because of the building inspector' s policy regarding any construction 23 in building restricted areas . We' re talking very, very small 24 changes here . We submit there would be no undesirable change to the character of the 25 neighborhood. We are effectively, you know, there is essentially no increase in the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 53 1 2 footprint . There is only a minor increase in the volume . We submit that we can' t achieve 3 that benefit without a variance due to the fact that we' re dealing with a non-conforming 4 lot, the setback to the existing dwelling are nonconforming with today' s code, all 5 reflecting a dwelling that was built prior to any of these rules being in effect . The 6 variance does not have a substantial physical or environmental effect . We will be 7 proceeding with a new septic system. We have spoken with the building inspector; we are not 8 required, as a matter of code, to do so because the number of bedrooms in this house 9 will be reduced from four to three . Nevertheless, we' re doing it because it' s the 10 right thing to do . Those applications are on file with the health department, and with the 11 building inspector, providing we get our variance, will give us a building permit, and 12 will install the septic system, final approval of that prior to the issuance of the CO. The 13 practical difficulty we have here was certainly not self-created, given the 14 preexisting non-conforming lot and lawfully existing dwelling with respect to property 15 lines . What we' re left here with is a 16 redevelopment of a house that' s in bad need of a repair. It would be redeveloped in a cedar 17 style, cedar roof, cedar exterior. It will fit and actually mirror the cottage-type 18 housing that you see along Village Lane and will be a substantial improvement over what' s 19 there today. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Anderson, 20 I ' d like you to do the following for us : I' d like you to submit the dimensions, all the 21 dimensions for the revised plans . I ' d like you to show the 17 feet to the right of way 22 for the front yard setback, which is not noted on either one of the surveys . I personally do 23 not have any objections to this, the way it is, however, paperwork-wise, it' s very sloppy 24 at this point . Want 17 feet to the right of way as noted in the notice of disapproval on 25 the survey, want that shown, want all the dimensions of the new construction shown on COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 54 1 2 our application or -- MR. ANDERSON: They' re in the 3 building plan that are submitted; you want them on the survey as well? 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, no. All you have to do is in your application, when 5 you apply to the zoning board, we ask you to fill out how much square footage everything 6 was . You did. MR. ANDERSON: I see what you' re 7 saying. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That was 8 based on the old plans . A week ago you submitted new plans; now we need the 9 dimensions of the new construction to coincide with that . 10 As far as you have indicated on the survey drawn, on the revised plan, you' re 11 showing the 47 feet to the rip wrap, is that also 42 feet to the sea wall, 42 feet to the 12 concrete sea wall? MR. ANDERSON: You are 47 feet to 13 the front lot . There is no dimensions to the sea wall . 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The notice of disapproval indicates that the existing 15 dwelling is noted at being 40 feet from the concrete sea wall and the 47 feet from the rip 16 wrap. What is the 47 feet? On the survey it shows to the rip wrap; is that correct? 17 MR. ANDERSON: That is the front line . It shows to rip wrap. The dimension is 18 taken to the line along high water mark, which defines the front line . 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Not in our code. You' re incorrect . The building 20 department has noted that you have a front yard setback of 17 feet . The building 21 department measures to the edges of the right of way. 22 MR. ANDERSON: I understand that . 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s not shown on the .survey. 24 MR. ANDERSON: We' re happy to show it . 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If we sound a little frustrated, it' s because we don' t like COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 55 1 2 to review plans on the dais . MR. ANDERSON: It was a last 3 minute change . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s very 4 frustrating for us . We are trying to accommodate you this time because we do not 5 want to tie up your clients, but let' s get the paperwork in order; 17, show it on the survey. 6 Give us all the dimensions of the proposed new construction, and anything else? 7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is that including the height of the building? 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . You' re not going to move the barn? 9 MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The barn is 10 as existing at 0 lot line? MR. ANDERSON: Yes . 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So there' s no variance involved with that? 12 MR. ANDERSON: That' s right . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see if 13 there' s any questions in the audience . Does anyone in the audience have any questions or 14 comments for this application? Do the Board members have any questions? 15 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I have one question. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Once the 17 building is elevated an additional eight inches, tell us what will be underneath the 18 first floor. MR. ANDERSON: What will be 19 underneath the first floor? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Correct . 20 MR. ANDERSON: . Well, as to code it has to be filled to grade and it has to be 21 open as to allow erosion to pass and repass . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No 22 utilities? MR. ANDERSON: No. All utilities 23 must be elevated above the baseline elevation. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: To comply 24 to code or FEMA regulations or both? MR. ANDERSON: To comply with 25 FEMA. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: That' s it . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 56 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The only other thing is to show the height of the 3 structure . MR. ANDERSON: Okay. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So what we' ll do is, if it' s all right with the other Board 5 members, we' re going to close the hearing to verbatim testimony, and we will close it 6 pending receipt of all of these items at our next meeting, which will be on September llth 7 pending receipt of all the information that we requested. 8 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Can you have 9 that information by that time; is that sufficient time for you? 10 MR. ANDERSON: Easily. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, we' re 11 going to make that motion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All. in favor. (Whereupon, all Board Members 13 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion 14 carried. The next hearing is on behalf of 15 the Orient Point Holding Company, Joseph Farrell, Orient . 16 MR. ANDERSON: This is an application to build an approximate 1, 196 17 square foot footprint dwelling on a vacant lot on Mill Creek Drive . Mill Creek Drive is an 18 area of town familiar to me . I live right in that area. It' s comprised of very small lots, 19 third, quarter acre, quarter acre in size, all the way up to approximately half acre in size . 20 It was developed many years ago prior to zoning, and the existing development in there 21 is all nonconforming with respect to various area considerations and dimensional 22 considerations . There is a history of granting of 23 variances in this area, although not for granting variances relative to front yard 24 setbacks, which is what we' re here for today. 25 Generally, what you have in the area are modest sized, single family dwellings COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 57 1 2 that are set close to the water. The perimeter along Arshamonack Pond is nearly 3 completely bulkheaded, and so the types of variances that have been granted setback 4 variances and in some cases accessory side yard setbacks for sheds and the like . 5 In preparation for this hearing, I ordered an aerial survey that is in front of 6 you. I' d like you to take 'a close look at it . On that aerial survey we identify what we 7 consider the neighborhood which is that area bounded by Grove Drive and Mill Creek Drive, 8 it is that peninsula that juts out to Arshamonack Pond. On that I have located the 9 size of the dwelling footprint that would be found -- that would be built on that . And 10 what you can see from the aerial, the size of the dwelling that we are proposing, its 11 location, very much consistent with the area. That particular aerial was taken in 12 April 2000, is the most recent one available in this area. It is done at a scale of one 13 inch equals fifty feet . Now, the interesting survey note 14 that you should pick up on is look at the survey submitted with the application, you 15 will notice that there is a hatched area that is south of the property line; that is the 16 road bed itself . What we have here is a road right of way, which is approximately 50 feet 17 in width, and we have paved within that roadway, the road bed there is a paved road 18 surface of approximately 26 to 28 feet in length -- in width. 19 This road on this particular area was not centered on the lot . So what happens 20 is the actual distance between the house and the road would not be 26 , it will actually be 21 closer to 50 or 52 feet, and that is because the road is not centered within the road bed. 22 You will also note on the survey the adjacent dwelling to the west, and that is 23 similarly situated, although slightly further back from the front lot line . This is at the 24 curve on the road, and that causes a bit of a challenge to the placement of a house . 25 This house is unique in that because it' s one of the last vacant lots, we COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 58 1 2 had to go through an extensive wetland process with the health department on it . What we 3 have received is a permit from the trustees identical to the survey before you, which 4 shows an extensive buffer between the house and the water. It' s the only property in that 5 area that I'm aware of that features such a buffer. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: As you can see -- I looked at the trustee' s permit, but I 7 don' t recall them requiring a buffer. I think they required a hundred foot setback for the 8 septic . But the trustees did not require this 50 foot -- 9 MR. ANDERSON: It may not be printed on the application itself, but it is 10 required. The survey before the trustees is clearly the identical survey before you. And 11 on that survey you will show proposed -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I was curious 12 because I know they customarily do that . This just was not the case when. we looked at the 13 permit . Bruce -- Mr. Anderson or Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce is fine . 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think the application is pretty clear. The question I 15 had was, if we turned the house a little could we get that 26 feet -to come back a little 16 further, and I see that it' s not going to make any difference . 17 MR. ANDERSON: Our biggest hardship here really was a wetland. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . I can see that, and we do recognize that it is 19 important to -- that 50 foot buffer is important to the location of the house which 20 appears to be centered around the limitations of the environmental constraints . So I 21 personally don' t have any questions about this application at this time . Let' s see what the 22 Board members have . Mrs . Oliva? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How high is 23 the house going to be? MR. ANDERSON: House is going to 24 be approximately 28 feet high. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Orlando? 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have a question. Am I correct to assume that this is COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 59 1 2 the curb you were saying on Mill? MR. ANDERSON: Yes . 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So it' s 26 feet from the property line, but it' s more 4 like 50 feet from the actual paved road. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, but the 5 town could come along and pave it at any time . MR. ANDERSON: We hope not . We 6 like small roads . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Horning? 7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No questions . 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And Mr. Goehringer. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much farther forward is this house going to 10 be, based upon the environmental constraints, from the existing houses on either side? 11 MR. ANDERSON: I' ll put this in the record, but on our thing we have 12 identified, here' s how the house sits, and this is slightly closer ' cause the wetland 13 line is flagged by vegetation. The wetland line along the point, all this is bulkheaded, 14 and we have houses that are going to be, in some cases; 20 feet; we have variances that 15 were granted close to 18 feet from the bulkhead which would constitute the wetland 16 line . So we are further back. We do have the advantage over some of the lots in that these 17 lots are slightly deeper than, for example, this lot (indicating) . But I had thought when 18 I filed -- and what I usually do is _see all the surrounding areas and see what types of 19 variances were granted, and what I found was they all had to do with decks that were wide 20 because the houses existed, and when they built these houses, and it shows very clearly 21 here, they preferred to be as far away from the road and as close to the water as 22 possible . So each and every house at least along the water line, the waterfront, is not 23 born with respective wetland setbacks and bulkhead setbacks . It' s going to cause a 24 problem if they choose to redevelop . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is 25 closer to the road than most of them, perhaps it' s a little further away from the bulkheaded COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 60 1 2 or wetland area. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because 3 it' s on a turn; it' s not going to be as easily recognizable and because of the fact that the 4 road bed is some 25 feet -- 44 feet into the property -- 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If you look at the survey you can see the dwelling next to 6 the house where it' s located in comparison to this house, you' ll see it looks like -- 7 MR. ANDERSON: It' s probably at 35 feet . 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, I would say so. 9 MR. ANDERSON: Take this, I don' t know if you can see it from all the way back 10 here . I think it fits in fairly well . I ' ll also give you as far as size, I think it' s 11 apparent when you look at the aerial, those are the sizes that we were able to calculate, 12 and we' re well within the range and below the average size . But I think it' s a fairly 13 well-suited application given the constraints . 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm not sure you could construct anything that would be 15 energy efficient less than 26 feet wide . MR. ANDERSON: That' s correct . 16 The depth the house -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re at a 17 minimum now. Mr. Orlando . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Am I safe 18 to say that we probably won' t see you here next year for a deck? 19 MR. ANDERSON: I don' t think you' ll see me because I think I will have an 20 extraordinarily difficult time with the DEC and trustees . If I'm successful there, you 21 might see me, but then that will be extraordinarily difficult, but it' s going to 22 be very hard to do that because of the wetlands boundary because it would entail 23 violating a buffer and I'm not sure -- I don' t understand why the trustees or the DEC would 24 give me such as a permit . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay.. Let' s 25 see if there' s anyone in the audience that has any questions . Yes, please state your name COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 61 1 2 for the record. MS . SCHWIEBERT: Ann Schwiebert . 3 MS . KOWALSKI : Please spell your last name . 4 MS . SCHWIEBERT: Okay, S-C-H-W-I-E-B-E-R-T. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . MS . SCHWIEBERT: 1075 Mill Creek 6 Drive . I would like to know why this 7 variance should be given for an entire dwelling when other homes in the neighborhood 8 have been unable to get a variance for a small front porch where one corner of it was too 9 close to the road? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: A variance 10 or a building permit? MS . SCHWIEBERT: I'm not sure on 11 that . But just because one corner was too close to the road they couldn' t do it . 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sounds like a building permit . 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That would be a building permit . There have been other 14 variances . MS . SCHWIEBERT : The other thing 15 is the property is a two story house? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Correct . 16 MS . SCHWIEBERT: No other house contiguous to it in the area is two stories . 17 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Everything else within that area is one story? 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: At the current time there is no limitation as far as 19 that is concerned. The current code provides that the applicant can build two and a half 20 stories to an average height of 35 feet, which in reality could be 45 feet . There is no 21 variance required, that is the way the town code currently reads . 22 MS . SCHWIEBERT: How far back from the water, what is the setback from the 23 water on this house? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 50 feet . 24 MR. ANDERSON: 50 from the wetland boundaries and the wetland boundary is 15 25 feet . MS . SCHWIEBERT: I thought you COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 62 1 2 had to be further back than that . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The only 3 thing is he is before us on is the front yard. Variance that' s all . 4 MS . SCHWIEBERT: I still don' t understand why that variance should be granted 5 when other people have been unable to put on a front porch on. That' s all . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. 7 MR. ANDERSON: Just a point of reference, while it' s true the house next door 8 is one story, this is a mix of one and two story houses within the neighborhood. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to 10 speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands, I ' ll make a 11 motion -- yes, sir. MR. HAERR: My name is Karl 12 H-A-E-R-R, K-A-R-L. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, 13 Mr. Haerr. MR. HAERR: I'm just a little 14 confused, maybe you can clarify this for me . We' re talking about bulkheading and Mr. 15 Anderson, I believe, mentioned that most of the properties around Arshamonack Pond have 16 bulkheading, and in the area where the proposal is most of those are bulkheaded; did 17 I understand that correctly? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: He was 18 talking about -- he has a map. He was not talking about right there; he was talking 19 about further around the general perimeter. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : General 20 setbacks . MR. ANDERSON: There' s no 21 bulkheading on this property. MR. HAERR: Okay, that was the 22 other question. The next thing, if he receives your approval am I clear then that 23 everything is go for him to proceed with building the proposed dwelling; all other 24 approvals have been received? MR. ANDERSON: No. If I may. If 25 you look at the well and septic system on the survey, we need to go to the health COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 63 1 2 department . That septic system is on the front lot line . It' s supposed to be on the 3 front line . We have put it there at the request of the town. The second thing is the 4 distance between that septic system and the proposed well is 69 feet . That distance is 5 supposed to be a hundred. We have deep water aquifer, which I don' t think we have now or 6 150 feet . What will happen is upon us making this application, we will have to extend an 7 offer to deepen or relocate anyone else' s well that is within a hundred or 150 feet of our 8 proposed septic system, that is required by codes . Now, as it turns out, that will work 9 well for us because -- no pun intended -- because the groundwater flow is going to be 10 towards the canal . So we can arrange wells and septic systems so that they don' t 11 contaminate one another. The only other thing environmentally that may be of interest to 12 you, we do have a different scenario than most of the houses in the neighborhood because most 13 were designed with wells near the street and septic by the water because it' s easier to 14 achieve a gravity flow system by putting your wells by the water -- the wetland -- it' s 15 geared towards relocating those septic systems as far from the water as possible . 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : To answer your question, if a neighbor refuses to have 17 their well relocated -- MR. ANDERSON: They can accept it 18 or not accept it . If they accept it, we are compelled to do it . If they reject it, it 19 doesn' t mean that we still can' t get our variance, it' s just by code, sanitary code, 20 you must make a bonafide offer. So when it comes up to board of review I will be 21 sending -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s move 22 along. Mr. Haerr, I did want to know your concerns, that' s important . 23 MR. HAERR: It was involved in the process, probably more than specifics, for 24 example, the points that Mr. Anderson raised about the well was an issue I wasn' t going to 25 bring that up today. I wanted to know whether the process was to the point where if you COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 64 1 2 folks grant permission for this to proceed, does that mean he can build, and apparently 3 that' s not the case . I've called a million offices trying to find that question out . I 4 was told if that group today gives him permission, that it was a go. Him being here 5 today means he has DEC' s permission, building department' s permission and he' s ready. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re not in opposition to it? 7 MR. HAERR: I'm not if all the rules like we' re talking about 100 feet, 150 8 feet, what' s to happen to our wells -- we' re immediately to the east side of this property, 9 and I want to make sure everything is taken care of . 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The wells are important, and I think that' s one of the 11 reasons that' s not in our jurisdiction. MR. HAERR: I understand that . 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s a catch-22 situation because if you move it 13 further, the house further back to the wetland, then you' re impacting the 14 environment . The house is not certainly -- MR. HAERR: If it' s not a 15 buildable property, then I don' t want it to be made a buildable property at the expense of 16 the neighbors and the surrounding homes . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You can 17 appear at the county when they have a board of review. 18 MR. HAERR: The county health department, I was told by the health 19 department that I could not appear; that they never have the meetings open to the public . 20 I 'm so confused. MR. ANDERSON: You will be 21 notified by the heath department . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You can go 22 because I 've gone . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Are we closing the hearing or keeping it open? 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Make a motion to close . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 65 1 2 favor. (Whereupon, all Board Members 3 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The last 4 hearing this morning is on behalf of Alfred Magill; is someone here? 5 MR. MAGILL: Yes, the applicant is here . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. MR. MAGILL : My name is Alfred M. 7 Magill, M-A-G-I-L-L, my address is 700 Glen Court, Cutchogue . I'm here in reference to 8 1145 Fleetwood Road for a setback rule under the grandfather clause of waterfront property. 9 The building was probably established in the ' 30s . It was an addition to the garage in 10 approximately 1980s . The setback rule was not in effect at that time . The garage is 20 . 5 11 inches on the front by 28 feet long. I was given a building permit at that time in the 12 ' 80s for an extension on the garage . I don' t believe that there was a final CO given. I 13 had tried to have the building department come down and check the building out for 14 alterations . They said it needed extensive work and that the side towards the west was 15 bowed and it needed to be fixed on the roof and with the collar beams and the rafters and 16 roof was sagging down. Bob Whalen was contracted by me as a professional engineer in 17 Mattituck to come and assess the problem. And that' s where I proceeded. 18 I have obtained a DEC letter of nonjurisdiction, a trustee' s permit and a 19 Water Authority permit from the Board of Health. Everything has- been established where 20 the septic system will be . I have sent a letter to my neighbor to pay for installation 21 of her water, because we have street water, and now I am going to rebuild the garage, in 22 essence, and leave it unfinished upstairs on the second floor and leave it for storage . 23 I have a house at 700 Glen Court which has four bedrooms, two dens and a 24 finished basement, plus an attic full of stuff . I will be moving down to the creek 25 eventually, but I can use the storage for all my house . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 66 1 2 I called Jernick this morning and a girl by the name of Janet said you' d need 3 about seven containers, which would be about $4 , 500 a year to put in storage . I have some 4 photos for the Board. They contacted me on Monday to get a hold of my architect, Chuck 5 Thomas, who I couldn' t get a hold of . He was in Manhattan. But I have some rough pictures 6 and some heights and also preliminary drawings of the building, which will compliment the 7 garage; it' s two gable ends . The pictures I will submit to the Board, if I can approach 8 the bench. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, 9 certainly. MR. MAGILL: They asked for 10 pictures on Monday, and they asked for information on Chuck Thomas . At that time I 11 called the secretary, and he was out of town. Here' s the picture of the house in the 12 back, and you notice by the grade of the property, the height I used two by four by 13 eight . . For the record, I have indicated 14 on the photos to the Board, several shots where the two by four is referenced and 15 heights illustrating the corners and the peak. Also the setback on the front at 14 16 feet plus and 18 . 5 on the west side . The setback line on the west side, which was 17 established and probably 1930s plus with my family was about three foot nine inches, give 18 or take . The grade of the property runs uphill and there' s probably a foundation in 19 the back, probably three foot high. Anyway, we' re going to rebuild the 20 existing garage . They asked for the location of the stairs . The stairs would be towards 21 the back of the door coming in, would be inside . And I also applied for a half-bath, 22 as I get to be 60, you go to the bathroom more times outside, so going in the house with 23 dirty feet on our new rugs and floor, so it would be nice to have a garage with a half 24 bath. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Any 25 pictures of the floor plan? MR. MAGILL: The floor plan on COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 67 1 2 Item 5 on the application instructions said the permit of sketch of the outside of the 3 building or a floor plan, and I had complied with that and I had called on Monday. I tried 4 to call Chuck Thomas' s office; he was in Manhattan with clients, and I said I only have 5 the top plan of the building and I submitted the drawings to the Board in April . 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We have those . 7 MR. MAGILL: Excuse me? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We have 8 the drawings . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have the 9 drawings . We just have first floor plans; we don' t have anything for the second floor. 10 MR. MAGILL: Right . Under the application, I was under- the impression, when 11 I went down to check several times, that the application was completed. I had a call on 12 Monday from the Board to get a view of the second floor and where the stairs would go and 13 the height, and I submitted the photos . I was unable to get a hold of Chuck Thomas . I 14 called his secretary about ten times . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s stop 15 here . We do have a letter from the neighbor on the file, and the letter' s concerned that 16 because the second floor is 22 feet to the ridge, and we don' t have any floor plans, 17 they' re very concerned that that could be used as an accessory apartment . 18 MR. MAGILL: At the present time, I have no plans for an accessory apartment . I 19 have roughed-out, I have all the storage when I sell my house, I' ll need to put the stuff in 20 storage, and the fact is, I've got probably $5, 000 a year in storage charge from Jernick, 21 plus $140 an hour to move it . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you plan 22 on living in the garage, at any time? MR. MAGILL: I plan on living in 23 the house, which I have my plans from Chuck Thomas, which you' ll see the front elevations 24 in front of you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . Do you 25 plan on living in the garage at any time or having anyone live in the garage at any time? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 68 1 2 MR. MAGILL: Not to my knowledge . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s your 3 house, isn' t it? MR. MAGILL: Excuse me? 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It is your house? 5 MR. MAGILL: Yes . It was my house; it was my grandmother' s house and 6 they've owned the property since 1938. or 1930, before I was born. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I guess the Board wants an answer yes or no, because if 8 the Board grants a variance on this, will you accept a condition that the garage will not be 9 used for habitation of any kind? MR. MAGILL: That sounds fine . 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And the Board will reserve the right to come and make 11 inspections to make sure that that is not the case . 12 MR. MAGILL: That sounds okay. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that acceptable? 14 MR. MAGILL: Sure, that' s fine . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Let' s 15 see if there' s anyone in the audience who has any questions or comments . Yes, ma' am. 16 MS . CAMPBELL: Name is Annette Campbell and I sent the letter, the fax there, 17 and I spoke to Linda Kowalski, and I sent copies of the garage, the second level, and I 18 was concerned with the size of the second level . 19 The house is being built . Our homes are approximately a driveway, a normal 20 driveway apart, and I was concerned the house is, of course, it' s a two story house, and I 21 understand that and I'm willing to work with Al concerning the space between the two and 22 changing the division between our property because it has to be that way for his home to 23 be erected, and I also was concerned that the garage -- you have the two story house then 24 you have a two story garage, and I didn' t know the necessity for it because you have two big 25 dwellings on a certain small piece of property, and I didn' t think it looked COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 69 1 2 appropriate in that space . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The garage 3 according to the plans that Mr. Magill has submitted is 22 feet to the ridge; is that 4 accurate Mr. Magill? MR. MAGILL: 18 feet to the 5 bottom part and 22 feet to the peak, to match the gable end on the front . The 18 feet is on 6 the side which Chuck Thomas put on the side there . 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would you accept a condition no higher than 22 feet to 8 the top of the ridge? MR. MAGILL : Yes . 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would that be acceptable to you? 10 MS . CAMPBELL: That still means it' s a second story. We' re talking about, 11 what, a one foot difference in that second story? 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That's not not permitted in the code, though, and he is 13 not here as a result of that . He' s not here -- he has not been cited for that . 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : He.' s here only for the front yard variance . At the 15 present time the code allows him to build a garage on that site . 16 MS . CAMPBELL: That size property, that close to the neighboring yard? 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . MS . CAMPBELL: Then he' s having 18 two, two story buildings on a small space . It' s like a, you know, a neighborhood 19 in Queens where you' re just a row house, and he' s got this big 22 feet house right behind 20 it . . He has another, you know, higher, which I accept, that' s going to be his home, I assume 21 that . But if it was storage but that furniture in his other house would come into 22 his new home . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Are you 23 concerned primarily about the height of the accessory garage? 24 MS . CAMPBELL: Yes, I am. I am very concerned about it . I think it' s 25 visually incorrect in such a small spot . And if it' s not allowed to be a second dwelling, I COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 70 1 2 do not understand the necessity for it . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s 3 definitely not going to be a second dwelling. Is there a compromise we can reach 4 here, Mr. Magill? Because it is a substantial size garage, and it is a very narrow lot . 5 It' s in one of our older subdivisions in the town that has been rather heavily impacted by 6 a lot of building on small lots . Is there some sort of compromise we can work out? 7 MR. MAGILL: I would .like you to look at the roof line that' s on the 8 existing garage and try to compliment the structure that I'm putting up on the back, 9 which it goes on the gable ends, and I can' t say if I can change the whole thing around 10 without talking to an architect . If the present law states that you can build your 11 garage applying for the setback rule -- is that correct, on the variance? 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You are . But the Board can set limitations on it, so 13 you' re not needing the front yard setback for that, historically the Board has full 14 authority to limit the height on the structure because you' re not meeting the front yard 15 setback. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Ma' am 16 Chair, perhaps we would consider a total height of 18 feet, just a suggestion.. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Being so close off the road, it' s very intimidating, 22 18 feet . We were all there to see the. site . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s small . 19 MR. MAGILL: Right, I understand. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sir, if you 20 could see, if you could accomplish your purpose with a total height of 18 feet and get 21 back to us on that suggestion, we' d appreciate it . 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That would mean we' re going to leave this open. 23 MS . KOWALSKI : They would like to know if you are willing to lower the height to 24 18 feet maximum. MR. MAGILL: Can I get back to 25 my architect and get back to you next meeting? I really don' t know what the drawing would COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 71 1 2 look like or how he could do it . We can come back again maybe to the meeting towards 3 September and review; is that possible? MS . KOWALSKI : There' s no 4 available meeting until October 23rd. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re really 5 14 feet off of -- BOARD MEMBER HORNING: How about 6 special meetings, are they all booked? MS . KOWALSKI : They' re all 7 booked. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : What if 8 we -- just throwing it out there, I ' d be accepting to 22 feet to the ridge but removing 9 the reverse gables? MR. MAGILL: How about removing 10 the reverse gable on her side and leave the other gable, or what could we do for a trade 11 off? I mean, perhaps leave that end a flat roof and then put a gable on the other side; 12 or perhaps change the design, I will talk during the week, or I really don' t know how it 13 will conform with the other house . If I 'm spending a lot of money out there, I would 14 like it to look uniform from the front with the garage also with the house . 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re going to keep the existing foundation? 16 MR. MAGILL: No -- on the garage, yes, the existing foundation has been 17 established there . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re 18 keeping it; it' s not going to be demolished? MR. MAGILL: Yes . And the 19 garage will be rebuilt in kind, and beefed up to pass the CO of the town because the back 20 wall and the roof are setting down. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The 21 question that Madam Chairwoman had was that the garage will be demolished and then 22 rebuilt . MR. MAGILL: No. It will be 23 rebuilt from what I believe in kind. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s still 24 being rebuilt? MR. MAGILL: It' s being 25 rebuilt . The one side of it is being bowed out but it' s being rebuilt in kind on the same COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 72 1 2 basic footprint . MS . KOWALSKI : Mr. Magill, would 3 you be able to send us an alternative plan, after speaking to your architect, send it by 4 mail? MR. MAGILL: I can bring it down 5 and do something. Give him time, the man is busy. I've been trying to get a hold of him. 6 He was away sailing and he' s been in New York; I tried to get a hold of him this week, but I 7 will try to work with the Board to whatever they require and to keep an alternative plan. 8 MS . KOWALSKI : Then you wouldn' t have to come back. You could ,do it by mail . 9 MR. MAGILL: Fine . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would you 10 make sure that Mrs . Campbell receives a copy of the plans? 11 MR. MAGILL: Sure . What does the plan have to be? I don' t follow that . 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' re trying to mitigate that you' re 14 feet from the 13 road. It' s a very heavily developed area. The impact of a two story structure, 14 feet 14 from the road are of concern; that is Mrs . Campbell' s concern; am I accurate? 15 MS . CAMPBELL: Correct . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That is the 16 Board' s concern. So we are looking for you to reduce the height of that structure and to 17 reduce the overall impact of it . The setback for that structure is 35 feet . We recognize_ 18 that there is a structure there that you' re going to be replacing, that' s 14 feet; 19 however, you are replacing it with a much larger, more substantial structure that' s 20 going to stick out much more; that' s the Boards' concern; that' s your neighbor' s 21 concern. Modify it, come back with something we' ll accept along those lines and to the 22 neighbor. So I strongly would urge you to have good communications with Mrs . Campbell . 23 Try to be good neighbors and work this out . MS . CAMPBELL: We are . 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think there is a compromise that you can reach 25 here . So we' re going to close the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 73 1 2 hearing to verbatim testimony, and we -- how long would you like -- Mr. Magill, how long 3 would you like to submit some new plans? MR. MAGILL: When do they need 4 to be committed? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We will leave 5 it up to you. Just give us -- do you need a month, do you need six weeks? 6 MR. MAGILL: Knowing the architect' s schedule, which is definitely 7 busy, it' s very hard to get through, I' d like to leave myself a little bit of an open end on 8 the other end because they never respond to your calls and things are slow. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would you like to say by October 1st? 10 MR. MAGILL: By the end of October I ' d definitely have something. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: By the end of October? 12 MR. MAGILL: Or the middle of October, that would be great . Does that sound 13 good? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Why don' t we 14 say by October 15th; how does is that sound? MR. MAGILL: That sounds 15 wonderful . It probably will be before but that gives me leeway. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That way the two of you can go over them, and we can reach 17 something that I think we' ll all be happy with. 18 MR. MAGILL: And what is the limit of parameters we' re working with? We' re 19 working with the same basic footprint, correct? 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Same basic footprint, we' re concerned with the height . I 21 really think there' s a consensus on this Board for an 18 feet height limit . So I would 22 strongly urge you to submit a couple of designs along that line . 23 MR. MAGILL: Okay. These can be rough pencil sketches, rough drawings from 24 an architect, and then we' ll discuss it . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They don' t 25 have to be -- MR. MAGILL: Just pencil sketches? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 74 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s fine . Thank you. 3 MR. MAGILL: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going to 4 offer that motion to close it to verbatim. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And to allow Mr. Magill to October 15th to submit various 6 sketches and revised plans . And, Mrs . Campbell, if you would like to comment on 7 them, you are certainly welcome . Thank you very much. 8 That concludes the regularly scheduled hearings for the morning. I make a 9 motion to recess for lunch. Was there a second on that motion? 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 11 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I' d like to call the afternoon session. 13 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken from 12 : 30 p .m. to 1 : 05 p .m. ) 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion to reconvene . 15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in 16 favor. (Whereupon, all Board Members 17 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The first 18 hearing is on behalf of Benjamin and Patricia Calderone . Is there someone here who would 19 like to speak on behalf of the application? MR. MAHLER: My name is John 20 Mahler. MS . KOWALSKI : Spell your. last 21 name, please . MR. MAHLER: M-A-H-L-E-R. I'm 22 the applicant' s architect . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What would 23 you like to tell us? MR. MAHLER: I would like to 24 express Mr. Calderone' s need for this addition. Mr. Calderone has Parkinson' s 25 disease, and his daughter would like to be able to move into the home to better take care COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 75 1 2 of her parents . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just to get a 3 few things clear, you are applying for -- I'm not quite sure, you' re applying for a variance 4 or a special exception? MR. MAHLER: It' s my 5 understanding it' s a special exception for the two family. 6 MS . KOWALSKI : That' s not what we advertised 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What is -- what do you want? 8 MR. MAHLER: We would like to do an addition to add a partial second story to 9 the house that would consist of two bedrooms, a living room, a separate kitchen and a 10 bathroom, have a separate entrance into the second story. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So it would not be for a two-family. It would be for the 12 husband and the wife reside in the house, and it' s my understanding from reading the 13 application that the daughter would like to be able to help her parents . 14 MR. MAHLER: Correct . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So the 15 upstairs apartment, it would simply be for her? 16 MR. MAHLER: Correct . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I didn' t see 17 any -- let' s just go through a couple of things . I didn' t see any plans on the survey 18 for additional parking, or any plans for the parking; is there sufficient area for 19 additional parking? MR. MAHLER: There is definitely 20 sufficient area. I'm just going to look at the size of the driveway to see if that' s 21 adequate for the size we have . MS . KORMOSKI : There' s a two car 22 garage now. Would you like me to speak? CHAIRWOMAN. TORTORA: Yes . 23 MS . KORMOSKI : Cathleen with a TI C If 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And you are? MS . KORMOSKI : And the last name 25 is K-O-R-M-O-S-K-I . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 76 1 2 K-O-R-M-O-S-K-I? MS . KORMOSKI : Yes . Calderone 3 Kormoski . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And you' re 4 the daughter. MS . KORMOSKI : I 'm the daughter. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re the daughter that wants to take care of mom and 6 dad? MS . KORMOSKI : Correct . There' s a 7 two car garage and a double wide driveway now and they only have one vehicle; so there' s 8 more than enough room for my vehicle . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So we' re not 9 looking at a request for a two family dwelling; we' re looking for a request for one 10 family to all be able to live together. MS . KORMOSKI : Correct . 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Looking down the road at some point, would you have any 12 objections to a condition being placed on here that, you know, if you go to sell the place or 13 whatever, it would revert, the use of that; there would be a sunshine clause, that if you 14 left the house, if you sold the house that that would not be a rented space? 15 MS . KORMOSKI : I don' t have a problem with that . 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Any problem with that, Mr. or Mrs . Calderone? 17 MS . KORMOSKI : No . More than likely the house would stay in the family. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s what we' re interested in here because the size of 19 the lot, the special exception for a two family, would be a very large variance . So I 20 did read through your file; it' s quite complete, and I really don' t have any 21 questions . If you' re willing to accept the condition that if you decide to sell the 22 property, that you would not rent it out, MS . KORMOSKI : Not a problem. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Mr. Horning. 24 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Am I to believe the fact that we do not have an 25 application for special exception before us right now? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 77 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Not for two family, no . 3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Also on both the maps, surveys I have, I can' t find 4 the driveway nor the garage; is that underneath the house? 5 MS . KORMOSKI : No. You should also have a copy of the original plan. 6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: All set, all set . Thank you. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . Oliva? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes . I am 9 looking at the original plans of your house and I guess you changed the things on this 10 plan showing what you want to do. MS . KORMOSKI : On the bottom 11 floor, you mean, the original ranch? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes . 12 MS . KORMOSKI : Okay, that was the original designer' s -- builder' s 13 plan. There are some things that are on my parent' s house that are not on that plan, such 14 as the front porch. We didn' t change anything on the main floor, that' s as-is . That might 15 be a couple of little sketches or scratches on the original plan. 16 MR. ORLANDO: You have an existing ranch now; you want to put a second story on 17 it . MS . KORMOSKI : Only partial, 18 which basically would be over the garage and part of the kitchen and dining room. It' s 19 only 964 square feet that we' re adding. Two small bedrooms, a small kitchen/living area 20 and two baths . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And who 21 will be living upstairs? MS . KORMOSKI : Me and my son, 22 who' s 19 and hopefully ready to leave home soon. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Good luck. Let' s see if anyone in the audience has any 24 questions . Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or against 25 this application? Is there anyone who would like to make any comments about this COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 78 1 2 application? Seeing no hands, I 'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 3 decision until later. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Second. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 5 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much for coming in. 7 The next hearing is in behalf of Paul Pawlowski and Reflecting Nature 8 Landscaping. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of that application? 9 Good morning, or afternoon. Please state your name for the record, sir? 10 MR. PAWLOWSKI : My name' s Paul Pawlowski, on behalf of Reflecting Nature 11 Landscaping. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What would 12 you like to tell us about your application? MR. PAWLOWSKI : This application 13 is for special use for a contractor' s yard and special exception for setbacks from 60 -- from 14 100 to 60 feet from the road. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Tell us a 15 little bit about your business, Mr. Pawlowski . MR. PAWLOWSKI : Basically 16 Reflecting Nature Landscaping is all landscape matters, landscape construction and landscape 17 maintenance . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We do have a 18 note in the file here . Let me just get out the right one, from the planning board. The 19 planning board has reviewed this; apparently there has been a public hearing on this and 20 they' re kind of waiting for us to comment on it . 21 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I 'm looking 22 for the right -- just give me a moment here . I did have a couple of questions 23 right off the bat, and that is why you did not, because the property' s kind of an 24 irregular shaped -- MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: First of all, why you didn' t center the building more to the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 79 1 2 center of the property, rather than having it to the north property line, which is a 3 residential property? MR. PAWLOWSKI : It was basically, 4 when it was -- the site plan was made up, I believe it was ' cause of setbacks and buffers 5 as far as the north and south sides, there was no real reason for it, and it also had to do 6 with there' s a curb cut in place already, so how you would enter into the building it' s 7 already there . So we had to like set up for that too, the south side of the building is 8 where you would enter into the parking area. So we were trying to work off the original 9 curb cut . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That is a 10 developed residential lot to the north? MR. PAWLOWSKI : To the north, 11 yes . That' s who. I purchased the property off of . 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Because the property to the south is already commercially 13 zoned, you know, that was kind of the question, why not closer to the commercial 14 property rather than the residential zoned property. You answered the question, it' s 15 because of the way the curb cut, but I don' t think it would be that much more difficult to 16 kind of redesign it to move it over a little bit . That was the first concern that I had, 17 and the obvious thing I did read through all of your submittals and the obvious question is 18 why can' t you meet the 100 foot setback? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Actually, this 19 has been in the planning board for 15 months, and I wasn' t even aware . We had submitted it, 20 and we actually had a few meetings before I submitted the site plan, which went over 21 setbacks and every requirement so we would make our site plan to what the requirements 22 are . Not until the public hearing, the morning of the public hearing, was I made 23 aware of the proper setback of 100 feet, which is 14 months later. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Did you initially have the plans reviewed by the 25 building department? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . Well, I'm COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 80 1 2 not sure, Victor, or the planning board had them, like I said, for 14 months, almost 15, 3 and they had a few work sessions . We had three to four work sessions on the whole site 4 plan; everything was fine, and, like I said, I wasn' t even aware . I know ignorance is -- 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s unfortunate . Probably it occurred because the 6 plans were probably not reviewed by the building department . 7 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Probably. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Because the 8 planning board does not generally review setbacks and so on and so forth. So the 9 answer is? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Well, the answer 10 is since I've been waiting this long and the house is next to the residential lot, and the 11 building, they' re very close to 60 feet from the road and also the whole purpose is to have 12 things parked, my trucks parked behind the building. It' s not going to be for retail . I 13 don' t need the space up front . I' d . rather have the space in the back. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You have quite a good area in the back. 15 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What are you 16 doing? MR. PAWLOWSKI : It' s all parking 17 and then a few buffer zones of lawn, you know, corrugated stone . 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The corner up there, that triangular piece that abuts the 19 deli property; what are you putting up there? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Nothing, 20 really. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So, really 21 you could move it back 100 feet, if you wanted to? 22 MR. PAWLOWSKI : I could, but it' s also how the property is, 40 feet is quite a 23 bit of land. So that' s why I'm putting in for the variance and the site plan' s already set 24 up for the original -- what we expected to be to code, so to have to go back and change the 25 site plan, the cost of the variance is a lot cheaper than doing the entire site plan and COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 81 1 2 the 14 months . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Probably 3 going to have to be modified anyway. MR. PAWLOWSKI : Either modified 4 or completely changed from health department, you know, the ripple effect is a lot 5 different . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Unfortunately 6 the unwieldy process of permitting ends up in many, many changes . 7 MR. PAWLOWSKI : We've done probably about 20 changes to that site plan to 8 get pretty much approval to the planning board; everybody was in shock when the setback 9 wasn' t correct . As far- as going from 60 to 100 feet, with my business it' s better to be 10 able to turn around in the back parking area, that would leave me more room in the back part 11 of the building. The front part is just for landscaping, it' s completely screened. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You already have an existing wall up there? 13 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Is this lot 14 completely cleared? When I was there there was a hedge row in the back. Is that your 15 property line? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yeah, the 16 residential side, there' s existing cedars; that' s mine . The 30 foot, that' s screening 17 residential side . In the back, most east side of the property, that' s a hedge row, that' s 18 mine and north side, which covers Wendy' s deli -- 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s your boundaries then? 20 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Take some 21 questions from the Board members first . Mr. Horning? 22 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Again, your stated intention is to run a landscaping 23 business from this premises, correct? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . Just 24 basically store my equipment and trucks . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: What' s the 25 purpose of your office then? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Office work. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 82 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Are you having clients come and look at landscape 3 designs, et cetera? MR. PAWLOWSKI : No . 4 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: All of this parking is for who? 5 MR. PAWLOWSKI : My company. That' s what' s required as far as office space; 6 that' s basically straight from the code book what we needed to have for requirement . 7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Because under that code, I believe the expectation is 8 customers and clients would be on premises to look at things or purchase things or whatever. 9 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yeah. There' s nothing to be purchased there . I guess if 10 it' s office space in it, and it' s considered a landscape warehouse, then that' s what it' s 11 for. From day one the wording was always on the site plan so 14 months later it' s because 12 of -- BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Well, 13 because if a dentist has an office, his customers come there . 14 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes, exactly. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: How many 15 employees are in your company? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Five . 16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Where will they park? 17 MR. PAWLOWSKI : In the back. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 18 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 19 Pawlowski, you seem to be a very nice gentleman. What I have to say to you is 20 something that concerns me greatly, and that is I go by this property at least four times a 21 day. The place is being used like a transfer station. I can see why you want to have as 22 much room in the back because when you bring the tub grinder in to grind all the stumps you 23 have back there . You' re using this property as an industrial use on a limited business 24 property. It' s very difficult for me to understand this; do you want to explain it? 25 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Sure . Right now, basically the property it' s one acre, just COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 83 1 2 cleared, and I'm using it until the building' s up to recycle the stumps from my 3 business . That won' t be the issue once the building' s up because it won' t be able -- the 4 space won' t be suitable for what I 'm doing. So that' s basically it . All the 5 stumps and brush there' s nothing else besides organic material there . It' s just being 6 recycled back into mulch. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where 7 are all the stumps going to go if this is granted? 8 MR. PAWLOWSKI : They' ll go to the dumps, where they've been going for the last 9 seven years . This is only the first year because I just purchased the property and 10 it' s -- one, you can' t just dump on the parking -- the landscaping that I'm going to 11 have and the building, and, you know, there' s nothing there, so I was using the land for 12 something until the building' s built . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you 13 going to put existing proposed nursery stock in there? 14 MR. PAWLOWSKI : No . It' s not large enough. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what is the back going to be used for? 16 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Parking. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Parking 17 and storage? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Not storage . We 18 have five large trucks and trailers, so that' s what will be back there . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you won' t be able to see this from the road? 20 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Not at all . There' s a computer image . You barely even see 21 the roof of the building. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we 22 have that computer image? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No . 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need that . 24 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Sure . But, thanks for saying I'm a nice guy, but it' s not 25 going to be an industrial use lot once the building' s up. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 84 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So then all we' re going to see, based upon what we are 3 going to grant, is a building with parking for your help, with a site plan that will place 4 all of your trucks in back of that? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And no more transfer station? 6 MR. PAWLOWSKI : No, sir. Not at all . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No tub grinder, no asphalt grinders, no prop 8 grinders, no cement block? MR. PAWLOWSKI : No. The tub 9 grinder itself takes up more room than the building would. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know, I've seen it onsite . Thank you. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Orlando . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No 12 questions . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . Oliva. 13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: My question again is, what are you going to do with that 14 land in the back? MR. PAWLOWSKI : I know it' s a 15 nice size property, but by the time that you move in and circle around with the trucks that 16 we have, it' s really not that much, to be honest . 17 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No tub grinders, no shredders . 18 MR. PAWLOWSKI : They wouldn' t even be able to fit through the driveway, the 19 gate that' s going to be on the site plan, on the premises . 20 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: All right . I have one other question. 21 1BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you' re aware we' re not going to grant this 22 until we see this computer imaging? MR. PAWLOWSKI : The computer 23 image is somewhere in this building. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We come 24 here to grant minimum relief necessary. We' re looking 'at a rather large parcel that could 25 easily accommodate a conforming sited building; tell us again why you cannot meet COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 85 1 2 the town code and site the building according to conforming setbacks? 3 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Of course, if I have to meet the town codes I will, not a 4 question, not a problem. With the neighboring properties, where they sit, where Wendy' s 5 sits, it' s only 60 feet off the road, that' s why, so I wouldn' t think bringing that 6 property that 40 feet closer to the road would create an eye sore whatsoever. 7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is she in the same type of zone even; is it zoned the 8 same? MR. PAWLOWSKI : No. Wendy' s 9 deli, it came off the same subdivision, LB, the residential isn' t . But, again, I 10 understand it' s nice to keep a line all the way down the street of correct distances . I 11 was even working within that in the original idea. 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It depends if they are preexisting or not . 13 MR. PAWLOWSKI : I ' m sure it is . As far as, I 'm working to get this variance, 14 which I don' t think -- BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It doesn' t 15 seem like you have a very good rational reason as you come before us for the variance, to 16 tell you the truth. MR. PAWLOWSKI : Again, I'm sure 17 I' ll be able to work with it . I just was made aware of this a few months ago, after 14 . 18 months, after the site plan has been reviewed numerous times . So I 'm trying to stick with . 19 my original site plan and work with it before I have to spend another $6, 000 for another 20 site plan. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Mistakes 21 can be costly. MR. PAWLOWSKI : It wasn' t my 22 mistake . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank 23 you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Any more 24 questions? Let' s see if there' s any questions from the audience . Is there anyone in the 25 audience who would like to speak in favor or against this application? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 86 1 2 Mr. Pawlowski, if you could get that computer imaging for us, that would be 3 good. Essentially we have a couple options here . We' re asking for a special exception, 4 it requires a special exception as well, as well as the setback variance . So, one of the 5 things that is very key to the special exception is the use going to be in harmony 6 with the neighborhood, and because this is an LB zoned property that abuts a residential 7 district, we do have to take extra precautions . That' s one of the things we 8 really have to look at, and that' s why we' re quizzing you very carefully about the tub 9 grinder, about why can' t you move it a little bit and so on and so forth. So what we will 10 do is I think we' re going to close the hearing and reserve decision, and if you would get 11 that rendering for us, that would be very good. 12 MR. PAWLOWSKI : No problem. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 13 anything else you would like to add? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Before I 14 purchased the property from the neighbor -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The fellow 15 that has the house? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . I told them 16 my intentions . They' re fully aware and okay with everything. Wendy' s deli is completely 17 okay with it . Lieb Farms is okay with it, and the auto mechanic behind me is -- 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The property that abuts you, the Adam' s property, I guess, 19 that would be to the east? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s also residential? 21 MR. PAWLOWSKI : No, LB . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So the LB 22 extends Wendy' s deli, your property and the property behind that in a kind of L-shape 23 there? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . All three 24 sides except for the north residential side is an LB, I think Lieb might be, I'm not sure . 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Lieb is residential too . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 87 1 2 MR. PAWLOWSKI : All is LB except for the residential, who I bought it off of, 3 and they know what' s going on. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 4 very much. MR. PAWLOWSKI : Thanks for your 5 time . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I' ll make a 6 motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision until later. 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 8 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion carried. 10 The next hearing is on behalf of Michael and Cathy Lehrhoff . Is there somebody 11 here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? 12 MR. LEHRHOFF: I'm Michael Lehrhoff . 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What can you tell us, or what would you like to tell us? 14 MR. LEHRHOFF : We were put in a difficult situation with this deck. We had a 15 fire a year ago February, and there had been some damage to the deck. The deck is original 16 to the house . It' s 28 years ago. It' s a redwood deck, or it was a redwood deck, and it 17 had started to decay. When we had the fire there was some remediation work done to it . 18 You folks were kind enough to grant me a variance for my home; we decided to move 19 forward with that and start part of that renovation in November of this past year. 20 When the contractor came to the house, we were surveying the area of what we 21 were going to be doing, and he looked at the deck, and, you know, he said -- 22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Which deck? MR. LEHRHOFF: The original deck 23 to the house . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: On the 24 south side? MR. LEHRHOFF : Yes . 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: On the west side? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 88 1 2 MR. LEHRHOFF : West side, yes . He looked at it, we looked at it 3 together, and he felt that, and at the time it was sort of apropos, he felt if we had a very 4 bad winter with freezes and rain and snow, et cetera, that' s how bad it was . That I could 5 have a situation where that deck would possibly collapse, that' s how bad that deck 6 was . It was a redwood deck where -- and it was literally, structurally, it was gone . 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is the one the Board had approved you to replace? 8 MR. LEHRHOFF: No . This gets back to a little situation with me and my 9 architect . I had thought originally it was included, but it wasn' t . Be it as it may, it 10 wasn' t . Because if you look at what we've done, what you had granted us, basically the 11 deck as it existed now, sort of flows out of the work that -- if you've been out at the 12 house, I don' t know if anyone' s been out to look at it, but it fits in with what we 13 have . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It is rather 14 confusing because what we had previously approved, there was going to be an addition on 15 the north side . MR. LEHRHOFF: Which we did -- 16 I'm sorry. On the garage side of it, we haven' t done yet . We did the bump out to the 17 dining area, which is now complete, the house has a new roof, some of the siding' s been 18 done, which was all approved. . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If you look 19 at what the Board approved, and what' s there now, it' s substantially different, and I guess 20 it' s a little discouraging for us because I recall we were very sympathetic to you, and we 21 were -- we looked at the project and we said it really is a hardship, 22 MR. LEHRHOFF: Again -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And we made 23 every effort to accommodate you, and then. here, a year later, we come back and what we 24 approved was not built, and there are extensions, deck extensions that were not 25 approved that are built, and here you are back again with this stuff that was never approved. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 89 1 2 So if there' s an explanation, I think as a courtesy, . the Board would like to here it . 3 MR. LEHRHOFF: That' s a main entrance into my house . So I had no choice . 4 That deck had to come back down or someone potentially could have been injured. So the 5 deck had to come down. All the work that you approved -- that we've done has been 6 approved. It' s only the deck that has been built that was not approved. Again, at the 7 time when I originally -- when we made this application., the architect, I thought the 8 architect had included this; it wasn' t . It' s my problem, but that was the case . 9 When we went to rebuild this deck -- and again, I will apologize -- I 10 didn' t think that the extension, the small extension to the -- and forgive me, but to the 11 outside of the house, the little piece that we added on was going to be a problem. I didn' t 12 realize that it was basically so close again to the property line . 13 Let me give you this as well . This is a letter that was sent to me that my 14 neighbor had asked me to deliver. My neighbor asked me to deliver this; this is the only 15 neighbor that can see the deck at all . I've also enclosed a copy of the letter when I sent 16 out the notice to the people that were involved. 17 You' re one hundred percent right that we did do changes to this area that were 18 not approved, but they weren' t asked to be approved, which is something I thought had 19 been done but had not been done . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: On the new 20 plan -- because we' re either going to totally rescind the prior approval on this and start 21 from scratch on what is, until we get to where you' re at . This proposed extension where you 22 had the garage under the north -- MR. LEHRHOFF : Right . That work 23 has not been done yet . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is it going 24 to be done? MR. LEHRHOFF: It may be done; 25 it' s actually become a financial situation right now. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 90 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What we' re looking at the as-built, does not really 3 reflect the total scope of the project because under the prior appeal, you had been given 4 permission for that proposed extension; is that correct? 5 MR. LEHRHOFF : That' s correct . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So the house 6 would be a lot larger than it is now? MR. LEHRHOFF: I don' t think the 7 issue with this particular property is the size . There' s plenty of room going east and 8 west of the house . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s an 9 impact to the variance that' s what it is . MR. LEHRHOFF: I'm sorry? 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: More building, the greater the impact of the 11 variance; that' s why we would like to know what the whole picture is . 12 MR. LEHRHOFF: I can' t tell you today that I'm going to build the addition, to 13 the living side of the house . I'm working on the financial side of that . It' s about 14 $200, 000 worth of work. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . Oliva. 15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'm a little speechless . You' re telling me that back deck 16 that you have on your side previously approved and permitted is the one where you had the 17 fire? MR. LEHRHOFF: I'm sorry, the 18 deck, the side of the house where the deck is there was a fire there . 19 It was on the outside; it was an electrical fire; it was in the wall and it 20 affected part of the deck. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Would you 21 come up and just show me where? MR. LEHRHOFF : Sure . 22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I 'm confused. 23 MR. LEHRHOFF: The fire was here (indicating) . 24 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Oh, it was here . 25 MR. LEHRHOFF: Actually it was here (indicating) . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 91 1 2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The way you explain it, I somewhat thought the fire was 3 here (indicating) . MR. LEHRHOFF: No . The fire was 4 when he came in to look to do the footings . To do this, he went under and took a look at 5 the existing deck. If we have a bad winter this deck could collapse . We enter the house 6 this way. This has been approved in the original variance to do this . Now my 7 stupidity, I don' t think -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' re not 8 picking this up on the record. Please step down. 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Was the fire prior to last time' s variance? 10 MR. LEHRHOFF: The fire was in February of 2001 . 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Okay, so last time you were here was June 2002 . 12 MR. LEHRHOFF: Right, so the fire was prior. And we had done some remedial work 13 to fix the area of the deck. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You can 14 rebuild the existing deck. MR. LEHRHOFF: What basically 15 happened, could I rip the existing deck down and rebuild it as it was? Yeah, I could have 16 done that . But we have on the corner, if you look at the plan, the extension came out not 17 the full-length of the house; there' s a small piece; there' s a shower in there which is on 18 the original plan that the architect did. And actually, to get into that shower the way he 19 drew it was to step up from the ground. When we did, when we put the deck together, we felt 20 it would make sense to just close that up and that' s what we did. If you were there you saw 21 it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It' s there . 22 MR. LEHRHOFF: That' s the bottom piece exactly. But the top piece we extended 23 just that one little piece out so you could walk into the shower and we extended the deck, 24 and I think his dimensions are wrong, I think we extended the deck two feet . 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The front stairs? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 92 1 2 MR. LEHRHOFF: Again, what had happened to part of that was the elevation of 3 the original deck was incorrect to the house . When we rebuilt it, put the elevation of the 4 deck to the right level, which extended the deck, the front stairway came a foot down, but 5 that stair was an existing stair; that' s how you got up to the original deck. 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO :, Correct . . MR. LEHRHOFF: Just to tell you, 7 that deck has been built like a fort . It will never come down, in the sense it was built 8 right . The deck that I had was not built properly and it was a danger. And to protect 9 my family, I wasn' t going to have a situation where I was going to have someone get hurt at 10 my home . So I did something that maybe I shouldn' t have done, but I had to get that 11 deck down. I had no choice . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. I 12 think -- MR. LEHRHOFF : Like I said, if 13 you read the letter from my neighbors, they' re the only people that this at all impacts in 14 terms of visually. No one else can see that deck. 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' re also looking at the length of the dwelling now from 16 the front yard. MR. LEHRHOFF : Again, the deck 17 is, you know, it' s a use of outdoor space . It' s not really our living space in 18 terms of the internal part of the house where we live; the house is very small . 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You don' t know at this point whether you' re going to go 20 ahead with the addition? MR. LEHRHOFF : As I mentioned to 21 you, I'm working on the financial side of it . To do that addition the way it should be done 22 is probably going to be close to $200 , 000 . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What we' re 23 going to do in lieu of the fact that you've expanded the house in violation of the 24 variance to the south, I think what we will do . is in considering this, we' ll repeal our 25 approval of the addition to the north to give you the additional space you've already gone COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 93 1 2 into on the south. MR. LEHRHOFF: So if. I decide to 3 build that, I have to come and get another variance? 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, you would. When we granted this, we took a good 5 look at it . We took a good look at the size of the lot, and we granted it in terms of what 6 you were proposing, the size of what you were proposing -- 7 MR—LEHRHOFF : I'm going to tell you this in all honesty, less than a quarter 8 of a mile of my house, a new house has just gone up on Broad Woods . You've passed it to 9 come to my home . You passed it . It' s a monstrosity. 10 They' re building this enormous house that' s no more than 30 or 40 feet from 11 its neighbor, and it affects everybody that goes by it . All the people that live there 12 and everyone' s going by it and looking at this . 13 I'm doing something to my home that' s for me . I have one neighbor that sees 14 a piece of it, and that' s maybe two months out of the year. This is not something that' s 15 infringing upon anybody else at all . My house is tiny. I was situated on a lot because of 16 what originally was laid out in the township that' s not even a flag lot and you couldn' t 17 build a three foot house on that lot today if it was available . 18 So I 'm being penalized. I don' t have any neighbors that I'm infringing upon. 19 I don' t have anybody that this is going to cause a problem to, and you' re penalizing me . 20 It' s going to cost me another $3 , 000, $4 , 000 or $5, 000 to do something that is not 21 basically infringing upon anybody at all, at all . And honestly, it' s not fair. You' re 22 allowing something to occur -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Excuse me . 23 We have a lot of correspondence from Mr. Brown, who is the architect, in fact, the 24 appeal says -- MR. LEHRHOFF : Fairweather Brown 25 was the architect for the project . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You said COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 94 1 2 before something happened with the architect? MR. LEHRHOFF: I thought that the 3 deck was originally going to be included in the original variance . That had been my 4 understanding. It wasn' t . It was too late _ when we got here . When we were here, it was 5 too late for me to do anything about that . The application had already been made . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. We' ll take everything into consideration. We were 7 very sympathetic to you before . It' s extremely discouraging to have someone come 8 back a year later and say I need more variances because we built it without 9 variances . MR. LEHRHOFF: Again, I 10 apologize, I really do. But understand the situation I was in. I had a dangerous 11 situation. I had no choice but to pull that deck .down. There was nothing else I could do . 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: But the Board granted you permission to rebuild the deck 13 with the fire . MR. LEHRHOFF: The only situation 14 I had with the fire permit was to repair the issue where the damage was . You know who did 15 the damage, honestly, to the deck was the fire department because there was 60 firemen 16 standing on that deck, and stress on that deck probably did the major damage . It was an 17 unsafe situation. Again, I apologize . I'm sorry, what happened, but I just didn' t have 18 the time . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' ll take it 19 into consideration. MR. LEHRHOFF : I really wish you 20 . would. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We really 21 don' t want to see you back here again. MR. LEHRHOFF: I don' t want to be 22 back here again. As a final, I don' t think it' s fair to me to have me have loose ends, 23 pay another $4, 000 or $5, 000 to come back to you with the same plan, I really don' t . 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The same plan? 25 MR. LEHRHOFF : Basically, if I do the addition -- COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 95 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The plan that we have doesn' t show that addition. 3 MR. LEHRHOFF: You have that situation -- 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s get this very clear. The May 27, 2003 site plan 5 that you submitted does not -- MR. LEHRHOFF : Shows the house 6 as it is today. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Correct . But 7 it does not show the proposed addition. MR. LEHRHOFF : Because it' s not 8 in place . We haven' t filed for it yet . it' s going to be separately filed and it will be 9 approved once the variance had been approved. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So what we' re 10 looking at here -- MR. LEHRHOFF : Is the existing 11 house . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: But it was 12 not the total plan of what was approved before . We do not have that . We do not have 13 one sketch in the file that shows what was approved before and what was then built . So, 14 when we go to file this decision, what are we going to do, pull out a map from three years 15 ago and say this portion of it was approved. Put yourself in our position. The 16 map that we have does not show what is as built and what is proposed. 17 MR. LEHRHOFF: Maybe I misunderstood. Is the variance for the 18 addition in perpetuity? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Pardon me? 19 MR. LEHRHOFF : Is the variance for the addition in perpetuity? 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Subject to. MR. LEHRHOFF : To what? 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Compliance with what was there . 22 MR. LEHRHOFF: I'm saying, if the deck had not been built, would the variance 23 have been in perpetuity. MS . KOWALSKI : I think what the 24 Board' s saying is there are two or three different diagrams; one diagram shows one 25 thing, another shows another. It' s easier if the Board has everything showing on one plan. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 96 1 2 MR. LEHRHOFF: I have a plan in my car. I can bring it in, you can look at 3 it . It shows the plan of potential addition. 4 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: That would be very helpful . 5 MR. LEHRHOFF : I would be more than happy to bring it in; you can look at it . 6 MS . KOWALSKI : Are you talking about a site plan or building plan? 7 MR. LEHRHOFF: There' s a separate set of drawings . It shows the addition. 8 MS . KOWALSKI : You' re talking about a site plan. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We do not have a plan showing this proposed extension, 10 which was approved before . We have no plan showing all of this together. 11 MS . KOWALSKI : It was left off the map that he was submitted to our department . 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s what we need. We want to see everything. 13 MR. LEHRHOFF: Just so I understand, you want to see the addition, the 14 proposed extension -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The garage 15 that was approved under the prior ZBA. Combine that with the as-built now. 16 MR. LEHRHOFF: Basically -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You see what 17 I 'm doing, I'm trying to on put two maps together to see to get a picture of what' s 18 going on. MR. LEHRHOFF: I can have that 19 done and get that to you. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 20 delineate with either lines or colors before and after. 21 MR. LEHRHOFF : We can have that marked. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s tough. We all spend a lot of time trying to . figure 23 out what happened. Are there any more questions? 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . Please close the hearing. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 97 1 2 decision until later. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Board Members 4 responded in favor. ) MS . KOWALSKI : We need separate 5 prints of that . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 6 hearing is on behalf of Omnipoint Communications, LLC, George L. Penny, Owner. 7 Is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? 8 MS . KOWALSKI : Before you start, we just had a letter it was added to the file 9 this morning. I apologize . MS . FLEMING: Good 10 afternoon. Jacqueline Fleming from Nielsen and Ray. My address is 36 North New York 11 Avenue, Huntington, New York, 11743 . In this application Omnipoint 12 Communications, Inc . is seeking an interpretation of Article 16, Section 13 100-162C3 of the Southold Town Code pursuant to the powers granted to the Board pursuant to 14 Section 100-271D of the Town Code and Section 267-84 of New York State Town Code . 15 Article 16 Section 100-162C3 states in part that industrial -- in 16 industrial districts telecommunications towers are permitted use provided that the base of 17 the tower is located at least 300 feet listed by federal, state or town agencies . 18 The building permit application notice of disapproval states that the proposed 19 tower is not permitted because it lies within 300 feet of two lots, both of which are 20 historical properties listed on the Society of Preservation of Long Island Antiquities 21 inventory of Southold historic properties . The only issue for interpretation is whether 22 the list of landmark properties or districts to which reference is made in the code may be 23 interpreted to include properties on the society' s inventory. 24 In the alternative we are seeking a setback variance to enable construction of 25 100 foot monopole and the installation of equipment cabinets at the concrete pad at the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 98 1 2 base of the monopole . Unless the Board has any 3 preliminary questions, I would like to first address the application for the 4 interpretation. Seeing no questions, by 5 introduction, Omnipoint is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to 6 construct, maintain and operate a personal communications system in New York, in the New 7 York metropolitan area, including Nassau and Suffolk counties . The service provided by 8 Omnipoint benefits the community particularly in times of emergency for placing telephone 9 calls to police, ambulance, fire, road service, at times and places where 10 conventional telephone systems are not available or operating. 11 Moreover, Omnipoint has been authorized by the federal government to deploy 12 a wireless priority service . On October 11, 2001, the Office of the Manager National 13 Communications System announced that the United States government would be deploying 14 wireless priority service across the United; States to allow national security emergency 15 response personnel to gain access to the next available channel in emergency situations . 16 On April 17, 2002 , the National Communication System announced that the 17 applicant Omnipoint had been awarded the contract to provide this emergency service in 18 the area Omnipoint strived to provide reliable service to its licensors . At present there is 19 a significant gap in the Mattituck area. The service gap will be eliminated by the proposed 20 antenna facility at the Penny Lumber site in Mattituck. 21 I have prepared just some copies of relevant code sections that I' ll be 22 referring to, and I would like to submit one for the record, but I ' d also like to provide 23 one to the Board Members . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You have seven 24 copies? MS . FLEMING: I have six 25 copies . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s fine . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 99 1 2 MS . FLEMING: The Penny Lumber property is located between County Road 48 and 3 Sound Avenue in Mattituck. The property in the surrounding area is zoned light 4 industrial . The light industrial zoning district extends between Route 48 and Long 5 Island Railroad tracks for quite a distance in that area. The nearest residential district 6 are. basically across Route 48 to the north and beyond the business district to the south. 7 The town' s regulation of wireless communication facilities is set forth in the 8 zoning code provides that the town prefers the facilities to be located in industrial areas . 9 So we were very cognizant of that when we were planning our site . 10 In addition, the specific code in question, 100-162-C3 , states that the wireless 11 communications facilities on telecommunications towers are permitted, 12 provided that the height of the tower above ground does not exceed 100 feet, and the base 13 of the tower is located at least 100 feet from the nearest dwelling unit, and then the issue 14 in question, 300 feet from any landmark property or district as listed by any federal, 15 state or town agencies . So, with this in mind, with these 16 provisions that we read in your code, Omnipoint chose the subject property and 17 designed . the monopole to be 100 foot to meet the height requirement and situated on this 18 large parcel so that it would be 100 feet from any dwelling unit . And also in performing our 19 due diligence, in November 2001, our office obtained from the town clerk' s office a 20 document entitled "Southold Town Register of Landmark Structures, " which were advised all 21 landmark properties designed by the town. A similar list is currently provided on the 22 town' s web site and a building permit application was filed based on this 23 information. And, just for the record, I only . 24 have one copy of this . I' d like to submit the Southold Town Register of Landmark Structures 25 that is we received from the town clerk when we asked which properties were on this list, COURT REPORTING' AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 100 1 2 and I'm also going to hand in a copy of the Society for the Preservation of Long Island 3 Antiquities, a printout of all the properties . on their inventory, and I have a copy of a 4 document from the Town' s web site, it' s actually the historic resources section of the 5 new waterfront revitalization program on the website that talks about the different listed 6 properties listed on the state, town and federal . I' d like to submit those for the 7 record, please . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' ll need 8 another set of copies . MS . FLEMING: This is just 9 submitted for the record. I mean, this is just town information. I just wanted to show 10 you what we received when we inquired. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I understand. 11 MS . FLEMING: After we submitted our building department application on January 12 21, 2003 , we received a telephone call from the building department advising that the 13 proposed pole in question lies within 300 feet of two landmark properties . During several 14 conversations conducted that day regarding this issue, we received conflicting 15 information from the building department . For example, we were advised that the town does 16 not have a list of landmarked properties and that the building department referred to a 17 list compiled by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities, even 18 though the list was not officially designated by the Town. 19 Since the Town clerk' s office provided us with the list that I handed in, we 20 were obviously receiving conflicting information from the building department, and 21 so we inquired a little further. We telephoned the society and spoke with a 22 Charla Bolton, who advised that the society's list was compiled more than 25 years ago, and 23 was made up of properties that it felt might warrant attention to be considered for 24 landmark property in the future . She further advised us that the society no longer 25 maintains a copy of the list . We then reviewed your landmark law COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 101 1 2 and the Town' s procedure, and basically what I 'm going to talk about for our legal 3 interpretation of that . The two properties that are in 4 question are lot 35 and 39 ; one is to the east and one is to the west of the Penny Lumber 5 Company and are not listed by federal, state or town agencies . The society for the 6 Preservation of Long Island Antiquities is not a federal, state or town entity, and the town 7 has not officially designated the town properties as town landmarks . 8 In the handout I gave to each of you, I included, I guess it' s the last page of 9 the handout, the definition from the zoning code of what a landmark designation entails . 10 It' s kind of a short version of the Landmark Law, and it states that the designation of a 11 building or structure of architectural or historic significance to the town through 12 listing the property in a town register of designated landmarks, following a copy filing 13 of the entity in the town clerk' s office . The landmark designation process was 14 recently completed for a property in the Hamlet of Southold and that zone by the Town 15 Board resolution is also included in your packet . And June 3 , 2003 it shows a Town 16 Board adopted a resolution designating a house on Main Road in Southold as a Southold Town 17 landmark. So it' s an active process this 18 landmark designation process, to get listed as a town landmark, and that process was not 19 followed in the cases for lot 38 -- 35 and 39 . The Town has recognized that the 20 society' s inventory is actually separate from listing as a landmark and an example of this 21 is in Section 56-7A and that section is put in the handout . This section applies to 22 applications for activities that occur on the landmarked property itself, instead of, like 23 us, where we' re just near it . This section expressly references 24 the inventory prepared by the society of the Preservation of Long Island Landmark 25 Antiquities, and, in addition to listing as a state, federal or town landmark, so that COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 102 1 2 section of the code recognizes that there' s this listing of properties, and then there' s 3 also this inventory, and that they' re separate things . Also 56-7A of the Landmark Law 4 states -- well, that' s what it states . It states other categories besides those two, but 5 I think that' s the most important point, is that when the town wanted to include the 6 society' s inventory, it did that in addition to stating it was addressing listed 7 properties . So in summary, it is respectfully 8 submitted that the building department misapplied the Landmark Law to this situation. 9 We are not a landmark property so the Landmark Law doesn' t apply to this application, and it 10 misinterpreted Section 100-162 , and the grounds for disapproval is therefore 11 inapplicable . Although we do not find the section to be ambiguous as the New York State 12 Court of Appeals has repeatedly held zoning restrictions being a derogation of common law 13 property law rights, must be strictly construed and any ambiguity result in favor of 14 the property owner. We ask the Board to find that the 15 building department incorrectly interpreted the provision in Section 100-162C3 , and that 16 Omnipoint be allowed to continue with its building permit application including site 17 review, that we will be starting soon. At this time, if you have any 18 questions, I would like to answer those . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re asking 19 provision for an interpretation of 162-3 and a reversal of the building department; in the 20 alternative you' re asking for an area variance; is that accurate? 21 MS . FLEMING: Right . At this point I 'm just trying to keep those two 22 separate . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Because in 23 your documentation you refer to a use variance and I was very confused by that . 24 MS . FLEMING: Well, yeah, I think that was sort of a typo on our part . 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It discusses hardship and economic hardship, and it COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 103 1 2 discusses the need for variances and the special rights of public utilities, which 3 we' re all well aware of but are not relevant here . 4 MS . FLEMING: No, I agree . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So should we 5 just disregard that part of your evidence that you submitted? Or would you like -- 6 MS . FLEMING: I agree with you that in the alternative we will be asking for 7 a setback variance . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re not 8 asking for a use variance as indicated in the papers here? 9 MS . FLEMING: In the papers submitted with this application there was 10 reference made to a use variance as opposed to an area variance, which deals with dimensional 11 requirements as opposed to the use of the land. The attorney has just stated that was 12 in error, and that the request is for a dimensional or area variance and will send a 13 letter of correction to be placed into our files, so that it is corrected and in that 14 file . Let me see if the other Board 15 Members have other questions . Mr. Horning? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sure . For 16 the sake of a little clarification for myself and perhaps others in the notice of 17 disapproval, they' re citing a maximum tower height of 100 feet as meeting acceptable code 18 permitted. The towers maximum height is approximately or exactly 100 feet; is that 19 correct? MS . FLEMING: Right . 20 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So they did not deny this because of a height? 21 MS . FLEMING: No. We have met a 100 foot height and 100 foot setback 22 provision. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: On the site 23 plans there is an existing two story frame building, which is a note that says it' s an 24 existing residential dwelling, which will remain. 25 MS . FLEMING: On the Penny Lumber property you' re saying. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 104 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You' re familiar with that? 3 MS . FLEMING: Right . It' s next to the Lot 35 . It' s west of that -- or east 4 of that, I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And the 5 distance, the closest distance is 107 feet thereabouts; is that correct? 6 MS . FLEMING: Right . That' s very specifically we set out those setback 7 dimensions very carefully on the site plan. Yeah, that' s exactly right . 8 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So therefore, the requirements that the tower 9 would be permitted to be located, if it was at least 100 feet away from the nearest dwelling, 10 and you say it will be 107 feet you are then again not be being cited for the distance to 11 the nearest dwelling, correct? MS . FLEMING: No. That is 12 correct . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So really 13 the only issue here then would be the fact that this proposed tower is not 300 feet away 14 from historic property line; is that the issue? 15 MS . FLEMING: The issue is that the building department disapproved it on the 16 basis of we are not within 300 feet of properties that are on the society' s list, 17 yes . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And you, in 18 fact, are claiming here and now, are claiming they misinterpreted the Landmark Law, if I 19 heard your remarks earlier? MS . FLEMING: The Landmark Law, 20 which applies to properties that -- property that is part of the application itself, that 21 property itself is on the Landmark List or on the society' s inventory list . The Landmark 22 Law is for those properties . It doesn' t apply to our situation. The Penny Lumber Company is 23 not one of those properties, but the building department says that we are within 300 feet of 24 the society' s list . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So again, 25 to clarify the notice of disapproval, what is the issue, as you see it, for the reason of COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 105 1 2 your denial? MS . FLEMING: We submit that the 3 building department incorrectly disapproved the application because we violated the 300 4 foot setback from a listed town, state or federal landmark property. And our conclusion 5 is that we did not violate that setback. We tried very hard to make sure we did not 6 violate that setback before we made the application. And that the society' s 7 inventory, while it does apply specifically and expressly to the Landmark Law situation, 8 it doesn' t apply in this situation. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: That is the 9 only reason then that you were given a notice of disapproval? 10 MS . FLEMING: That' s the only reason. 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 12 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see 13 you came with a whole bunch of people, Miss Fleming, are they here to assist you in some 14 way in reference structural aspects of this? MS . FLEMING: They are here for 15 the second part if needed. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The big 16 presentation. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What is the 17 second part? MS . FLEMING: The first part is 18 just for the interpretation. We have interpretation as one application to the 19 Board. Our second application to the Board is for a variance . 20 I would specifically like to separate those two at . this time and ask you to 21 render a decision for the interpretation only. Because if you render your interpretation that 22 the building department was incorrect, we do not need the second part because we don' t have 23 anything to vary. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I would have 24 to agree that the interpretation would come first . So, if you would, in that case hold an 25 in abeyance your presentation for area variances until the Board has rendered a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 106 1 2 decision on interpretation that' s quite fine; is that agreeable to the Board? 3 MS . FLEMING: Just to interrupt if I could. We were aware of that possibility, 4 but we did, in the alternative application, and we are willing on to go forward with that 5 today. If you are not able to render a decision now. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We will not render a decision now, if that' s what you' re 7 asking, is the Board going to make a decision now? No, we' re not . 8 In the instance of expediency, it would probably be wise to address the 2673 . 9 MS . FLEMING: Yes . We are certainly prepared to do that at your 10 convenience . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just so, if 11 people from the audience have comments, we don' t have to separate the comments and then 12 you will say that you have not had the opportunity to address those . 13 MS . FLEMING: Sure . If you are unable to render a decision then we will move 14 forward. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You've given 15 us about 30 , 40 pages of documentation. I think the Board would like to review it before 16 we make a decision. MS . FLEMING: To clarify, I only 17 provided you copies of the codes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That is also . 18 We did not have copies of what provisions you were specifically going to cite . You've cited 19 them, we would like to review them. We would like to review, we have other hearings, so if 20 you have other people that you would you' re going to call, you could do that . 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I would like to give her a quick question. 22 In the past Omnipoint has utilized church towers instead of constructing towers . 23 Have you looked into this because there' s several churches in that area? 24 MS . FLEMING: We will address the issue . We have our RF engineer, our Radio 25 Frequency engineer, who helped design the site based on the needs for this specific area. A COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 107 1 2 lot of times Omnipoint may need different heights in the community. Sometimes they need 3 a high site sometimes they need a lot lower site, depending on their needs . Here they 4 needed a high site, and there was no other alternative high enough in this area in 5 existing. structures . You' re right, we often try to find an existing structure if at all 6 possible; it makes everything a lot easier for everyone. And this .is just not possible in 7 this situation; that will become more clear as we talk about our search area and the size of 8 our gap and the kinds of antennas and facilities we need to fill that gap. It needs 9 to be a higher site, in a fairly small search area. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you have any questions, Ruth? 11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Not right now. 12 MS . FLEMING: I'm sure you' ll have some questions after we bring on the 13 experts . Today I have five experts who will 14 briefly talk about the need for the site, as we discussed. The emissions for the site are 15 very low and well within the federal standards for radio frequency emissions, and site will 16 not have a significant impact on the environment; it won' t cause interference; it 17 won' t have significant impact on property values and if you like, I can get right to 18 that testimony. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Please . 19 MS . FLEMING: First I would like to call Tom Turkel . His firm prepared the 20 site plan drawings that you saw on the application. 21 MR. TURKEL: Good afternoon, my name is Thomas R. Turkel . I 'm a registered 22 architect with the firm of William F . Collins, Architects . My address is 10-1 Technology 23 Drive, in Setauket, New York, 11733 . MS . FLEMING: At Omnipoint' s 24 request you prepared the drawings? MR. TURKEL: Yes, I did. 25 MS . FLEMING: Could you go over the plans briefly and describe the site for COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 108 1 2 the Board. MR. TURKEL: Yes . I would be 3 glad to. Would the Board like the display 4 to face them. You have drawings -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes . 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: If we could bring the microphone over because the 6 stenographer is going to have a very difficult time . 7 MR. TURKEL: Okay. Better? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We would 8 appreciate it if you could move along. MR. TURKEL : Okay. What' s being 9 proposed is a fenced-in compound for our equipment and in the center a sea of asphalt 10 on an industrial lot . At one corner of that compound we propose to put a 100 foot tall 11 steel one monopole, which we plan to affix antennas at the very top. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: How high off the ground is the concrete pad? 13 MR. TURKEL: It' s not really a pad, it' s a concrete cylinder which is a 14 foundation base that would stick up out of the ground about eight or ten inches . 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Not including the concrete pad it' s going to be 100 feet? 16 MR. TURKEL: Yes, ma' am. And the antennas we' re proposing would be four 17 antennas per sector, with three sectors, for a total of 12 antennas . Those antennas will be 18 arrayed around the top of the pole . At the to of the antennas being at 100 feet above the 19 ground. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: These are 20 standard antennas? MR. TURKEL: No. These are what 21 is known as flat panel antennas . Six foot tall, eight inches wide, three inches deep . 22 The antenna cables, the back of these antennas into the top of a metal pole, run down inside 23 the metal pole and go back to our equipment cabinets, of which there are three located on 24 a small concrete pad. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you have 25 other companies that are going to be leasing this use on this pole? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 109 1 2 MR. TURKEL: The compound is set up to take at least two other carriers should 3 they so desire . I am not aware that anybody' s come forward yet to look at that . 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re talking about room for two other carriers 5 below the other hundred foot I assume? MR. TURKEL: Yes, ma' am. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: At what heights? 7 MR. TURKEL: Normally they like to have a separation -- and the RF engineer 8 can speak to this better -- of ten feet between antennas . 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Right now there' s potential for three sets of antennas 10 at approximately 100 feet, 90 feet and 80 feet; is that correct? 11 MR. TURKEL: Yes, ma' am. And some carriers may deem that they can go lower, 12 it depends on their system and how they operate . 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, continue . 14 MR. TURKEL: I'm prepared to go on, if you want me to, but you said to keep it 15 short . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I don' t know 16 what else -- any questions on this? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. I 17 clearly understand it . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, we 18 understand it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Except 19 we want to talk about wind velocity on the monopole . Who wants to speak about that? 20 MR. TURKEL: I will speak about that . 21 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Quickly. MR. TURKEL: We will submit to 22 the Board a design manufacturer signed and sealed by an engineer currently licensed in 23 the State of New York, which will address all of the structural loading on the monopole 24 additionally, and all of the antennas that are designed for the future if other carriers 25 should want to come along, and it will be designed for the new New York State building COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 110 1 2 code . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which is 3 what wind velocity? MR. TURKEL: I believe it' s 120 4 within a mile of the water. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank 5 you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, next 6 witness? MS . FLEMING: Yes, next, Ron 7 Petersen. He is going to talk about the emissions from the site, and I ' d like to 8 submit for the record his curriculum vitae and copy of his report which will be a summary of 9 his testimony. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let me just 10 ask you something. The emissions you have to comply by law, correct? 11 MR. PETERSEN: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Does this 12 state that you comply by law? MR. PETERSEN: Yes . This states 13 that we do comply with the FCC guidelines . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . There' s 14 no way you could even comply if you don' t, correct? 15 MR. PETERSEN: Yes, that' s right . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. 16 MS . FLEMING: I'm gathering that you would like to take his testimony for the 17 report . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s -- yes, 18 it' s very nice to say, yes, I'm an engineer and we comply, but you couldn' t be here if you 19 didn' t comply, so it' s really not necessary. Next witness . 20 MS . FLEMING: Mr. Petersen will be available for any questions that the audience 21 might have . MS . FLEMING: Is the radio 22 frequency engineer who will talk about the need for the site . I have a copy of his 23 resume and affidavit summarizing the need for the site and attached are some propagation 24 maps that he will be explaining. MS . FLEMING: State your name for 25 the record. MR. JEAN: Stephan Jean from COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 111 1 2 T-Mobile . MS . FLEMING: And your 3 professional and educational experience, please? 4 MR. JEAN: Bachelor of Science in engineering from Polytech University of New 5 York. MS . FLEMING: Have you previously 6 testified before a municipal Board? MR. JEAN: Yes, I have . 7 MS . FLEMING: And you' re fully familiar with Omnipoint? 8 MR. JEAN: Yes, I am. MS . FLEMING: Can you describe 9 the system and how it works from an engineering standpoint? 10 MR. JEAN: Essentially both the mobile phone and cell site base station are 11 two-way transceivers, otherwise when a phone call transmits from that mobile phone -- 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' re having a lot of trouble picking you up . Speak 13 louder. MR. JEAN: I'm sorry. I said 14 that both the mobile phone and the base station, which is the cell site, are two-way 15 transceivers . One' s the -- if a call originates from a mobile phone, the signal 16 travels via radio waves to the nearest cell site serving that mobile phone . Then the 17 signal is routed to the cell phone carrier' s switching office then to the public telephone 18 system network and then to a land line . If the call originates from the land line, the 19 call is essentially reversed. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sir, is the 20 purpose of the proposed cell site to fill in a gap so that people making cell phone calls 21 will not experience a disruption of service? MR. JEAN: That' s correct . This 22 map depicts Omnipoint' s existing network throughout Southold or in the Mattituck and in 23 the Laurel area . As you can see the green color shows the service or the areas being 24 serviced by Omnipoint . As I lower this sheet, the purple sheet will show the additional 25 coverage that will be offered by -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Can you turn COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 112 1 2 that around for the audience? MR. JEAN: Sure . 3 MS . FLEMING: Can you explain the need for the 100 foot height at this site? 4 MR. JEAN: Well, once the need is identified -- 5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: We can' t hear him. 6 MR. JEAN: Once the need for the site is identified, we use a tool in house to 7 predict the height of the site that will be needed and from that we choose the lowest 8 height that will satisfy the need. MS . FLEMING: What would happen 9 if we put the antennas lower on the pole? MR. JEAN: If we decide to go 10 lower on the monopole, the area shaded in purple will be smaller and the gap will still 11 remain. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How low are 12 the church steeples in the town? MR. JEAN: It would depend on the 13 structure, they would vary from 30 feet . It would depend. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So if you' re speculating, did you really research 15 it? MR. JEAN: No, no. You asked me 16 how low are the church steeples . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right . In 17 this town. MR. JEAN: Church steeple, I 18 mean, a church can vary in height . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : If you did 19 the research, you' d know how high they are in this area, right? 20 MR. JEAN: Oh, in this area. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Instead of 21 utilizing the tower utilize the church steeple . 22 MR. JEAN: Well, really what we do is prioritize the existing structures 23 first . Based on the gap in coverage, the lowest structure there will be needed to 24 satisfy the need will be 100 feet . Anything lower will not satisfy the need. As I say we 25 predict different heights and we choose lowest one available . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 113 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So there' s no steeple in that area 100 feet tall? 3 MR. JEAN: No . That I know of, no. 4 MS . FLEMING: Well, in researching this site we also looked at your codes because 5 the middle of our search area did include an industrial area, your code specifically 6 prefers us to locate in industrial areas, we also looked there as trying to meet your code . 7 So that was also in the criteria that we had to try to meet . 8 Are there any other questions for Mr. Jean? 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, not at this time . 10 Your next witness, we do have to move this along, please . 11 MS . FLEMING: I'm Marie Stipo is a planner who will talk about the possible 12 effects environmentally. MS . KOWALSKI : Miss Fleming, we 13 always need to ask on all submissions that you have -- 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s very . difficult for all of us . 15 MS . STIPO: I do have copies for you. They have similar photos . I guess that 16 you' ll be seeing on the Board. I ' ll keep this brief for you. 17 That report will outline everything that I'm speaking to today in a little more detail; as 18 well as it includes the photographs and the maps that are on this board for presentation. 19 A crane test was employed with respect to the visual resource analysis that 20 was done and we took a look at approximately a half mile radius, slightly outside that 21 barrier with respect to the subject property. You have a zone of visibility that 22 would exist approximately from the intersection of County Road 48 where it 23 intersects with Sound Avenue, and you would travel east along County Road 48 ending at 24 Mary' s Lane . That would be the breadth of the zoning visibly. Essentially at the tip of 25 either you would see the cap of the tower, essentially the top of the antennas . We COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 114 1 2 therefore would include that simply because that would be a change in the horizon even 3 though it' s nominal as your zone visibility. Your predominant visible impact or 4 changes would be directly at the subject property where the installation would be 5 installed and the immediate surrounding area that has open space or visibility. 6 The mixed use in the area, both residential, industrial and commercial, abuts 7 one another and therefore residential uses that are abutting, industrial use, a 8 commercial use or a thoroughfare have existing environmental concerns already. Those that 9 have visibility to the subject property seek the existing -lumberyard, the activity and 10 would have a view of the tower. Your residential properties that 11 are located to the north, you have a marina, you would have predominantly no visibility to 12 them. The marina would have seasonal with off leave time frame . 13 The installation would not incur any non-visual impact . It doesn' t require 14 infrastructure, or any municipal service . There would be no non-visual impacts and you 15 would have limited visibility with a nominal change to the horizon. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let me ask you a question: You superimposed these into 17 these shots? MS . STIPO: Yes . The process is 18 described in the back. The gentleman in my office held a master' s in graphic animation 19 and design. Therefore, what we would do is the crane that went up was 100 feet, and I 20 have photographs showing you exactly that if you wanted to see . At the 100 foot mark, we 21 then know exactly the top of the tower. The property as scaled in the photograph on the 22 computer, we used both MIA and 3-D Vis import into a Dobie Photo Shot, which is your 23 printing; so they would be to scale with that photograph. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, I just am amazed at some of the views that, you know, I 25 live in Mattituck and know the area quite well, know the site quite well, Pacific COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 115 1 2 Street . MS . STIPO: Love Lane . 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And I would be amazed if on view number one that the 4 impact is what is presented here 100 foot monopoles, three flat panels . 5 MS . STIPO: It would be set up in the triangular as you' re seeing that . You 6 have four panel per sector like a triangle has . 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is the tower supposed to be the structure on top of 8 the barn? MS . STIPO: I'm sorry? 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is the tower supposed to be the structure above the 10 barn, looks like an antenna on top of the barn? 11 MS . STIPO: No. That' s an existing. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So where is the tower in that picture? 13 MS . STIPO: The tower would be in the center. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Now you know why I'm crazy. 15 MS . STIPO: You have to turn the page . It' s called existing and then proposed, 16 so you actually see the conditions as they exist today when the photograph was taken. 17 And if the Board wants, we can produce for them physical photographs 35 millimeter was 18 taken at 50 millimeter lens, which would give you the scope of the human eye . And you' ll 19 see on View 3 , she caps just slightly above the tree line; that would be worst case 20 scenario. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is from 21 Portobello? MS . STIPO: Yeah. The restaurant 22 that' s there on the corner, they have a parking facility access, you can see the enter 23 on both Sound Avenue as well as County Road 48 . 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s about a mile down the road of the proposed site . 25 MS . STIPO: We did go outside the scope to see that . We did half a mile if COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 116 1 2 you' ll see that, then we did outside the scope . 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I do . I just don' t see, you have nothing from when you' re 4 coming east, from east to the west on Sound Avenue the view that you have from Westphalia, 5 is taken from about 200 down Westphalia Road and, as I say, I do know the area quite 6 well . MS . STIPO: We gave you View 6, 7 which is that would be looking west, approximately 600 feet from Love Lane, that 8 would show you the visibility the towers capped there . In off season your visibility 9 would extend to Mary' s Lane . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Nothing from 10 Love Lane . MS . STIPO: No, but that' s 600 11 feet from Love Lane on County Road 48 . There was no visibility from the residential 12 properties to the north of County Road 48 . We drove all those minor roadways . You have a 13 very heavy, thick wooded umbrella. Actually it' s difficult to see the Main Road from the 14 homes that are nestled back there . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. 15 Anything else? If you could leave that up so people in the audience can look at that later 16 on. MS . STIPO: Absolutely. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Your next witness . We' re really going to have to move 18 this on or adjourn it one or the other. MS . FLEMING: No . The next 19 witness I will hand in his testimony by report . I don' t have enough copies at this 20 point to meet the requirements . I' ll get those additional copies to you later. The 21 report describes the results of the potential impact on property values from similar towers 22 like this in the area and concludes that no such impact would occur, and that' s in the 23 report . This is a report by Michael Lynch. 24 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: To the best of your knowledge has your company after it 25 noticed neighbors, et cetera, received any response from neighbors in favor or opposed? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 117 1 2 MS . FLEMING: No . We did not receive any response from this one, often we 3 do, in calls, and we didn' t receive any calls from this application. 4 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. MS . FLEMING: Just to kind of 5 address Mr. Orlando' s concern about the church steeples again, please keep in mind we came 6 forward with a proposal and variance that we understood met your code completely. Again, 7 we' re here for on the second part of the application; we went to an industrial area; 8 there' s very few lots large enough to meet the setback. We thought we did all of that . So 9 we did everything we should have done under your code . And, you know, that' s kind of the 10 main point of this whole presentation before this . This was, you know, this should not 11 have been a necessary; we don' t believe it' s necessary, but if you believe it' s necessary, 12 you know, we do ask for the variance from the 300 foot . 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Who else .have you approached to lease space on this 14 monopole? MS . FLEMING: To my knowledge, 15 none at this time . But it would be able to collocate, we understand your code does 16 promote collocation and that would be a possibility. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see if the audience has any questions, and we will 18 give people in the audience . We have to take a five minute break to give people in the 19 audience a chance to look at all the exhibits . Does if anybody in the audience would like to 20 speak in favor or against the application, sir? 21 MR. BUCHARD : Against . My name is Fred Buchard. I'm an owner of two properties 22 adjoining the Penny company. I don' t know where to start after I've heard all of this . 23 It' s amazing they get all these lawyers here . They say we didn' t dot an "i" . 24 First thing I would like to do is show the Board some pictures that I took. 25 These are actual pictures of a monotower, one mile from this site, and if I have your COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 118 1 2 permission I ' d like to bring them up and show them to you. Also another tower that' s two 3 blocks from this site . Before we go any further and these are actual photographs not 4 computer generated. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Where is 5 this one located (indicating) ? MR. BUCHARD: Right by Lindsey' s 6 Auto Parts in Mattituck. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s on 7 Elijah' s Lane. The photos are from Elijah' s Lane . The other photo -- 8 MR. BUCHARD: The other photo' s with nothing in it . If you pictured a tower 9 in the center of the photograph, that' s what you would see . 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is the former remains of the Rosen Tower? 11 MR. BUCHARD: That' s correct . Pretty ugly, isn' t it? 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There' s also a photo from Penny Lumber. 13 MR. BUCHARD: That' s correct right in the center of that photograph. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me see those when you' re done . 15 MR. BUCHARD: Now, just before I came here, I stopped in Connie' s Bake Shop and 16 there was a petition there that disapproved this, and I volunteered to bring this in. I 17 had nothing to do with it, I 'm just bringing it in here, and it' s a petition against this 18 (handing) . Now they also mentioned that this 19 is for an emergency. I don' t know how we got along so far without this tower. I mean, all 20 the emergencies in my shop, we have a cell phone, we can use it in the shop with the 21 machinery, which is within 100 feet of where this tower is, so I don' t know see this is a 22 need. If it were a necessary evil, which I doubt very much, I mean, why doesn' t these 23 towers approach the Town of Southold, if it' s supposed to be for the good of all the people, 24 approach the Town of Southold, for Southold Town land and let the people vote on it . If 25 they think it' s really what they want to have here; and if they did get it, they would be COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 119 1 2 the benefactor of the rental and benefit from the tower, they benefit from the phone, and 3 they benefit from revenue, if that were the case . And I think that' s all I have to say 4 for this moment . . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 5 very much. Anybody else? Yes, sir. MR. BUCHARD : Oh, there was 6 another paper, I believe you people have it, from the Southold Town Landmark Preservation 7 Commission, you people have this, I assume so. I don' t have to read it to you, right 8 (handing) ? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, we do 9 have it . MR. BUCHARD : They stand by the 10 argument that the building department was correct in denying this permit . 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have that in the record. Thank you very much. 12 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: My name' s Ed McLoughlin. I live on Maple Lane in Mattituck 13 and this tower I believe would be visible from my backyard because I'm 60 feet above sea 14 level and I' d be able to see something 100 feet above sea level, and I see I would see 15 this from Maple Lane, which is more than -- I would say more than a mile from it . And also, 16 it would be visible from James Creek and Mattituck Inlet; also it' s close to the town 17 ramp, Southold Town ramp and Mattituck Town ramp. it would be visible to those two parks . 18 It' s very close to the Presbyterian church, and Episcopal church and will exceed the 19 height of the steeple on both churches . It also will become the Eiffel Tower of 20 Mattituck. So if it' s going to be the Eiffle 21 Tower, it should be beautiful . I don'.t think it' s going to be beautiful the way they just 22 described it; and third of all, I don' t see what the need is because I have a cell phone. 23 My cell phone works.. I also have Onstar on my car, and I that works . So I don' t see these 24 towers . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Quick 25 question. These other towers that already exist, person submitted photos of church COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 120 1 2 steeples that you refer to, are any of those things visible from these areas that you 3 mention, the town boat ramp and what not? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Some are, some 4 aren' t . In the winter definitely; in the summer I can' t say, but definitely in the 5 winter when there's no foliage on the tree . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So in 6 addition to this one proposed tower that you explained to us will be visible from all of 7 those areas -- MR. MCLOUGHLIN: The whole town of 8 Mattituck will be able to see it . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: -- in 9 addition to that one proposed tower, there are possible towers and steeples that are visible 10 from those places as well; is that correct? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Possibly the 11 steeples, yeah. Another thing I' d like to point 12 out is, this is the third tower that' s been proposed for cell phones within this area in 13 the last two or three years, and the other two, as far as I know, were turned down. So 14 apparently the people don' t want it . So are we going to have to come to town hall every 15 other year to sign petitions and speak against something that the people don' t want or is 16 this going to be finalized and say, look, no cell towers in the Hamlet of Mattituck period. 17 Every time somebody wants to put up a tower, are we going to have one tower for each cell 18 phone company? They have what they call cohabitation in central offices with 19 telephone; whereas, if it' s a private telephone company they have the right to rent 20 space and put their switch in a telephone facility. So you don' t have to have nine 21 different telephone offices serving one area. In the same breath, you wouldn' t have five 22 sets of telephone poles for cable, for telephone, for electric, you don' t want eye 23 pollution. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I think the 24 only way you' re really going to see successful collocation is if you have the towers on 25 municipal sites, personal opinion. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Yeah. But there COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 121 1 2 has to be other towers in the area. If my cell phone is working on Verizon other people 3 have AT & T, their phones -- Omnipoint, I don' t know how many customers Omnipoint has, I 4 have no idea. But if the other cell phones are working, why can' t they cohabit with other 5 towers? Why build this monstrosity? That' s the only thing I have to 6 say. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 7 very much, next . MR. GAETON: My name is Bill 8 Gaeton in Mattituck, also on Westphalia Road, excuse me . 9 As far as I can see the building that they proposed here that' s on the Penny 10 property is also in division for historical preservation in New York State Parks and 11 Recreation in Albany, New York. It' s marked MK-12 , that sounds like it' s right next door 12 to this thing. If this preservation society is 13 also a State Law, then why should we even bother with these guys again, as he said? 14 The other thing is -- I got a senior moment . That' s all I have to say. 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. Yes, ma' am. 16 MS . CIAMARICONE : My name is Janet Ciamaricone . I live on Pacific Street . The 17 last petition is actually what I wrote . I went through the neighborhood, 18 when I got a letter from I think the lawyers stating this was coming up, and I wrote asking 19 the neighborhood down Pacific Street and Legion if they -- do they mind, will this 20 affect their property; do they want to see this . And there was a tower already started 21 that was stopped by the Town Board and that you can see visibly down Pacific, down Legion, 22 and actually if you' re driving into Mattituck at Citco, looking towards. it it' s above the 23 trees . I don' t know exactly how high that went already, but that' s visible -- for us, I 24 look out my back door, it' s there whether there' s trees or not trees, leaves on the 25 trees or not . I didn' t -make copies . This is the people around the area. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 122 1 2 MS . KOWALSKI : Spell your last name, please . 3 MS . CIAMARICONE : C-I-A-M-A-R- I-C-O-N-E . Also, as a homeowner who uses a 4 cell phone also for my work and around, I have never had a problem from my home, which is 5 only about two doors away from Penny Lumber. Again, we just talked it . I didn' t 6 talk much about cancer, or anything else like that, I hear both, yes and no on that on 7 research done, but I do know that the property owners south of that are not very happy with 8 this going up again. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 9 someone else in the audience? MS . FUNN: Hello, my name is Alice 10 Funn and I live on Sound Avenue right by Penny Lumber Company. 11 I look east or west now if Penny puts up this tower on the west and on the east 12 is that tower that' s been there for three years this week, I think, and it' s still in 13 court standing, I haven' t heard anything. So do I need another tower to look around it' s 14 towers, towers in Mattituck. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 15 very much, Mrs . Funn. Someone else in the audience who would like to speak? I think 16 what we' re going to do, I'm going to ask you to give us imposition on this because the 17 photos that you gave and the shots, the locations that you gave, I don' t really feel 18 accurately reflect the visual impacts of this? MS . FLEMING: Are there specific 19 views that you would like? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, I can 20 take the trouble to take the photos myself, however, it definitely isn' t my job. I' d like 21 to know what it' s going to look like from the North Road from this angle right here 22 (indicating) from the carpet place . I' d like to know what the significance of the tower is 23 going to be in relation to the North Road as a designated listed New York State Scenic 24 Byway. We' re going to adjourn the hearing 25 until October -- what is the date we have? MS . KOWALSKI : 23rd. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 123 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: October 23rd. We will go over the legal information which 3 you presented with respect to the interpretation; at. which time I hope you will 4 be able to answer that question so that we can go forward. . 5 MS . FLEMING: What' s the timing on your decision on the interpretation with 6 regard to the -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' re hoping 7 that we will be able to have something on the 23rd with respect to the interpretation. 8 MS . FLEMING: Then the adjourned hearing for Part 2 will be October 30th? 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So it will be open so that if the neighbors have further 10 questions, so you can get us that information as soon as possible before then. It would be 11 adjourned to 1 : 00 p.m. MR. BUCHARD: Is there anything 12 you would require for us that are opposed; is there anything that you would like us to bring 13 or give to you beforehand? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The burden of 14 proof rests with the applicant . MR. BUCHARD: If you send me a 15 letter or something, I' d be happy to do whatever you ask. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Buchard, if you call the office I'm sure that the 17 office staff will be more than happy to assist you in any manner. Counsel is going to 18 provide six copies of all the exhibits that were presented today. We are going to request 19 that photos be taken that more accurately reflect the impact of this tower. 20 As I say, this is the view is that 350 some-odd thousand passengers pass every 21 year. I want to know what that is going to look like from the North Road facing the 22 carpet place, not from a mile down the road from Portobellos; I want to know what it' s 23 going to look like coming east at the corner of Westphalia and the North Road. I think the 24 public deserves a fair representation of what' s before us, and that' s what I'm asking 25 you, and I'm sure you' ll do that for us . MS . FLEMING: Just so you know, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 124 1 2 it was not brought to our attention that Route 48 was a Town listed byway. We didn' t find it 3 on the state database . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s a New 4 York State designated -- it' s a state designated, New York State designated scenic 5 byway. MS . FLEMING: We understand that 6 the Town has gone through the process to list it as a byway. We were just informed that 7 this was an occurrence yesterday, just that the planning department gave us the 8 information, so we looked into it . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The other 9 thing before we go any further, the planning board has sent us a letter requesting that 10 they have an opportunity, that this hearing be open because they would like an opportunity to 11 review the plans, site plans, which you' re going to need, you' re going to need planning 12 board approval for this regardless of however it shakes out on our Board. 13 MS . FLEMING: I understand. that . 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They' re going to be obviously very concerned about screening 15 issues . If it goes to a variance, the degree of the visibility is going to bear very 16 heavily on whether you would be granted a variance or not . 17 I would appreciate it if you would go ahead, make an application to the planning 18 board so that we can get their feedback, and as they requested, generally before we even 19 have an hearing we were under the assumption that you had made an application. 20 MS . FLEMING: We have started the application. We will be completing that 21 next week. They were provided with our site plan but apparently that wasn' t enough 22 information for them. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I can' t speak 23 for their procedures, so I don' t know. All I know is that the information on the file is 24 that they have no plans and that they would like an opportunity to review plans and like 25 us to leave the hearing open until they have reviewed those plans . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 125 1 2 MS . FLEMING: The public hearing, the people are going to have a chance to 3 speak, is there any way to close the public hearing and keep the record open for 4 additional submissions? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The public is 5 entitled to comment on all . Counselor, you certainly know that . No. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s a question in the back. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, ma' am. MS . KONTOVER: Hi, my name is 8 Kontover. MS . KOWALSKI : You need to spell 9 your last name . MS . KONTOVER: K-O-N-T-O-V-E-R, I 10 live in exactly across from the Penny Lumber center on the Westphalia Road and corner Route 11 48 , and I' d like to see a picture that how it' s going to look from my house . 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think I asked her that . 13 MS . KONTOVER: There' s a space there . I would like to see a picture how it' s 14 going to look from my house across . MS . FLEMING: Across from Penny 15 Flooring. MS . KONTOVER: From exactly the 16 corner Westphalia and 48 . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I believe 17 that' s what I asked for. MS . KONTOVER: ' Cause I see so 18 many pictures, but I don' t see a picture from my house exactly what it look like . I have a 19 family. I have three kids . We all have cell phones . We never have problem, and I don' t 20 like to see that every day because the cross house means you can see that every day. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Certainly. MS . KONTOVER: Thank you very 22 much. MS . FLEMING: If I could briefly 23 respond to the public comments while they' re so fresh. If you wouldn' t mind, because we 24 did have some very serious allegations . There are collocations on most 25 towers that go up, whether they' re on municipal land or not . As you look around COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 126 1 2 most of the towers do have collocations, so please keep that in mind. 3 Omnipoint is a public utility for New York zoning purposes and according to both 4 state and federal law, Omnipoint' s facilities should be approved whenever they can 5 demonstrate that the site is needed to fill any gap in the service area. And I think 6 we've demonstrated that today. The propagation maps that were submitted do show 7 that there' s a gap in this very area, and we were explaining why the specific height was 8 needed, and we tried to do everything that the code asked us to do to locate it in a 9. permitted area, and we thought we did that . I guess that would be it for now. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We will adjourn this to the 23rd at 1 : 00, and at that 11 time we will have that information and any other information that we feel it relevant at 12 that time . And you will meet with the planning board so that we can get their 13 comments and their review. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Gentleman 14 in the back, you have a question? MR. BLACKMAN: As far as the gap 15 is concerned with the cell phones, I mean, it' s very easy to solve the problem. Go there 16 with the cell phone and see if it works . If it works, there' s no gap . My phone works, his 17 phone works, her phone don' t work, maybe she' s got trouble with her phone, I don' t know. The 18 map is not going to show you whether the phone works or doesn' t work. 19 MS . KOWALSKI : Could I have your name again? 20 MR. BLACKMAN: Edward Blackman, Maple Lane, Mattituck. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Close the hearing now, or we' re going to adjourn the 22 hearing. Going to make a motion to .adjourn the hearing until 1 : 00 p .m. on October 23rd. 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Second. CHAIRMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 24 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Take a five minute break and let anyone in the audience COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 127 1 2 look at the exhibit, then we' ll get back. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I' d like to 3 make a motion to reconvene; all in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 4 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 5 hearing is on behalf of Mary Zupa; is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf 6 of the applicant? Mr. Bressler. MR. BRESSLER: Yes, please, Madam 7 Chairwoman, I would like to be brief today. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just 8 today? MR. BRESSLER: I would like to be 9 brief today in light of all that has transpired. As noted in the published notice, 10 the submissions were made; therefore, I would like to accomplish only two or three things in 11 addition, of course, to persuading you to grant the application, but I' d like to 12 accomplish two or three things today, and that is, Number 1, we've not really had an 13 opportunity to hear from the applicant herself, and I think that given the nature of 14 the application, we' d like to save that until the end of the proceeding. I understand that 15 it' s the Board' s usual procedure that the applicant gets the last bite, and I think I' d 16 like to ask that Mary Zupa be given that opportunity. 17 Before that time I have a few remarks which I' d like to hold in abeyance and 18 I' d like to ask Vic Zupa to address just one or two matters that came up in the 19 submissions . I note that there were simultaneous submissions of the papers and 20 there was not really an opportunity to respond to the matters that were contained therein. 21 To the extent that any of those issues were raised before you before, we' re not going to 22 go into that; to the extent that there were new issues raised that needed to be addressed, 23 and there are only one or two minor points, I would ask Mr. Zupa to do that for the sake of 24 completing the record. When he' s finished I have a few 25 remarks, and that' s basically what we hope to accomplish here today, and then to ask you to COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 128 1 2 close the hearing. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' d like to 3 close the hearing today, we' d like, since there has been a tremendous amount of 4 testimony entered into the record. I appreciate that you would like to be able to 5 respond to any issues that have not been raised prior, I would like to say that both 6 attorneys involved in this, we' re not going to go into a skunk fight over the next two months 7 of you submitting papers and Mr. Angel submitting papers and likewise responding to 8 Mr. Angel' s papers and back and forth. End it today. 9 MR. BRESSLER: We don' t intend to do that, and we intend to limit our remarks 10 strictly to the one or two items that we felt ran to issues of a factual nature . We' re not 11 going to rehash the legal arguments for you, you've got them. They' re there and we' re not 12 going to burden your record, and also, ask that the Board entertain an application, that 13 that apply -- I know you've asked that it apply to the lawyers, I ask that it apply 14 since both sides have a lot of people here, to the extent that people have said things, 15 they've been said, they' re in the record. If there' s something new or different, I guess -- 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If it' s germane to the issue, if it' s not, no. 17 MR. BRESSLER: Absolutely germane to the issue . So with that being said I' d 18 like Mr. Zupa to briefly address the one or two items that are of a factual nature that 19 needed some sort of response and move forward from there . 20 MR. ZUPA: Madam Chairlady, this is Victor Zupa. 21 The first item that I think we need to address is in the memorandums made by 22 the association. They raise the argument with respect to the 1958 code, which states that a 23 marina cannot be a permitted use in a residential district . But it really wasn' t a 24 marina they had, that it was done on the basis of a not-for-profit corporation and without 25 compensation. That is absolutely not true . We have the association minutes dating from COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 129 1 2 1961 up to present; I didn' t include all of them, but I did include the first one, 1961, 3 going through to 1978 . According to Mr. Angel' s memo the cut off point was the 4 1972 amendment showing that fees were, in fact, paid, compensation was, in fact, paid by 5 people who rented docks in the basin. So, . if I may, I have six copies, one for Mr. Angel as 6 well, see that that' s put on the record. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: To the fees 7 for association, membership fees or -- MR. ZUPA: The fees I 'm talking 8 about were not for association membership . They were solely for people renting the docks . 9 Separately there was a dues that was paid and that is the same today. They charge dues and 10 then if you want dock space, you pay a separate fee for that too . 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Members only dock space? 12 MR. ZUPA: That' s quite an interesting question, there are quite a few 13 people who are not members who use the docks, but the people who regularly stay there and 14 rent space are, in fact, members . So, if I may approach and submit 15 this and put this into the record. As you can see from the start, you can quickly look 16 through these papers and see that they are, in fact, association minutes that were maintained 17 by the association, and the first one starts in 1961, and it shows boat dockage rentals as 18 rendered and it has amount there . The second issue, I ' d like to 19 address, is something that I think it' s important for the Board to know, the Members 20 of the Board to know, and I think this really gives an indication by a third party outsider 21 of what is really going on in this hearing and the opposition by members in the Paradise 22 Point Association. It' s a -- I have a memo, a 1996 memo written to Chancy Curry, who is the 23 wife of one of the original developers, Lane Curry. Chancy Curry is recently deceased. 24 It' s a memo written to her by her attorney, Mr. John Ferguson, who is a partner in a 25 British law firm, Blakely, Platt and Schlip, and I have his curriculum vitae . After the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 130 1 2 failed Miller application, Mr. Ferguson was called upon to make some kind of analysis as 3 to what they could do with respect to the three remaining lots that the group of four -- 4 so called -- still held on Paradise Point and that was set off by the 1981 resolution, which 5 I've already -- which we have indicated in the papers we already submitted. Mr. Ferguson 6 went to Paradise Point and interviewed Mr. Scalia, Robert Scalia. He interviewed Mr. 7 Boyd and he interviewed Mr. Senic, and he reports on the contents of these statements 8 with them and makes, at the end makes a recommendation to Chancy Curry, and by the 9 way, I have only within the last two. weeks received permission from both Mr. Ferguson and 10 his client to disclose the contents of this memo. I did call him. I spoke to him on 11 several occasions in the past two weeks and confirmed that he wrote this memo and that he 12 gave it to Chancy Curry. So, if I may just briefly quote 13 from this memo with respect to Mr. Ferguson' s trip to Southold to Paradise Point he states : 14 "In Southold I met for two hours with Bob Scalia, a local realtor and son of 15 John Scalia, an original developer of the property. In two further hours with Messers 16 Boyd and John Senic, " he continues, "according to Ed Boyd, Esq. , all lots are legal building 17 lots . At the time of Miller' s application, Boyd had secured the verbal support of the 18 association board only to be torpedoed at the board meeting by attacks of independent 19 property owners who .succeeded in defeating the application. " 20 Mr. Ferguson further reports on what has been told by Mr. Scalia. He states, 21 "Scalia believes that if a package deal were proposed, to the Paradise Point Association, 22 that the association would approve and support the project and result in eliminating the need 23 for any future applications . " He goes on, "Mr. Boyd observed that if Scalia had the 24 listings on these properties, they would probably sell . As you may recall, I went to 25 grammar school with Bob Scalia; as kids we were neighbors and friends . However, until COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 131 1 2 last Friday, I haven' t seen him in 43 years . As an outsider, I don' t carry the baggage and 3 animosity of the current protagonists of either side . " Then he concludes, "The wild 4 card to the sale and development of lot 16 . 7" -- that' s the lot which is subject to 5 this hearing -- "is the next door neighbor, who obviously likes the status quo and Helen 6 Albieri, another property owner, who thinks she has rights which she clearly does not . 7 Scalia is also reported to be the power behind the thrown, a la a local Machiavelli . 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I find a lot of this is very personal . I find it has 9 really nothing to do with the variance request at hand. If you would like to submit it for 10 the record, fine . There' s no showing of relevance . I made it- very clear to 11 Mr. Bressler, I 've made it very clear to the attorney for the opposition, we' re not going 12 to carry on a neighborhood dispute of personalities, who said what, who didn' t say 13 what, letters from ten years ago. I. said he would do this . This is nonsense . This is a 14 quasi-judicial board. We' re trying to have hearings we' re not trying to have a cat fight 15 among neighbors . Let' s cut it right here and now act like adults and run this court as a 16 court . Period. MR. ZUPA: You' re preaching to 17 the choir. I agree with it one hundred percent . 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I asked at the beginning, I will say it again, next time 19 it will be out of order. MR. ZUPA: Okay. , If I may. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Conclude, quickly. 21 MR. ZUPA: If I can -- he did give advice . 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you want to submit it into the record, we will consider 23 it? MR. ZUPA: Okay. Also attached 24 is the curriculum vitae of Mr. Ferguson. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank .you. 25 Do you have a copy, Mr. Angel? MR. ANGEL: Thank you. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 132 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would anybody else like to speak in favor or against this 3 application? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Bressler. 4 MR. BRESSLER: Thank you. Reserving for the end the applicant . I 5 couldn' t agree with you more, Madam Chairwoman. This is on its face a relatively 6 simple application. Mary Zupa wants to build a house on a lot; that' s what this is all 7 about . There' s almost 80 , 000 square feet there . She has a trustee' s permit, health 8 department approval, it' s in a residential neighborhood. If you've been down there, you 9 know it' s a real nice place for a house . Those are the issues before the Board. 10 Is it appropriate for a house to be down there? The legal issues are : Is it a 11 building lot . I think the evidence before you plainly shows that it' s a building lot . Lot 12 17 across the way has a house going up created at the same time . 13 Does the fact that the group of four who owned it, out of consideration for 14 the neighbors, gave them an easement to put a dock there, destroy their ability to build a 15 house? I don' t think so. He' s here before you, he doesn' t want -- she does not want a 16 variance from any of the area requirements in the code . She doesn' t want anything. It' s 17 set back far enough. It meets all the requirements . This place is suitable for a 18 house . Whatever other disputes the 19 parties may have, prescriptive easements or anything either properly or improperly remains 20 to be seen before the courts . What' s before you are those narrow issues . That' s all I've 21 got to say today. I hope you close the hearing today after hearing from Mary Zupa and 22 render a decision. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 23 anyone who would like to speak against this application? 24 MR. ANGEL: Briefly. Stephen Angel, Esseks, Hefter and Angel for Paradise 25 Point Association. There was one little aspect that I COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 133 1 2 didn' t prepare for, and I' d like to have Mr. Scalia just step up and talk a little bit 3 about the nature of the way the boat basin was operated since that issue has now 4 materialized. It will only take a minute . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that the 5 issue of the fees? MR. ANGEL: Fees, right . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And solely the issues of the fees? 7 MR. ANGEL: Right . Effectively I think he' s going to -- I mean I haven' t 8 prepared him, I was just hoping, I talked to him for a second -- but I believe he' ll say 9 that it wasn' t a profit-making enterprise, that the fees were established for purposes of 10 defraying costs . Mr. Scalia, then I' ll be a minute or two. 11 MR. SCALIA: Robert Scalia, 4550 Paradise Point Road, Southold. 12 Mr. Angel has essentially said it . Over the years we have only charged dues 13 for membership and charged boat fees to offset the cost of dredging, maintaining the docks, 14 maintaining the bulkheads; it' s never been a profit-making basis and that' s all it' s been 15 for. For a period of time we 16 accumulated enough money, we charged ourselves extra so we' d be able to repair the box jetty, 17 which we did about a year ago . But otherwise, the fees are only collected to -- I have no 18 idea what Mr. Zupa' s referring to about outsiders having boats at the dock. We don' t 19 have outsiders, in fact, he did last year. He had the prior owners' boat at this dock for a 20 year. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Not relevant . 21 MR. SCALIA: That was essentially it . 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Angel? MR. ANGEL: I' ll start out with 23 just a minor correction, and in the large submission that was prepared by Mr. Bressler' s 24 office, the one with the cover, on Page 8 , Part 3 , it refers to erroneous statements. made 25 by me in an October 29, 2002 memo. I didn' t generate an October 29, 2002 memo; that' s a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 134 1 2 clear mistake . The memo was generated by Mr. Verity, and that' s what was quoted. I was 3 thinking, and looking at it, and I think it refers to Mr. Verity' s memo, copies of which 4 are all over the record. Secondly, I think I just want to 5 summarize quickly, and I think basically our argument is set forth in detail in the •6 memorandum that I submitted, and what we have before you is that an application' s being made 7 that conflicts with a whole bunch of amenities that have been enjoyed by this community over 8 the years . There is either, however you describe it, whether it' s a marina or private 9 marina or boat basin, people have parked their boats in that lagoon next to the property'. 10 People from all different lots in Paradise Point . People have parked near to that 11 marina. If you look at aerial photographs, and look at some of the discussion on the 12 planning board file, people have turned around on this lot in some fashion. So they' re not 13 stuck in the middle of the subdivision. What we have here is an 14 application that is diametrically opposed to those amenities and it wants to terminate 15 those amenities without consideration, and I think it' s inappropriate . I think the current 16 application as it stands doesn' t consider these important factors that are well 17 established by the documentation. I want to point out some of the 18 circular -- we get to the other, the legal issues . The issue of .the community amenities, 19 does rise to a legal issue in many circumstances, but we get back to that 20 fundamental legal issue that I discussed when I first came here -- the one that, as I said 21 in the minutes, you' re probably tired of hearing me say -- the collateral estoppel 22 erasure preclusion issue . There is also a memorandum by 23 Mr. Bressler on that issue, and Mr. Bressler attempts to get around the erasure preclusion 24 question at least in so far as the prior findings of this Board is concerned, 25 concerning the private marina, by saying, well, you know, we don' t have a problem with . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 135 1 2 that because we' re disregarding the marina. What I wanted to point out to you is 3 the circularity of that argument . What he' s saying to you is that we 4 can get around your prior determination regarding the marina in the 1995 determination 5 by saying the marina shouldn' t exist; therefore there' s no collateral estoppel 6 erasure preclusion, but it requires you to alter that 1995 determination which says the 7 marina does exist . So the argument saying that you should disregard it, effectively asks 8 you to terminate it . It effects you to rewrite the decision that was made in 1995 ; 9 which I 've said from day one, I don' t think you have the authority, I don' t think it' s 10 appropriate for you to do it . I' d be pleased to answer any 11 questions . I don' t want to belabor the record as you have said you have a ton of stuff to 12 look at . If you have any questions, ask me . Thank you. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Anyone else who would like to speak in favor or against 14 the application? Mr. -Miller? MR. MILLER: My name' s James 15 Miller. I live on Paradise Point Road in Southold, and certainly much of the 16 conversation that' s gone on here is about a prior decision that was rendered by this Board 17 earlier on when I filed an application as a contract vendee to purchase and build a home 18 on this site . I was certainly confused as we 19 proceeded through the negotiations we met with members of the Paradise Point Association. We 20 conceded all kinds of arrangements to make parking, to make docking, to acknowledge the 21 fact that the marina use existed, and at the last minute when we came before the Board, we 22 were sandbagged; we were sucker-punched, and a whole bunch of other things took place . And a 23 decision came from this Board that was inconceivable : An adjoining neighbor to 24 Paradise Point Association, who owned nothing, but only had a right of way across the 25 property, would rule an unpermitted existence, they've never gotten permits from the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 136 1 2 trustees, from DEC from any regulatory agency. Their existence was there just 3 because they were members of the community and a wink and a blink allowed it . But for them 4 to go on now and steal a piece of real estate that they never paid for, they never had a 5 right for, it' s really bad government . It really hurts this Board to go forward. The 6 Zupas are a nice family, they deserve a building permit . I urge you please, vote in 7 their favor and give them a right to build a beautiful home . 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Anyone else who would like to speak in favor or against? 9 MS . KOLZER: Andrea Kolzer. Pat Curcuru, she doesn' t like to speak in public, 10 but she wanted to say that she lives in the dead end right where the fence is . She has a 11 circular driveway and all the traffic now has to back up into her driveway. It' s very 12 disruptive, unsafe; her and her husband feel like, you know, walking in the driveway can 13 sometimes get chaotic, and the Fed Ex and the recyclable person, and some others now are 14 backing down the road. This is a very, very, quiet and 15 peaceful neighborhood, believe it or not . You can hear a pin drop at any given time, and to 16 have to be worried about letting your kids not walk that road because people are backing down 17 big trucks that could possibly have major blind spots . It' s terrible . It' s a complete 18 loss of freedom, and we need safety down at the end of that road, and they' re very 19 disturbed. I rent subcompact cars, and I can barely turn around. I have to go into her 20 driveway, I'm sorry to say. It' s a real problem. The dead end issue, please consider 21 that and deny the application. Thank you. MS . KOWALSKI : Any speakers jot 22 your name . MS . CURCURU: I do have one 23 concern. Excavation needed for the swimming pool and the home, I 'm concerned because of 24 the fragile nature of the territory that it might have an effect on the water table and 25 permit incursion of saltwater into the water table and have an adverse effect on my well . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 137 1 2 I'm submitting it as a concern. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 3 very much. Is there anybody else who would 4 like to speak in favor or against the application? Yes, ma' am. 5 MS . ALBERI PINKER: My name' s Mary Alberi Pinker, 4345 Paradise Point Road. 6 And as to my rights, our house has covenants and restrictions attached to the 7 deed, and those covenants and restrictions attached to our deed, which I have always 8 understood to be a legally binding document, give us access to the marina, they give us 9 access to Paradise Point, they give us access to the yacht club, although the gang of four 10 has persistently harassed us every time we have tried to use our rights down on the beach 11 at Paradise Point, and I don' t understand this . 12 Quite frankly, I think the scam is if they take this turnaround away, there' s 13 another turn around right up on Paradise Point, they have posted signs up there saying 14 no trespassing. My brother was down there just the other night, John Senic' s wife came 15 down with his dogs, two big french poodles . We have the right to walk there . I 'm sorry if 16 I'm sort of deflecting things here . But these are not imaginary rights . 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, those rights are properly before the Supreme Court, 18 they are not before this Board, and unfortunately, or fortunately, this Board 19 cannot at this time entertain those . MS . ALBERI PINKER: I just wanted 20 you to know that we' re not trying to pull one over on you. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I understand, but I cut Mr. Zupa off and -- 22 MS . ALBERI PINKER: That' s okay. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORO: Is there 23 anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against the application? 24 MR. KLEIN: Mark Klein from 3595 Paradise Point Road. 25 Just want to address one thing that Mr. Bressler said, which was that both COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 138 1 2 sides have a lot of people here . Clarify the number of people here on both sides, we 3 actually have people from the -Paradise Point Association, and as far as I can tell, there 4 might be a couple of families there . Families and numbers aren' t necessarily equal . 5 And I just wanted to say one thing, which is in terms of the turnaround, 6 which is a fairly big deal, when we first bought our property three years ago, we 7 basically bought it with the understanding that we could use the marina and we have two 8 kids . The idea was we could actually go there . Once they actually put in the mail box 9 stands and the fence, I don' t feel like it' s safe for my kids to go there anymore and it' s 10 a real loss . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. 11 Anyone else like to speak in favor or against the application? Yes, ma' am. 12 MS . 'BARR: I live at 200 Basin Road. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Your name, please? 14 MS . BARR: Doreen Barr. MS . KOWALSKI,: I didn' t get your 15 name . Please jot down your name . MS . BARR: Doreen Barr. Anyway, I 16 just want to support the fact that Basin Road has become a little bit, more dangerous now 17 since the turnaround is gone at the end of the road for the kids . And I have, you know, a 18 ten year old, because of the trucks that have to back down the length of the road and that 19 has become a real issue this summer. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Someone else, 20 anyone else who would like to speak in favor or against this application? 21 MS . ALBERI : I'm Helen Alberi . 4345 Paradise Point Road. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Alveri? MS . ALBERI : A-L-B-E-R-I . 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. MS . ALBERI : I find as I go 24 through Southold, no matter where you go, if there is a dead end, that regardless of 25 whether it' s the dead end of a farm or a meadow or anything like that, you have to have COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 139 1 2 a turnaround, and I just don' t understand why this is not a fact to all these people in this 3 room; that you cannot close off a turnaround. Is that logical? 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: As I said before, I believe the issue of the turnaround 5 and the prescriptive easement is before Judge Catterson at this time . That' s all I can say 6 at this time . MS . ALBERI : So as a result if you 7 had it all over Southold or where ever else in this world and you have a dead end, you have 8 to have a turn around. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 9 very much, ma' am. Is there anyone else? MR. COLLIER: My name is Steve 10 Collier, and I reside also at 4380 Paradise Point Road. I just want to comment again with 11 a reminder, that the posture and position of the members of the association throughout this 12 process has been, we believe, a defensive posture; that this entire set of controversy 13 is not anything that anyone in the association was looking to be involved with, but rather, 14 we have felt throughout the process, and I think I speak for everyone, that we continue 15 feel that we strictly are in a mode of attempting to conserve and preserve rights 16 that have been enjoyed for many decades . And I won' t go into anything, I think the record 17 will reflect, it does reflect through the submissions the strength of what we believe to 18 be the legal arguments, in support of these propositions, that we have these rights . 19 As I mentioned in one of the past hearings, we think the courts did the proper 20 juridical bodies to decide ultimately who has the legal rights that we' re asserting we have . 21 We think they will come out in our favor. But again, procedurally I just want to remind the 22 members that from the standpoint of the association, apart from emotions that have 23 sometimes developed in expressions of positions, that we believe is that we have 24 been strictly in a position of defensiveness here, that we' re not looking for any of these 25 controversies; and that, in fact, we do profoundly believe that there are fundamental COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 140 1 2 and long term rights that have been threatened here . And I guess I would only cite one of 3 the latest submissions from the applicant, which states I believe quite clearly that the 4 changed circumstances that is pointing to as existing between now, looking back to the 195 5 proceeding, is the fact that the basin usage for boats -- whether I'm using the terminology 6 of basin use or boat use or what have you -- is fundamentally being proposed to be 7 eliminated. And that 'that elimination entirely based on usage appears to be an 8 expressed cornerstone of what is cited as a new application; and that seems in our mind to 9 very much underscore the position we find ourselves in, which is clearly that we have no 10 choice to preserve these rights than to speak out . Thank you very much. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I's there anyone else, Mrs . Zupa? 12 MRS . ZUPA: Members of the ZBA, I am Mary Zupa, and I am the applicant . I live 13 at 365 Basin Road, Southold. Almost all of the comments that 14 have been made here by members of Paradise Point Association, such as Mr. Scalia, Mrs . 15 Alberi and her daughter, Miss Pinker, are not related to zoning issues . They are personal . 16 They are personal and they' re based on fabrication. While comments such as these are 17 not proper before this Board, they have been placed on the record. Therefore, I must 18 respond to them. I have been coming to Southold 19 since 1947 . That's 56 years . My parents and other relatives are buried in St . Patrick' s 20 Cemetery. When we purchased our home on Basin Road in 1998, we moved from Washington, D. C. , 21 not from New York City as Mr. Scalia has stated. We have a home still in New Canaan, 22 Connecticut . In January 2001, we decided to 23 purchase land to build a year round home . It was neither a long range nor sinister plan as 24 Mr. Scalia has stated. The lot we purchased adjacent to our present home was offered to us 25 for sale by the owners since they knew we were actively looking for a home site . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 141 1 2 Mr. Scalia told you we never paid our dues . That is not true . Up to 2001, we 3 were members of the Paradise Point Association. We paid both a dock fee for our 4 own dock and dues . My husband was a member of the 5 board of directors . Indeed, he was head of the basin and on three other committees . He' s 6 had several responsibilities including that of dredging the basin. He was commended several 7 times for the work he had done . While it did not make sense, we paid a dock fee even though 8 we had just paid to build our own dock and a new bulkhead. We also paid for our own water 9 and our own electricity. The then president, Mr. Curcuru, stated that the association had 10 always collected fees for its docks since 1962 . When we discovered our dues and dock 11 fees were being used for legal fees against us, we dropped our membership. 12 Mr. Alberi stated that we have attempted to have Mrs . Alberi, an 80 year old 13 woman arrested. That is not true, when she and her daughter, Miss Pinker tore down 14 signs -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This hearing 15 is concluded. Mr. Bressler, I warned you. I 16 told you I would allow Mrs . Zupa to give closing arguments because she' s the applicant, 17 but to respond to the personal innuendos that have gone on this hearing, this is a disgrace . 18 MRS . ZUPA: May I? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And it is a 19 disgrace all the way across, and it stops here and now. I told you before. The hearing is 20 over. MR. BRESSLER: I think that the 21 applicant, who has not been heard from during any of these proceedings -- 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The applicant has and we are simply carrying on 23 name-calling. MR. BRESSLER: There was an 24 allegation made, and there is nothing in the record to address these allegations . She has 25 remained silent for months, and are you going to deny her the opportunity to say, no, it COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 142 1 2 didn' t happen? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Accept it 3 in writing. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We will 4 accept it in writing, Mr. Bressler, but we have gone on and on. I have never witnessed 5 such nonsense . MRS . ZUPA: May I make a comment? 6 MR. BRESSLER: This is the applicant . 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORO : This is the applicant and then Mr. So and So is going to 8 say I would' like to respond to this . MR. BRESSLER: No. 9 MRS . ZUPA: May I make a comment? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This has 10 nothing to do with the variance . MRS . ZUPA: All right . Now I will 11 make a comment, please . I 've been coming here a long time . 12 I grew up here with a very large family. We have many, many people in the community that 13 are -- that stayed out here, married out here . I don' t want, 50 years from now, my 14 grandchildren looking through these files, seeing what these people have said about 15 myself and ,my husband that. are not true . I don' t want that to be a historical fact, not 16 placed on the record. What they have said, Mrs . Tortora, 17 has gone to the core of my family, which is why I requested that my three sisters and 18 brothers-in-law be with me today. It is so painful and so untrue . If I don' t put it on 19 the record, if I am not able to state -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Can you 20 submit it to us in writing? We will be more than happy to take it in the record. 21 MRS . ZUPA: You will put it exactly in this hearing as I would have stated 22 it? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yes . 23 MRS . ZUPA: The way everything Bob Scalia said about me, everything Kevin Barr 24 said about me, even the Colliers? Everything these people have said about me will be 25 printed in the record as my response? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Things have COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 143 1 2 been said about these people as well . MRS . ZUPA: However, they have 3 had the opportunity and they have answered. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Off the 4 record. (Whereupon, there was an 5 off-the-record discussion. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The Board 6 would like to accept it in writing, and it will be read into the transcript; is that 7 sufficient? MRS . ZUPA: Thank you, Madam 8 Chair. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORO: You have a 9 prepared statement there . Would you like to turn that in now? 10 MRS . ZUPA: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, I am 11 going to make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision. 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 13 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor. ) 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This hearing is closed. 15 The next hearing is on behalf of Caroline and Nicolo DeBartolo. Is someone 16 here who would like to speak on behalf of that application? 17 MR. DIBARTOLO: Yes, ma' am. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just a moment . 18 MS . KOWALSKI : Just like to ask that everybody who speaks, please write your 19 name and residence address on the pad. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. DiBartolo, 20 I would like to make a couple of comments . The Board had requested that we reopen this 21 hearing to be able to clarify the issues that were raised at the public hearing concerning 22 the safety and adequacy of the bridge, and to insure that it was constructed in a manner 23 that would safely accommodate fire trucks . I see that you did provide us with 24 an engineer' s report . We should get a copy of the engineer' s report certifying that the 25 bridge would carry -- and before I read it, I'm going to, I was just looking for the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 144 1 2 engineer' s report -- ten tons, that it will support an axle load of ten tons, and we also 3 received from you a traffic report, an engineer' s traffic report, which, if anyone in 4 the audience would like or has not reviewed it it is, of course, available in the files . 5 I just said that we have received an engineer' s report, certified engineer' s 6 report stating that the bridge was capable of holding ten tons, five ton per axle; and we 7 also received a certified engineer' s traffic study, and that if any of the information that 8 we had, you have not had an opportunity to review in the file, you' re welcome to review 9 it or look at it or anything else . We have not received a letter from 10 the fire department at this point . The DiBartolos -- I 'm telling you, according to 11 the submissions that we have received -since then, have done, met with the fire department 12 and done substantial clearing at the fire department' s request to. meet their 13 specifications for the trucks . Would you like to bring us up to 14 date as far as where you are with the fire department, Mr. DeBartolo? 15 MR. DIBARTOLO: You' re absolutely right in terms of the two issues that brings 16 us to this date and the meeting. The merging of the lots was one of them, and the adequacy 17 of the fire department in terms of what the bridge and the driveway will hold. 18 I would like to make a general comment referring to the merging of the lots . 19 Apparently the conclusion had been reached that the lots are merged. As such, we' re 20 talking about as a single lot of 18 acres that borders on one public street, Condor Court . 21 As such, we believe that the fire department has a certain amount of responsibility to 22 address any protection that is required once that lot is reached, which, of course, is 23 reachable through Condor Court, a public street . 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Who determined the lots were merged? 25 MR. DIBARTOLO: I 'm sorry? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Who COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 145 1 2 determined the lots were merged? . MR. DIBARTOLO: Based on what I 3 had read on the file that had been sent to this Board and the letter to the assessors' 4 office indicating that it is the intention of this Town .to merge those lots, and that letter 5 I believe is on record. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Your attorney 6 had sent us a letter pointing out that your lot, your house lot is 40 , 000 square feet? 7 MR. DIBARTOLO: I 'm sorry? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have a 8 letter in your file from your attorney stating that your house lot is .40 , 000 square feet and 9 the codes said all lots are merged except a lot which is 40 , 000 square feet, and in which 10 case it would not be . I believe that letter is in the file . 11 MR. DIBARTOLO: That is in the file and the assessor' s letter is in the file . 12 So I'm not clear which really rules at this point, but the bottom line is it is an 18 acre 13 that I'm dealing with, and it does border on the public street . To that extent, I believe 14 the fire department has a certain amount of responsibility to meet the conditions of 15 protecting what is on that particular lot . However, I may go on to address 16 the other question relative to the safety of the driveway. We had been in contact with the 17 fire department, the fire chiefs and the fire commissioners, and so has our attorney -- and 18 by the way, I do apologize, the attorney had precommitments for this week and he couldn' t 19 make it -- and we have not received the final response from the commissioners from the fire 20 district . We did have the fire chief and the assistant fire chief come to the property; 21 they walked the driveway with us and indicated what needed to be done to widen it, and we did 22 that and we sent -you documentation to that effect . 23 Basically, what we did is we removed some trees, widened the driveway to a 24 15 by 15 regular requirement, and I understand this is the Town' s requirement for any access 25 roadway, so we made our driveway similar to a roadway access in terms of width and COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 146 1 2 requirement . So the driveway itself is adequate . 3 As far as the bridge .is concerned, we have an engineer' s certificate which I have 4 just indicated it has a capacity of ten tons per axle. We have not received any 5 conclusatory remarks from the fire district, which apparently appears to have a 6 difference -- there' s a difference of opinion between the fire commissioners and the fire 7 chief as to what is adequate in terms of the bridge, but the certified engineer' s report 8 does state that it can hold essentially ten tons per axle . Essentially this will carry 9 just about any fire department vehicle it has; perhaps not the biggest ones, but, after all, 10 we' re not protecting the high school; we' re protecting a home, a single home, a single 11 use . But we have done everything in our 12 power to be able to get some additional information from the fire department and the 13 fire district to say, yes, this is adequate . Our attorney has been in contact with them. 14 We have gone to a public hearing the fire district had, and the commissioner has 15 indicated that we would hear from the attorneys for the fire district, which 16 apparently is a Mr. Glass in Port Jefferson. Our attorney has been in contact, the attorney 17 has indicated, the attorney for the fire district has indicated that we' ll be in touch 18 with the commissioner and make some recommendation how to respond. We have not 19 received that response . Now to summarize this, without 20 taking too much of your time, essentially I think we've complied, Number one,. with the 21 fire chief' s description of what was needed for the driveway. We have an adequate weight 22 limitation on the bridge, and we have provided everything necessary beyond that, including 23 the traffic study. We feel that you have sufficient 24 information based on everything provided, that you can. make a determination that you have 25 done a public review adequate to be protect the public here . Call it a due diligence COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 147 1 2 review, I understand that this is basically protecting the public, that is fine . We 3 believe up ' til now we submitted sufficient information to come to that conclusion. We 4 think that you can make a decision to approve the application. 5 If, however, we have to leave this open, we have been trying to get detailed 6 information from the fire district; if your information is insufficient for your purposes, 7 then we do need more time to appropriately answer any further detailed representations in 8 terms of the safety of the bridge or the safety of the driveway. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just a moment . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. DeBartolo, I honestly have no objection to 11 your application in any way. I just happen to have been a Mattituck fireman for 30 years, 12 okay? MR. DIBARTOLO: Yes . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had a discussion with one of my commissioners, and 14 it' s my understanding that they are going to submit a letter. I don' t know exactly when 15 they' re going to do this . This discussion was approximately a week or so ago . I have to 16 tell you that I have been charged, and I have been charged with the writing of this 17 decision, and with the right of way qualifications, minimum qualifications that 18 this Board has dealt with since the passing of a board member from Orient who has passed that 19 along to me, and his name is Bob Douglas, and he' s been dead in excess of ten years or 20 thereabouts . So I have been writing all of these specifications . I am not, I have to be 21 honest with .you, I am not an engineer. It concerns me immensely because 22 of the 110 members that we have in this organization and the ability to get those 23 people to your house, 24/7, 12 months of the year, okay, and that is the reason why I have 24 taken an active interest in this . I want you to be aware of one 25 thing. I have a great rapport with all three chiefs, but the district owns the equipment . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 148 1 2 All right . The district buys the equipment . The district supplies the equipment, and the 3 district owns the equipment, and they are elected officials . So, I am still waiting for 4 a letter from the district and that' s where we are, I think, at this juncture, and that' s my 5 discussion, very short discussion with the chairperson couple days ago, and that' s where 6 we are . So, whatever your attorney can do 7 to get the letter from the district, from Mr. Glass, we would appreciate it, okay? 8 MR. DIBARTOLO: Of course . We have been very supportive from your comments 9 from the very beginning. We had absolutely no objections to making it as safe as we possibly 10 can. We have done everything possible but realistically it' s been months, and back and 11 forth and back and forth, and we get no response . It' s not normal for a public agency 12 to respond in that fashion, especially since we did attend the public hearing, and we were 13 told the information had previously been sent to the attorney for the district . 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let me interrupt you for a moment . Mr. DiBartolo, I 15 think the Board should send the fire district commissioners a letter. 16 MR. DIBARTOLO: Would you? I think that only would help because I think 17 everything else we have complied with and let us know we will do whatever is necessary to 18 get this done properly. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The Board 19 will, we will send a letter. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me 20 just reflect on one thing, when the engineer says that the bridge is certified for ten tons 21 per axle, he is saying that or -- it is a he because it' s Mr. Tully, right? 22 MR. DIBARTOLO: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: -- he is 23 saying that if a truck has two axles, it' s then certified for 20 tons? 24 MR. DIBARTOLO: Exactly. But there is another point to that, which, of 25 course, the fire district commissioner needs to review. If it' s a bigger truck and you COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 149 1 2 have three axles, you can' t get three axles on a 24 span. You can only get two axles on a 24 3 span. It' s a small bridge . It has 12 piers underneath it . So what he' s saying is for 4 each axel that' s on there will hold ten tons, but the maximum you can get is two axles, 5 let' s face it, and the truck is longer than 20 feet . 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Most of the trucks are 35 to 40 . 7 MR. DIBARTOLO: Of course . But the rest of the truck is going to be on land 8 not on bridge, so the weight is distributed. I 'm not an engineer either. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How long is the bridge? 10 MR. DIBARTOLO: 20 feet exactly. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what 11 he' s saying is by the time the second axel comes over the bridge, the nose of the truck 12 will already be off the. bridge . MR. DIBARTOLO: Exactly. So 13 you' re dealing with ten tons . The way that bridge is built, I can tell .you this now, I 14 haven' t looked into the possibility of getting another engineer and someone who actually is 15 involved in the actual configuration of the weight to get certified, and can certify what 16 the actual weight is that is that bridge can hold. The ten ton is a minimum, ten ton per 17 axle is the minimum, if anything it would be more. So if you' re going to wait for the fire 18 department letter anyway. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We really 19 have to. That is part of the thing that we discussed before and we wanted to agree to . I 20 do apologize for the late hour. I recognize that you people have waited through several 21 hearings to be here and I apologize . Mr. DeBartolo, why don' t we let 22 some of the neighbors speak, and then we will get back and try to conclude this with the 23 letter from the fire department? MR. DIBARTOLO: That' s fine . And 24 please let me know if I can do anything else . Thank you. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Someone like to speak in opposition? Yes, sir. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 150 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Madam Chair, I have to leave . 3 (Whereupon, Board Member Horning left the hearing room. ) 4 MR. DIACHUM: My name is Ron Diachum. I lived on that property for many 5 years . Actually, when we sold it there was an agreement, repair the barns, repair the house 6 windows, whatever, and never build the house up. And all of a sudden one of my neighbors 7 goes, how do you like the motel . I was like what? I went and took a look at it . It 8 actually looks like a motel . I mean, if they can get away with 9 their property doing this zone business, I' d like to make mine, I got 17 acres, mine and my 10 mom' s, and I' d like to build my business too. You know, make a trailer park, summer cottages 11 something like that, cause I don' t -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Bed and 12 breakfasts are permitted use in residential district . It' s not a business district . It' s 13 not a business use . MR. DIACHUM: It' s making money.. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: As we discussed at the last hearing, your objection 15 to the use of it as a bed and breakfast in residential districts, the Town Board, enacted 16 that law many, many years ago and already made a legislative finding that it' s allowable, 17 which is allowable by some permit . That' s why they' re here . We have a number of bed and 18 breakfasts throughout this community, but it is not a commercial use in our codes . 19 MR. DIACHUM: It' s not making money then? 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I didn't create the law. I didn' t write it . 21 MR. DIACHUM: So I can make money on my property too. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORO : If you would like to have a bed and breakfast, apply to the 23 Board, get a special permit, yes, you are allowed to. 24 MR. DIACHUM: Right away, that property doesn' t go through Laurel Wood. It 25 goes to my property down North Oakwood Drive . It doesn' t go to Laurel COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 151 1 2 Wood at all ' cause we tried it one time, my father tried it, and it didn' t work. Now all 3 of a sudden it works . It goes through North Oakwood Drive and also the Main Road. There' s 4 no Laurel Wood access to that property, legally. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORO : Mr. Goehringer. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Regarding that? 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think 8 the issue here is is Laurel Wood, is the second phase, is that a public road? 9 MR. DIACHUM: Now it is . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think 10 that' s one of the issues here, that' s still an issue that' s still unresolved. 11 MR. DIACHUM: Go through North Oakwood Drive and go to the Main Road. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm just saying that that' s one of the issues that' s 13 unresolved. MR. DIACHUM: I request, if 14 there' s a bed and breakfast there, I request a six foot fence all around my property that I 15 don' t get no neighbors roaming around my land. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Thank you. 17 MR. DIACHUM: My property and my mom' s property. Thank you. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against 19 the application? MR. TAOIMINA: How do you do, 20 folks, my name' s Matthew Taoimina. I live at 1100 White Eagle Drive . With the 10 , 000 -- 21 what is it ten ton? Ten ton thing on the axles, when a vehicle of that size is moving, 22 that' s going to create force . I mean, if you' re just driving slowly across the bridge 23 with ten ton axle, I can see that, if you' re moving with a fire truck with water that 24 sloshes around and creates force of its own, I don' t know if that ten ton is going to be 25 applicable in that use . So it is a danger and him saying COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 152 1 2 that well, you know, only the biggest trucks can go down, well, listen it' s going to be a 3 danger for a fireman. If they need that big truck to perform a rescue or something of 4 that nature then that bridge should support the biggest truck. 5 Other things that, if that' s all that this Board is addressing at this time, 6 there are other neighborhood concerns that we have referenced, the bed and breakfasts, that 7 there are two other accesses to the bed and breakfast, I don' t know why this gentleman 8 insists on using our access . My biggest concern is you have people coming through our 9 neighborhoods, they' re not buying into that neighborhood in any way. They have no stake 10 in it, and let' s face it, people who are coming out here to vacation, to visit the 1.1 wineries things like that, we don' t need people that don' t have. a stake in our 12 neighborhood, driving through our neighborhood after they have been to a winery, maybe had a 13 few too many, and don' t mind driving through our neighborhood at fast speeds ' cause what 14 the heck, they' re only here for a weekend or whatever. That' s a big concern of most of the 15 neighbors, if not all of the neighbors . Other than that, if they want the 16 bed and breakfast where they are, God bless them, as long as they have safe access and 17 preferably not through our neighborhood. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you 18 know if the roads through Section 2 were dedicated yet; does the Town own them? 19 MR. TAOIMINA: I'm not sure whether it was or -- 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does the Town maintain them now? 21 MR. TAOIMINA: They plow. them, that would be true . If they do plow them, I 22 would assume they have been dedicated. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 23 very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak against this application? 24 MR. ERICKSON: I ' ll speak. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, sir. 25 MR. ERICKSON: My name is Christopher Erickson. I have a parcel of land COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 153 1 2 at 1250 White Eagle Drive . My concern is similar to Mr. 3 Taoimina, it comes back to good neighbors . If you have an access, if there' s an access to 4 North Oakwood Drive, why not go up that way and avoid the whole neighborhood altogether, 5 instead of having people that have no vested interest in the neighborhood coming through. 6 I don' t know how large -- this is my first meeting I don' t know how large the proposed 7 bed and breakfast is . How many rooms he' s looking for; do you have that available? 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s a three bedroom bed and breakfast . Three 9 bedrooms . MR. ERICKSON: How big a 10 dwelling are we looking at here? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s in the 11 existing house . The code allows up to five bed and breakfasts, so they' re not proposing 12 the maximum by any means . They' re proposing a smaller bed and breakfast . 13 MR. ERICKSON: Thank you. Has that been brought up about a North Oakwood 14 access; can you avoid the whole Laurel Wood and White Eagle Drive, I mean this way it' s a 15 one way in and one way out? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have . 16 That was discussed at the first hearing, I believe, and there was a number of .problems 17 with that because of the distance, the road;' there were a lot, that was considered to be a 18 lot longer. I guess the real issue is that the access that they' re proposing, they' re 19 public roads, and as much as you may not feel comfortable having that traffic for the three 20 bed and breakfasts going through your road, they' re permitted to do so because it is a 21 public road and -- MR. ERICKSON: Okay. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You really can' t say, okay, we' re going to discriminate 23 against these people and not allow them to have access to the same road that you have . 24 They' re public roads they' re not private roads . 25 MR. ERICKSON: Okay. And the main concern obviously is the fire . Anyone COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 154 1 2 that' s been to any kind of fire scene knows that if they roll equipment, and if they need 3 equipment you can' t get it in there, limited space . They might have that fire vehicle park 4 some axles on that bridge . I've been to scenes where you park, you have limited space, 5 small area, and if the ladder vehicle has to get in there, it could be from Southold Town, 6 mutual aid come from somewhere else, and if you need that equipment that can' t get in 7 there, CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' re going 8 to wait and hear from the fire department . This access was chosen because it is the most 9 direct access . If there is any problems whatsoever about inaccess, the Board will look 10 at other alternatives because our charge in this instance is to insure that the public 11 health, safety and welfare of the community, we will do that . 12 MR. ERICKSON: Thank you for your time . 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. Mr. DiBartolo, I have a suggestion. We' re 14 going to write the letter to the Board, to the fire district to get their input . In fairness 15 to you, you will want some type of opportunity to respond; do you want to leave this open to 16 written comments for another 30 days; is that a fair thing for everyone in the audience? 17 And, of course, you' re all welcome to come review the file and to go through any new 18 submissions; is that fair? MR. DIBARTOLO : What we would like 19 because the fire department has not responded, your own volition, simply extend the time to 20 send the information. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We are . We' re 21 going to send the letter. We' re allowing you another 30 days, however, to comment on 22 whatever they say, and as is customary to allow anyone in the audience to submit any 23 written comments if. they would like to do so; is that fair? 24 MR. DIBARTOLO: That' s fine . MS . KOWALSKI : Can we do 30 days? 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We can' t do 30 days because we land on a weekend. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 155 1 2 MR. DIBARTOLO: There is a another comment I would like to add if I may. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm sorry? MR. DIBARTOLO: There is another 4 comment I would like to add, if I may, in response to other comments that were recently 5 made . The question about the Laurel Wood access has been said; we went through the 6 permit application process when the bridge was built . There is no question about access, 7 that is, in fact, a public road, dedicated road. It borders right on the property and it 8 is the only full-size road available . The discussion related to the 9 North Oakwood, that the Board members are not familiar with. It' s a one lane road. It' s a 10 private street basically, private street that belongs to the members . It' s a one lane road 11 that goes all the way down to Laurel Wood, and if the fire trucks can' t get in through the 12 driveway that exists now, believe me, they will never be able to get in from the other 13 end. Because at the other end it borders right along the wetlands and there just 14 wouldn' t be sufficient room. Besides it was mentioned at the 15 last meeting, I think we had one of the witnesses from the area, Mrs . Novak, which is 16 right on my corner that probably had complained vehemently about the trucks or cars 17 passing by. In this particular situation any vehicle will pass right behind her property to 18 get into North Oakwood, even though we believe we do have access going back with an old map 19 that existed in the Town of Southold. I have nothing further. Thank you 20 very much. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. 21 I'm going to make a motion -- I 'm sorry. MS . SCHANTZ : My name is Jane 22 Schantz . I live on Condor Court . I don' t understand or maybe I'm just ignorant of the 23 fact whether or not if this is a special permit, is there discretionary by the Board to 24 approve or disapprove this because of the feelings in the neighborhood, or is it 25 automatically approved as long as they meet all the requirements? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 15E 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Special Exception is a use which is permitted by law 3 providing the applicant meets all the conditions in the code; that' s what a special 4 permit is . So to answer your question, if he meets all the conditions in the code, he gets 5 a permit . I don' t have a copy of the code 6 here, but there are a number of conditions we are concerned with, and one of the main 7 concerns that we have specified in the code is fire access . That' s one of the reasons -- 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Fire and emergency. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Fire and emergency vehicles that' s one of the reasons 10 why we are looking at that very carefully. MS . SCHANTZ : So basically the 50 11 or 70 families that are going to be part of their access, don' t get a voice in whether 12 they approve this or not? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No. We have 13 listened very carefully to all of your concerns . This is a statement we don' t ever 14 want a bed and breakfast in our neighborhood, is that justification enough for us to turn it 15 down? No, it isn' t . MS . SCHANTZ : My understanding in 16 speaking to someone with legal knowledge was that a B and B, the intent of the code and the 17 law was not to put it in a private residential area. It was more of the intent to put it in 18 the main street in a big old home to revitalize the area, bring people in that will 19 walk to the stores and the restaurants . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s not 20 what our town code says . I don' t know who you spoke to, but believe me when I say that the 21 town codes, bed and breakfasts are permitted in R40, R80 , R200, they' re permitted in 22 virtually -- I'm trying to think of any districts they' re not permitted in, which 23 might be a marine district, but there' s nothing in the town code which says they 24 should only be in hamlet areas or shore front areas . Maybe if there is something that you 25 feel that the town code should be changed, but I think you've been given misinformation. J COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 157 1 2 I'm trying to be as straight as I can with you so you' re not under any -- 3 MS . SCHANTZ : This is why I 'm asking. I'm quite actually ignorant . 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Most of us were . Don' t feel had. 5 MS . SCHANTZ : I've never been a part of this before . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s okay, you' re not expected to. 7 MS . SCHANTZ : And I certainly don' t, Mrs . DiBartolo said to me one time it' s 8 been her long held dream to have a B and B, and I certainly wouldn' t want to get in the 9 way of that . My long held dream was to move to a dead end where there' s only four houses 10 on the road, and I don' t have to worry .about traffic for my children, and that' s why we 11 picked that lot . And they feel that it' s only going to be three cars a day, but they only 12 serve breakfast, so they will be going in and out, for the beach or wineries or whatever, 13 and that is a concern to a neighborhood, which is filled with children. 14 But I also don' t want to beat my head against a brick wall . If voicing my 15 opinions, and the opinions -- unfortunately a lot of our neighbors could not even come 16 because of the work. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The Board has 17 taken all of your concerns into consideration, please don't think otherwise . 18 MS . SCHANTZ : Okay. One more thing. I know a B and B is not considered a 19 business use, but with this property will there be able to ever have another country inn 20 built there? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There are no 21 country inn permits in our code . It' s not a permitted use in our code . So the answer to 22 that question is no, not at this time . MS . SCHANTZ : Thank you. 23 -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. , 24 I 'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserving a decision and to 25 leave -- or rather to close the hearing to verbatim testimony, and to leave it open for COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 158 1 2 written comments until September 18th, at which time we will close the hearing. 3 BOARD MEMBER' ORLANDO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 4 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. 6 (Time ended: 4 : 30 p.m. ) 7 8 9 10 11 . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 159 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 4 5 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for 6 the State of New York, do hereby certify: 7 THAT the within transcript is a true 8 record of the testimony given. 9 I further certify that I am not related by 10 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to 11 this action; and 12 THAT I am in no way interested in the 13 outcome of this matter. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 15 hand this 21st day of August; 2003 . 16 17 18 19 i Florence V. Wiles 20 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047