HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/15/2004 Hearing I �� J,
V"Lll'd`•
2kP TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
3
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
July 15 , 2004
12 9 : 30 a .m.
13 Board Members Present
14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
15 LYDIA TORTORA, Board Member
16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
17 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
18 LINDA KOWALSKI , Board Secretary
19
F
20 Absent : Board Member Vincent Orlando RECEIVED
21 SEP 2 2004
22
S®uth®ld T®Wn Clerk
23
24 r®RIGIMQL -
d
25 AUG 2 6 2004
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to call to
order our regularly scheduled meeting of July 15,
3 2004 .
The first hearing is Elaine Nesin on Gull
4 Pond Lane . They wish to build a home and
relinquish their right to live on their boat . Is
5 someone here to speak for it?
MS . GALLAGHER: •Hi, Courtney Gallagher
6 representing Elaine and Arthur Nesin.
In front of you they have signed a letter
7 saying they have given up their rights to live on
the boat . It' s just going to be used for
8 recreational purposes . In the previous covenant
that was written up in 1978 , 1975, it was two
9 boats to be docked there for residential purposes,
living on those boats . There will only be one
10 boat docked on their dock, and they will not be
living on that boat . So as far as the use
11 variance that we' re requesting, if there' s any
other information you need from me, please just
12 let me know.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It was clear to me
the reason why the building inspector denied this
14 was that as a condition to a variance to a special
exception you covenanted the land, or the
15 applicant did, so that no house could be built
there at the same time the boat was there . And I
16 could find nothing in the Town that says this .is
not a buildable lot . There is a mention, a
17 reference to it in the decision in the Planning
Board, but I could find no reference that said
18 this particular lot in this neighborhood is not a
buildable lot . So I have no objection whatsoever
19 to granting or rescinding the special exception or
however we go about it and letting this individual
20 building a home .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
21 MS . TORTORA: As long as we don' t end up
two uses on this property.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just don' t
23 know if need be -- and I have no qualms about the
present applicants, I'm talking about subsequent
24 owners -- I don' t know if it would involve the
filing of a covenant with the county clerk, that
25 that covenant goes along with the deed that there
be no occupying of any watercraft simultaneously
July 15, 2004
3
1
2 with living in a home on the site .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can make that a
3 condition.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that
4 would be a positive way of doing it, and it would
clear up any future issues that may occur with
5 this owner or any subsequent owners .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would be
6 concerned about restricting this lot to anything
other than what any other person could do in this
7 neighborhood.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s what we' re
8 saying.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re putting in
9 the decision that this person can' t have people
sleeping on that boat .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Living on the boat .
SST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: You could revoke
11 the prior special exception.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s what I
12 think we ought to do.
ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: Bring you to
13 the status quo.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How do we handle
14 the covenant?
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : There was nothing
15 given that there was a covenant already filed on
the first special exception.
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : There' s one
already. I'm really learning about this covenants
1,7 thing. My concern is when these people go to sell
it, are these people going to have a covenant
18 saying that it' s not a buildable lot .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Are you aware of a
19 C and R filed with the county?
MS . GALLAGHER: With the county no, with
20 the Town.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Then the covenant
21 would be revoked when the permit is revoked,
correct?
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe we just
mention that in the decision that that covenant
23 required --
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We' re revoking the
24 permit which also includes the covenant which was
included in the permit . Simple .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Whatever is
July 15, 2004
4
1
2 easier. I just don' t want to have this situation
in the future with these lots and in general with
3 any future waterfront lots that we may grant
houses on. It' s basically the same situation.
4 It' s a substandard lot, and we' re not expecting
anybody to live in the boat; we' re expecting them
5 to use the boat for recreational propers .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to make a
6 motion closing the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
7 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Diana
Fischer who wishes to build a house on North Lane
9 in East Marion that' s less than 50 feet from the
property line .
10 MR. HERMANN: Robert Hermann of
EN-Consultants, 1319 North Sea Road in
11 Southampton.
We are here this morning asking for
12 variance relief because despite the fact that the
area of the subject parcel is significantly larger
13 than what is required by the R40 zone and that of
the neighboring parcels in the surrounding
14 community, a relatively limited lot depth exists
due to a number of factors,_ primarily those
15 associated with the wetlands with Marion Lake .
The lot, first of all, was nearly five
16 times as long as it is wide and its maximum lot
depth in the center of the parcel is about 170
17 feet . But when you take away from that depth the
freshwater wetlands along the boundary of Marion
18 Lake the 75 foot non-disturbance,
non-fertilization buffer that has been imposed by
19 the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, the restriction that the contractor
20 cannot clear within this buffer or disturb it in
any way, even temporarily during construction and
21 finally take away the 50 foot setback requirement
pursuant to zoning, the effective depth of your
22 building envelope is reduced to approximately 32
feet . These restrictions associated with the
23 wetlands are critical for the Board to bear in
mind because without those restrictions we
24 wouldn' t need to be here asking for zoning relief .
Now, even with these restrictions the more
25 than 2 . 3 acre size would still in theory afford
and typically invite a substantially larger
July 15 , 2004
5
1 �
2 development proposal than what Miss Fischer has
proposed; but rather than sprawl the development
3 out along the roadway, Miss Fischer is proposing a
relatively modest footprint of 1, 800 square feet
4 including the carport and porch, with no accessory
structures and is essentially proposing to contain
5 and cluster this development within a defined
area. While doing so creates the need for greater
6 relief than we would have to request or perhaps
even request at all for a much longer, skinnier
7 house, we believe we' re offering a greater benefit
to both the environment and the character of the
8 neighborhood under the current proposal by
essentially, one, creating a developed area that' s
9 much more similar to that of the surrounding lots;
and two, allowing more than two acres of woodlands
10 and much of the property' s frontage along North
Road to remain natural and undisturbed.
11 In short, if you look at the development
of the surrounding lots, some of these are easily
12 50 feet from the road, others are much less than
50 feet from the road. They' re very close to the
13 road but the development is substantially similar
on all lots . The development is contained within
14 a particular area, typically with a one or two
story dwelling and a garage .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: With the map, Mr.
Hermann, so the house will be just about where on
16 the property, if you could point?
MR. HERMANN: If you look at the survey
17 that was submitted, it' s kind of right here in the
center where you' re going to get the greatest lot
18 depth, and there' s about a 9, 000 square foot area
where all the development in the lot is going to
19 be contained. The point I'm trying to make is
that in order to achieve a greater -- let me say
20 this first, the wetlands compel us to be here for
almost any dwelling, but in order to get a better
21 setback from the road or to avoid asking for
variance relief at all, Miss Fischer could
22 build, certainly at greater expense, but could
build a much longer, skinnier house along North
23 Road rather than keeping a compact house here and
asking for variance relief . We think that given
24 how much of this area right now along this roadway
is undisturbed woodlands, Miss Fischer is
25 basically saying she' s willing to maintain almost
all of that . It' s over 55, 000 square feet that' s
July 15 , 2004
6
1
2 in a nondisturbance buffer zone . So we think it' s
a better idea for the community to cluster the
3 development within a confined area and leave all
the rest of the area to the east and west in a
4 natural condition. It will maintain the woodland
appearance, it will maintain people' s views
5 through that, particularly in the winter, of
Marion Lake, so one way or the other we have to
6 come to the Board and our suggestion is that the
very modest proposal to contain the development
7 within one area of the property would be
preferable to building a long, skinny house even
8 at the gain of getting a greater setback from the
road.
9 So that' s what we would like the Board to
approve . Miss Fischer is here, her builder Peter
10 DiNicola is here, if the Board does have any
questions about what we' re proposing to do.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 've seen the
12 property, it' s absolutely beautiful as the
chairperson has stated and I have absolutely no
13 objection.
MR. HERMANN: Thank you.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Tortora?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I am looking at the
15 survey. I just want to go through a couple
things . The survey shows 146, 390 and 171 along
16 North Lane?
MR. HERMANN: 146 feet and 390 feet and
17 171, yes .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So in essence you
18 have 707 feet plus/minus on North Road and of that
707 feet along North Road, you are requesting a
19 variance on 55 . 2 feet or let' s round it up to 60,
whatever, it' s a very small variance .
20 MR. HERMANN: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s a two foot
21 variance; it' s diminimus . I have no objection. I
think you have done a remarkable job in trying to
22 comply with all the regulations and I have no
objections whatsoever.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No objections .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I will concur with
everybody. It' s a beautiful piece of property and
25 you have tried to locate it with the best depth
that you could. I have no objections either.
July 15 , 2004
7
1
2 MR. HERMANN: Chairwoman, at the risk of
unnerving my client, I want to be clear that the
3 front yard setback is 50 feet, it' s not a two foot
front yard variance we' re asking for. Everything
4 else you have said is true, but I don' t want to
have the decision challenged on a technicality.
5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But the disapproval
actually states that it is 35 feet .
6 MR. HERMANN: It does, but there was an
amended notice that was issued and Miss Kowalski
7 has that in her file .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
8 in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this application? If not, I' ll make a
9 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
10 (See minutes for resolution. ) .
• -- -----------------------------------------------
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for
David Hoffman on Ruch Lane who really just wants
12 to fill in just a small area there for a kitchen,
if I 'm not mistaken.
13 Mr. Samuels, how are you this morning?
MR. SAMUELS : Very good. And you' re not
14 mistaken that is exactly the point of the project
and that is to in-fill 21 square foot open but
15 covered porch and include it in the kitchen area
of the house, and would not increase the
16 nonconformity with regards to the setback from the
property line because there is a fully enclosed
17 kitchen; which is that same setback from the side
yard, and we will not be increasing the footprint,
18 just enclosing an open porch.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to
mention two things, the exact square footage of
22 that is how much?
MR. SAMUELS : 21, . 3 ' by 7' .
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I just
have to write this one .
24 MR. SAMUELS : (Handing cards . )
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a
25 one-story structure?
MR. SAMUELS : Correct .
July 15 , 2004
8
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The setback at
that point is what is depicted on your site plan
3 is 45' 10"?
MR. SAMUELS : That' s correct .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
5 in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this application? If not, I' ll make a
6 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
7 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
the Lufranos, who are on Lupen Drive, that wish to
9 put a new garage, new front steps and a covered
porch proposed within the nonconforming 40 foot
10 front yard area . Is there anybody here to speak
to this application?
11 MR. WEST: Good morning, Dan West, and I'm
be representing Lenny and Lucille Lufrano .
12 They are requesting a variance of two
and-a-half feet, and the survey they' re
13 encroaching two and-a-half feet with their garage .
We' re keeping the front line of the house the
14 same, but due to the 40 foot setback, they' re
going to be 37 . 2 feet now.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which is rather small .
You have that whole lot going around Lupen Drive?
16 MR. WEST: Right, it' s a_ corner lot . The
reason for doing all this they have a handicapped
17 brother, he' s going to eventually be living with
them. The house hasn' t been touched for I guess
18 seven years . We' re going to be upgrading it
substantially. We tried to push out the front,
19 which we' re allowed to, but the front, in order to
get a handicapped ramp and a few things like that,
20 we needed this small variance .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So the new front steps
21 is going to be a ramp plus steps?
MR. WEST: It' s going to be a ramp,
22 correct, and it' s going to be hidden from the
front street, and that' s where I 'm encroaching.
23 Then we' re going straight in the front to increase
the garage .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no
25 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? Jerry?
July 15 , 2004
9
1 '
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s no
change in the height of the structure, anything
3 that' s being constructed as one-story?
MR. WEST: It' s a two-story construction
4 now, I think I have some sketches . They' re going
to do another two-story, and it' s going to be all
5 redone . There' s actually -- they have two rotten
walls right now, the siding is bad. They' re going
6 to re-do quite a bit of work.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a total
7 renovation of the house?
MR. WEST: Yes .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. WEST: Mostly due to handicapped, you
9 have to have wider doors and bathrooms accessible,
and then their upstairs is going to be for all the
10 other people to live in.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have no
12 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
14 in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this application? If not, I' ll make a
15 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
16 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Thomas
and Laura Nigro on Fishers Island. I have a lot
18 of questions . We have problems with no pre-COs
for a lot of these things .
19 MS . NIGRO: We are the new owners, the
previous owners --
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand that .
MS . NIGRO: So I have only the knowledge
21 that people tell me, and I have to tell you, I ' m
not exactly clear on the history. It' s very
22 difficult for me to ascertain. But the previous
owner just never bothered to get the certificate
23 of occupancy, which is something that my husband
and I as new owners feel is critically important,
24 so we are taking on all the steps we need to do to
get there, this being the first .
25 My understanding from both the realtor and
the surrounding neighbors is that the deck was
July 15 , 2004
10
1
2 built long ago pre the zoning change, yet they
never bothered to go and have the proper --
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- pre COs .
MS . NIGRO: Right . So, that' s where I
4 start, with this application process .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going to have to
5 go and get the building plans for all the things
you need pre-COs for and go to the Building
6 Department, get those okayed before we can grant
anything for you.
7 MS . NIGRO: On the deck?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
8 MS . NIGRO: Okay, explain that again,
because this would be new information for me . I
9 called the Building Department, I spoke with quite
a few people, and my understanding there are two
10 building permits that are outstanding. The deck
that I 'm talking about here is not one of them.
11 But that we needed an architect for one of the
other outstanding ones, which we have a contract
12 for and we' re waiting for them to come out, but
that was separate from doing this small deck,
13 which is on the cottage . There' s two building
structures on the property. There' s the main
14 house, the opened certificates are for
construction on the main house . This is a small,
15 one bedroom cottage . It' s not even a cottage,
it ' s a year-round residence . It is rented to an
16 on-island resident who lives there year-round and
that' s what I was coming today to speak to. And
17 when I spoke with the Building Department, my
understanding was again that the construction on
18 this small cottage, this deck was done pre the
zoning change . My understanding again was that
19 because the cottage or the small one bedroom house
sits in front of the main house that' s where the
20 variance came from. You couldn' t do a
construction on a building that sat in the front,
21 it could only be in the back of the property.
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : Mrs . Nigro, I spoke
22 with the Building Department representative
yesterday and it was mentioned that the prior
23 owner was not able to get a pre-CO because when
they went and did inspections, they found that
24 there was major renovations done to the cottage
without permits . You may want to look into that .
25 MS . NIGRO: The cottage itself?
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : The cottage .
July 15 , 2004
11
1
2 MS . NIGRO: There' s been no work done on
the cottage .
3 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : How long have you
owned the cottage? ,
4 MS . NIGRO: Since November. Major
renovations have been done on the main house, but
5 not the cottage. The cottage is in desperate need
of repair.
6 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : Within the last 20
years or so.
7 MS . NIGRO: When I look at the history
that I have here, all of the outstanding
8 alterations were all done on the main house not on
the cottage .
9 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : You may want to get
a letter from the Building Department or something
10 to say that the use of the cottage does not
require a variance because the way the disapproval
11 is written it' s not only for the deck, they' re
also saying the cottage .
12 MS . NIGRO: You have a letter from the
Building Department?
13 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : You have it too .
It' s the same letter of disapproval .
14 MS . NIGRO: I'm happy to do what I have to
do. I called the Building Department when I
15 received the letter because I got quite
frightened, I thought, oh, my God I've really
16 gotten a problem. When I spoke with him he
assured me, no, don' t read it that way, I think
17 you should be fine, you should be fine when you go
to the hearing, not fine in that it would be you
18 have to go through the motions, but fine in that I
did not need to do anything more .
19 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : Who told you that in
the Building Department?
20 MS . NIGRO: Jim -- was it Jim? -- I can' t
remember, whomever had sent me the letter, which I
21 don' t think I had brought with me . The original
rejection letter which we had spoke about, and he
22 said part of that rejection was standard and
that' s when he explained to me where the
23 construction had been.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Why don' t you go over
24 to the Building Department now, we could just
adjourn this and come back. See if you can get it
25 straightened out .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Nigro, you
July 15 , 2004
12
1
2 know where that is?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s in the annex now.
3 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : If you' re not able
to get something in writing, maybe somebody at the
4 Building Department can come back at 1 : 00 . We
would reconvene .
5 MS . NIGRO: Is there anything else other
than getting that clarification?
6 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : The Board doesn' t
usually grant variances for the deck when there' s
7 no COs or pre-COs for the building; that has to be
cleared up first .
8 MS . NIGRO: I tried to do a pre-CO as
well, and I think this might be why partly the
9 previous owner who -- not to give you the whole
history but -- originally before we were going to
10 buy the house one of the conditions was that he go
and get all this cleaned up, and honestly he
11 just --
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : You bought it
12 without any approvals?
MS . NIGRO: Yes . Under the auspices that
13 we would go through this . And I 'm fine with that
because I ' m committed to getting it accomplished,
14 but I tried to get the pre-CO and I spoke with --
I can' t remember his name either on the island --
15 and they did not recommend a pre-CO. They said
you should just get the deck settled and get the
16 architect for the main house . But I' ll go back
over to the Building Department, that' s all I can
17 do, and see if I can get someone to come or get
something in writing.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to
reconvene this hearing at 1 : 00 p .m.
19 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------- -----------------------------------------
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for
Leonard Epifano and Patricia Ryan at Water' s Edge
21 Way and Gin Lane, Southold. They wish to expand
the house a bit and bring it up to date, so to
22 speak.
MS . RYAN: It was my mom' s home and she
23 had died last year, and we now live in a two-story
house and getting on in years . It' s not that much
24 fun anymore . So from the estate we bought the
house, and it really needs to be completely
25 redone . It was built in 1956 and it' s on a corner
lot . It' s a beautiful place . The only thing is
July 15, 2004
13
1
2 when they built the house, they built it on a
diagonal . So for us to come back we come closer
3 to Gin Lane, I think it' s 29 . 8 . We have two front
yards . We' re still over 40 from the front, so
4 that' s no problem, it' s just the side on Gin
Lane .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no
6 objection to this . It looks like you' re putting
on a little bit of a porch on the Water' s Edge
7 Way?
MS . RYAN: It' s just a covered walk.
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So you can get
into the house?
9 MS . RYAN: Without getting soaked, you got
it .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s an addition
to what' s there already? You' re well within
11 limits there, that' s still 42 . The only problem
is that you have that side yard setback, okay.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have no
13 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions and
no objections .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t either, so I
make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
16 decision until later, unless anybody else wants to
speak.
17 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Take a break.
18 (Short recess)
-------------------------------------------------
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to reconvene
our meeting.
20 Our next hearing is for Carnesi who wishes
to amend his nonconforming accessory building and
21 remove it with a new replace building. This is on
Cedar Beach Road in Southold.
22 MR. SAMUELS : That' s overstating it a
little bit . Actually we intended to save as much
23 of that building as possible, including the
foundation and as much framing. Truly it has
24 deteriorated to the point where a full replacement
would be in order, but the intention was
25 originally for the Building Department not to do
that for the very reason we wanted to avoid the
July 15 , 2004
14
1
2 variance hearing, and we thought we could just
renovate it, maximally renovate it, but basically
3 leave as much as we can in order to avoid a
hearing. But obviously we couldn' t manage to do
4 that, so I would say we' re trying to make it
useable again. It' s barely useable at the moment .
5 There' s no garage on the property, storage is
limited, it' s nonhabitable use, there may be some
6 workshop use in there, residential but clearly not
habitable use .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you really just want
it for storage, garden room and half a bath,
8 toilet and sink?
MR. SAMUELS :/ Correct . It was I believe
9 used as a cottage in the past, but has nothing to
do with the current owner or what his intentions
10 are .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We already gave relief
11 for the porch I believe .
MR. SAMUELS : For that house .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have nothing.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Just a couple to
14 get the basics down. On the site plan, it shows
the accessory at 2 . 2 ; is that what we should use?
15 MR. SAMUELS : 2 . 6 is what the survey
says . So if my site plan says 2 . 2 that' s not , in
16 agreement with the survey I have, at least here in
front of me, which is the Stan Isaacson' s survey.
17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So I should go 2 . 6?
MR. SAMUELS : 2 . 6 is the closest corner at
18 the existing screened porch.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And the exact
19 setback you would be requesting is the front yard?
MR. SAMUELS : The front yard closest by
20 the survey is 39 . 1 .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s all .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is .the
22 exact distance to the .dirt road, which is the
actual right of way; do you have any idea what
23 that is?
MR. SAMUELS : The right of way is 20 feet
24 wide so the remainder to the edge of that legal
right of way is 19 . 1 feet to the edge of the right
25 of way, closest . The drive according to the
survey is not actually in the right of way
July 15 , 2004
15
1
2 entirely, it kind of wanders . So actually the
drive is closer to the cottage or the garage, but
3 the legal right of way is 20 feet wide .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you say
4 it' s about 10 feet, it' s about half that?
MR. SAMUELS : Maybe 12 . I 'm sorry I don' t
5 have my scale with me, it' s about 12 feet .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is going to
6 remain as a one story?
MR. SAMUELS : Correct .
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the
Chairperson said we are talking about one half
8 bath?
MR. SAMUELS : Correct .
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No heat?
MR. SAMUELS : No heat .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
in the audience who wishes to speak on this
11 hearing? If not, I' ll make a motion closing the
hearing and reserving decision until later.
12 (See minutes for resolution. )
--------------------------------7----------------
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is John
McFeely for an as-built deck construction on
14 Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel . Is there anybody
here to address this application? Any members
15 have any questions about it?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There are no
16 representatives?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. I spoke to the
17 gentleman yesterday. He said he would be here . I
told him to be here in case there are any
18 questions . r
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not grilling
19 you, but was he aware of the time that the hearing
was?
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would assume he
was .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He got a letter,
right?
22 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : He did the notices
and put the sign up .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you want to know' if
he got involved, he and his brother-in-law?
24 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : I spoke to him
yesterday. He planned on being here .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want to
hold off until lunch time?
July 15, 2004
16
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . Adjourn the
hearing until 11 : 55 . All in favor?
3 (See resolution for minutes . )
-------------------------------------------------
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next one is for Graham
Head on Goose Creek Lane . Yes, sir.
5 MR. GORMAN: Hi, I'm Bill Gorman on behalf
of Graham and Barbara Head. We are asking for a
6 side line variance . We want to build a second
floor on a garage . That garage is a little over
7 three feet from the side line . The last hearing,
one of the neighbors, Paul Maloney asked that it
8 be adjourned until today because he wasn' t in
town. Since then I have met with him. He wrote a
9 letter that indicates that after speaking with
Mr. Head he' s agreed to a couple of changes, which
10 are the removal of some windows that look over
into his backyard, and other than that he has no
11 objections . Would you like a copy?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have the letter. I
12 read it this morning. Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was a little
13 concerned about actually the notice of
disapproval, that just wasn' t clear to me what
14 you' re being rejected for. The 3 . 2 feet is
already there . It already existed, and I don' t
15 see where you' re doing any building that would
increase the nonconformity. So I guess I'm all
16 for it if the neighbors are for it . I don' t see
any reason why you shouldn' t have it, but I' d like
17 to hear other people before I comment .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The area that' s
going to contain the addition, that' s the
19 one-story addition?
MR. GORMAN: The new footprint is the
20 one-story addition.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: According to the survey
21 it says proposed two-story addition?
MR. GORMAN: The new addition is a
22 one-story addition that connects the existing
house to the existing garage . The two-story
23 addition is on top of the existing garage .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess that' s why
24 I went to the notice of disapproval . Lately this
would have been disapproved for something else
25 other than citing this 100-30A, which to my mind
is new construction. What 30A says to us, here' s
July 15, 2004
17
1
2 the size lot you have and there are certain things
you can' t do, and if you do that you can' t use
3 them unless you get a variance, that' s what that
says to me . But the second story on the garage,
4 as I understand it, would be covered under the
Walz decision.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s not here in
6 the notice of disapproval . So I'm concerned about
us making the decision based on 100-30A, I don' t
7 think applies to this applicant in this instance .
Because to my mind he' s not creating, he' s not
8 building any new nonconformity other than the Walz
decision, you know how I feel about it . I have to
9 write this decision; I think I can' t write it
based on this notice of disapproval .
10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It clearly refers
to the bulk schedule, and the bulk schedule does
11 not specify in any way whether it' s additions or
new. There' s nothing in the bulk schedule that
12 limits it to existing structures .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. But in our
13 code, if any of this happens, if you have new
construction that' s in nonconformity, then that' s
14 fine, then you can' t do that according to 100-30 .
There is an existing nonconformity on this
15 property that is apparent to me in the last
sentence, that is the reason why they' re here
16 because it' s 3 . 2 feet away from the property
line . That' s an existing nonconformity. Our code
17 covers that that' s 100-42A, 200-42A, whatever it
is . To deny them based on this, I don' t think
18 he' s putting that little construction in the
middle, then he' s increasing the nonconformity.
19 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : There' s also
something else factual that is not mentioned. The
20 garage is detached.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes, I couldn' t
21 agree with you more . Then attaching it then makes
it a principal structure . That' s a whole other
22 ball of wax that is not covered by I think
100-30A.
23 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : They probably didn' t
address it because it was going from an accessory
24 building to the principal; they applied the whole
bulk schedule to it instead.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the
question I need to ask the contractor, are you
July 15 , 2004
18
1
2 actually destroying the garage or are you putting
the second story on?
3 MR. GORMAN: Just adding on top of it .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have an
4 engineer' s permit that will allow you to do that?
MR. GORMAN: Yes .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Therefore, the
garage has the proper foundation and strength to
6 do that?
MR. GORMAN: That' s correct, and if need
7 be, we' ll reenforce it .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: When was the garage
8 built?
MR. GORMAN: I'm not certain when it was
9 built . I think it was just framed in the 140s or
' 50s .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s old.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Then the garage was
11 a detached accessory garage with a three foot side
yard, correct?
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Now it' s part of
13 the principal dwelling, therein is the difference .
I don' t have any questions .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So the garage is now
going to be attached to the house?
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : It is .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is the garage going to
be attached to the house?
17 MR. GORMAN: It will be attached to the
house with the breezeway.
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: An enclosed
breezeway?
19 MR. GORMAN: Absolutely.
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : See what' s happened
20 is 100-242A of the code says when you increase
that nonconformity with a substantial new area, it
21 requires an additional review by the Zoning Board,
and the Building Department didn' t include that in
22 the disapproval . So what I would recommend is
that it be adjourned until it can be technically
23 corrected for the record.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you need to
24 readvertize that one?
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : Should be
25 readvertized and renoticed and adjourned until
August 19th. The Building Department can add that
July 15, 2004
19
1
2 to their disapproval and we can fill in that
little defect in the paperwork.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just to make you
legal . So if further down the road, somebody
4 doesn' t have a question about it . That you have
all the proper papers .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My concern is you
get the approval, you go there and start doing it
6 and you start and then you' re back here again
because another building inspector. I can tell
7 you that the legal notice makes reference to new
additions at less than 15 feet from the minimum
8 single side yard setback but that new addition is
not 15 feet .
9 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : It says it is less
than 15 feet .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Say again?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It requires 15 feet but
11 the new addition single side yard setback of 3 . 2
feet .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s not the new
addition, that' s existing nonconforming.
13 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : The new addition is
on the second floor, Jim.
14 MR. GORMAN: There is a new addition on
top. It sounds to me as if it' s --
15 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : It' s less than 15
feet?
16 MR. GORMAN: Yes, it is . That' s where the
new addition is going. If the garage weren' t
17 there and we just put the breezeway on it, we
wouldn' t have the 15 foot issue . The 15 foot
18 issue is because we' re adding on top of the
nonconforming.
19 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : Technically the
garage is in the side yard so you' d be denied for
20 something else by the Building Department .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Honestly, this
21 whole thing does not make any sense to me . Why
isn' t Walz referenced and why isn' t 242? Then I'm
22 looking at, if you' re saying to me that a new
addition on top of an existing setback that
23 doesn' t make any sense to me either, unless you' re
going to have Walz referenced.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If it can be
25 cleaned up today without it being readvertized.
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : I have no objection
July 15, 2004
20
1
2 to the way it is . If the Board wants to close it
and make a decision the way it is, I have no
3 objection.
MR. GORMAN: We have no objection.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sure you don' t .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Jim, I
5 understand where you' re coming from.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s over a
6 technicality that I think is -- it' s not going to
change anything as far as you' re concerned except
7 to delay you another month and I don' t see any
point to that .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve decision until
9 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
10 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Robert
11 Leighton who wishes to do the pool and do some
other improvements on the house . Cathy Mesiano is
12 here representing him.
We just to want to say in the outset,
13 according to the site plan, the accessory building
is to be moved, then you did not notice that in
14 your application, so then you' ll have to come back
to us for a side yard or variance where the shed' s
15 going to be .
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : I left a message on
16 your machine yesterday. The Board' s not going to
be able to approve the location of the shed.
17 MS . MESIANO : I got home late last night
and left early. I never pushed the button.
18 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : You' ll have to
reapply. It' s been denied by the Building
19 Department . It has to be 35 feet from the front
line and it' s less than that now. You can' t go
20 any closer.
MS . MESIANO : That' s right . Well, we can
21 proceed and clean that up.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Proceed.
22 MS . MESIANO : My name is Catherine
Mesiano, I 'm appearing on behalf of Mr. Leighton,
23 the owner of the property.
The subject site is a . 65 acre waterfront
24 lot located at the north side of Rochelle Place in
Mattituck. The property is zoned R40 . Subject
25 premises is a two-family dwelling. There' s a
certificate of occupancy Z10360 dated January 26,
July 15 , 2004
21
1
2 1981 stating as such. Mr. Leighton proposes to
raise the ridge of the existing dwelling to bring
3 the second story ceiling height into conformity
and add a one-car garage, in-ground pool, fence,
4 deck and porch. The existing 6 . 5 foot side
setback and 68 . 9 foot setback to the bulkhead will
5 be maintained. I have presented the Board with a
set of construction plans, I have tried to
6 illustrate the fact that there will be no greater
encroachment to the required yards . In the
7 instance of the side yard, the six and-a-half feet
is the nearest point of the existing structure to
8 the side yard. There is a second story on the
house . The second story is not at the height that
9 the new second story will be . The area that is
impacted by the nonconformity of the setback
10 amounts to approximately 75 square feet . There' s
a triangular area, and I' ll give my little sketch
11 to the Board, and I've highlighted these areas .
And further with respect to the setback from the
12 bluff -- excuse me, from the bulkhead, we are not
proposing any additions to come any closer than
13 the proposed concrete patio and deck that
presently exists .
14 I do have a letter from a neighbor, and I
know a letter was submitted to the Board. You did
15 get that, so I ' d like to have these two letters,
they' re positive letters that have been written by
16 neighbors in support of the application.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say
17 something, Madam Chairman?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You started out,
Mrs . Mesiano, by saying this was a two-family, you
19 meant to say two-story?
MS . MESIANO: No. It is a legal
20 two-family structure, two-story.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a CO for that?
21 MS . MESIANO: Yes . The CO is in the
package that I gave you.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I continue?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
particular reason why the pool can' t be turned
24 around and run in the north-south direction as
opposed to the east-west direction?
25 MR. LEIGHTON: Not as far as I' m
concerned. I would have preferred it that way.
July 15, 2004
22
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The visual
inspection for this premise shows an extremely
3 cluttered side yard area, and I would not be in
favor of further clutter in the side yard area
4 because that side in the ultimate side that would
be used for two particular reasons . Anything to
5 be gained toward the waterfront that needed to be
worked on, and number 2 from a fire and emergency
6 point of view. And that' s my opinion.
MS . MESIANO: Okay. Mr. Leighton
7 obviously has no problem with that so we can
reconfigure that .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Not at this time .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. you' ll submit
10 a revised map with that?
MS . MESIANO: Yes .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have nothing
else .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I I have nothing else . I
was there .
13 MS . MESIANO: So then I just need to
present you with a revised plan showing the pool
14 running.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then you will have to
15 come back for the shed.
MS . MESIANO: For the shed. So I have to
16 go back to the Building Department and have them
to do a disapproval on that .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for
18 or against this application? If not, I make a
motion closing the hearing and reserving decision
19 until later.
(See minutes for resolution)
20 MS . MESIANO: When we get that revision
from the Building Department, do I have to do a
21 new notice?
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : Not for the pool,
22 just submit the seven revised plans to our office
the Friday before the next-meeting.
23 MS . MESIANO: But with respect to the
shed?
24 BOARD 9ECY KOWALSKI : The shed you would
. have to reapply and start over. It would delay
25 this process . We would have to adjourn it for a
month.
July 15 , 2004
23
1
2 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for
3 John and Martha Watts down on Harbor River Road in
Orient . They wish to make some adjustments to the
4 house . Miss Steelman.
MS . STEELMAN: Hi, my name is Nancy
5 Steelman, Samuels and Steelman Architects .
I think this application is fairly
6 straightforward. We' re filling in between two
existing wings of the house that are currently
7 encroaching on the front yard setback and also on
the side yard. And we' d like to add a new entry
8 porch and deck.
So does anyone have any questions that I
9 can answer?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I looked at the
house, Ms . Steelman, and I didn' t have any
11 particular questions at the time of my physical
inspection other than the fact that I thought that
12 the house was farther away from the property line
than it appears to be on the survey or your site
13 plan. So I guess the concern is that the
construction is not on that side of the house, so
14 that really there' s no worry to deal with it in
that aspect . It' s on the opposite side of the
15 house, is it not, meaning where the actual lot
line is? We' re talking proposed raised deck and
16 wood stoop.
MS . STEELMAN: Correct . On the street
17 side . Yes, that' s the one we' re concerned about .
Everything else is within the setback.
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
MS . STEELMAN: So it' s just that front
19 area . I can only assume that the survey is
correct . This is what we had gotten as a
20 preexisting survey.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On that basis, I
21 guess I will not grill you any about anything.
MS . STEELMAN: Seems pretty
22 straightforward to me ..
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
25 audience who wishes to speak to this application?
If not, I' ll make a motion closing the hearing and
July 15, 2004
24
1
2 reserving decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is
for Peggy Atkinson on Sound Avenue, Peconic . For
4 an as-built deck.
MS . ATKINSON: Good morning, could you
5 answer a question for me, Ruth, what does
"as-built" mean?
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You put it in without a
permit .
7 MS . ATKINSON: I thought that' s what it
meant but I wasn' t sure . What I ' d like to start
8 is to tell you how this construction came about
and how it happened to get built before permits
9 and zoning variances were involved. My husband
had for the past 20 years has been patching and
10 fixing this deck, which is over 40 some-odd years
in existence, and it had gotten to the point where
11 the underpinnings were rotting away, and it was
more than he could patch anymore . It was
12 definitely something where we had to tackle the
underneath and that was our plan last fall . We
13 said that we' re going to have to do major
reconstruction of the underpinnings of the deck.
14 And this January my husband passed away, you may
have seen the notice, Don Atkinson. And I tried
15 very hard in the spring to fulfill one of things
that we had planned -- if I'm emotional it' s
16 because it' s so tied up with him.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Take your time .
17 MS . ATKINSON: I set out in June to try
and do this, and I assumed what I was doing was
18 replacing and repairing an existing deck that was
dangerous . I couldn' t let people walk on it . The
19 underpinnings were actually falling down, and I
interviewed several contractors and all of them
20 said to get to the underneath, I' d have to take
off the top, and I became very aware that' s the
21 kind of approach that I had to do to the deck.
And I hired a young fellow who started the work,
22 and I was encouraged that he was going to do it
within a short length of time because not having
23 my husband' s income anymore, the house has become
a financial problem, and I was going to solve that
24 by renting the house as soon as I could. Now that
the construction on the deck has been stopped and
25 I haven' t been able to rent it for July and it
doesn' t look like I'm going to be able to rent it
July 15 , 2004
25
1
2 for August, but maybe I can salvage two weeks or
something out of August, if I can get it finished.
3 If you went to the site, you' ll see that the deck
is built, and it' s built to code, and it' s a
4 hundred times better than it was . We did not
build it an inch more than the previous footprint
5 that existed since 1967, and I got a copy of the
permit of the building of the deck and the
6 addition at the time . Do you need that to look
at? But at the time it was an approved building
7 of an addition of porch and deck, and it shows
exactly the same deck that' s there now. The
8 picture that you have Xeroxed shows the deck half
built, and what I would like to do is pass around
9 the color photo of it because on the color photo
you can see the existing old pilings that it was
10 built on that I haven' t changed. What the
contractor did was sister those, rather than rip
11 them up, he sistered those with properly footed
cemented posts . Can I pass this around?
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
MS . ATKINSON: This is a picture of a
13 couple of years ago when the deck was in shape .
This is a picture of it this fall when it was
14 falling apart . This is the color picture, the
third picture is the color picture of the
15 undergrid with the gray posts that are still there
showing that we did not build it any further. I
16 am not building it an inch more than where it was .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The decking, is
17 that new decking or is that the original decking?
MS . ATKINSON: That' s what was rotting on
18 the old deck, literally falling away. And this is
the deck. The young fellow has done a very good
19 job.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Has he completed
20 the deck?
MS . ATKINSON: No, it' s stopped. The
21 minute an inspector came over and said you need a
permit .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You need the stairs and
you need a railing.
23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: When did he put a
stop order?
24 MS . ATKINSON: I believe it was in June .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Looks nice .
25 MS . ATKINSON: I must apologize . It was
my absolute unawareness that that repairing and
July 15 , 2004
26
1
2 reconstructing something like this required a
permit . I assumed that since it was a preexisting
3 structure that I was doing repairs, and I did not
need a permit . I have three letters from the
4 neighbors that are involved, and they all have no
objection. I' ll submit them to you. These are
5 neighbors who live on either side of the deck that
would affect the setback. All of which have decks
6 themselves, and these lots have all
nonconformities built into them.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They have been there
for many years .
8 MS . ATKINSON: Many years . Like I said
this house has had this deck on since I was child.
9 It ' s got to be more than 40 , 50 years, but the
deck as it is now has been there since 1967 .
10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How long is it
going to take him to finish it?
11 MS . ATKINSON: Probably less than a week.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Are you still
12 trying to rent?
MS . ATKINSON: Very hard, but it ' s not
13 happening because people see a deck with no
stairs, and it' s just not finished. Not only am I
14 asking for the variance that this involves, I'm
asking that this might be done as quickly as
15 possible so that I could possibly rent the house
for some part of August .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to comment on this proposal?
17 I don' t see any.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a
18 question?
MS . ATKINSON: Sure .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Looks on the
property card in 1991 you got a building permit to
20 construct an addition to existing dwelling?
MS . ATKINSON: No, not on in 1991 . What
21 you see there is my mother died and the trust
transferred the ownership of the house .
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s in 192 .
There' s another one just before .
23 MS . ATKINSON: Longo Trust to Atkinson.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right up above
24 that .
MS . ATKINSON: Longo to Longo Trust,
25 that' s another trust from my mother to my brother.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right above that .
July 15, 2004
27
1
2 April 17, 1991, BP, as-built construction of
addition to existing dwelling.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see it, ' 98 .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it says ' 91 .
4 MS . ATKINSON: It does say 191, but the
only other thing that was done to the house at the
5 time was a basement that was done, and I believe
that was earlier.
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s in here
too .
7 MS . ATKINSON: I 'm sorry, 1991 a porch was
enclosed in back of this deck. You' re right, I
8 forgot about that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then ' 82 you had a
9 cellar put in.
MS . ATKINSON: Exactly. We had a
10 screened-in porch that my mother, who was alive at
the time, she always felt that someone could come
11 in through that, so we closed it in. We had a
proper permit .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But this permit,
the first one says alterations on dwelling, is
13 that the building permit you got?
MS . ATKINSON: Would you like to see the
14 one that refers to the porch and the deck?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Because there' s no
15 date on that .
MS . ATKINSON: Because it' s so far back.
16 This is the permit that I got from them.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We have a copy of
17 this, right?
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : I'm not sure . Just
18 in case we don' t .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That is the
19 building permit and the CO for the deck.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: This deck?
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s what it
looks like .
21 MS . ATKINSON: Yes . If you notice the
deck wraps around the whole house . It goes from
22 the front deck, a side walkway all the way to the
deck that' s on the waterfront
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions,
Jim?
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm a little
confused then why they' re here . What I would like
25 to see if we could vote on this today.
MS . ATKINSON: Thank you.
July 15, 2004
28
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would too .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I would too .
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I' ll be willing to
write the decision tonight .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: With the
provision that it remain open to the sky.
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Actually it' s
Jerry. It says Vinnie on it . I ' ll do it tonight .
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I ' ll make a motion
to approve the application of Peggy Atkinson
7 Appeal Number 5564 as applied for with the
condition that the new deck remain open to the
8 sky.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second the motion. All
9 in favor?
(See minutes for resolution. )
10 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
11 Genevieve McGrath for some added construction on
Private Road #4 in Southold, very nice view. I ' m
12 glad the gentleman down on the water has a nice
turnaround driveway. Go ahead, Bruce .
13 MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting for Genevieve McGrath,
14 who is here with us today.
This is a very simple variance . We have a
15 preexisting nonconforming parcel consisting of
18 , 774 square feet . It' s a lot created as part of
16 what I call the Daly compound. I'm near and dear
to this area because I grew up very close to it .
17 A notice of disapproval was issued in November of
2003 and the variance requested is a relief
18 requested of a rear yard setback of 35 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because you' re on two
19 front yards .
MR. ANDERSON: And the yard in question is
20 actually a paper road known as Town Harbor
Terrace . It leads to the Hippodrome, which is
21 entirely wetlands . The road isn' t opened, will
never be opened, and so this is just a creature --
22 this is really a technical application.
The proposed porch that is at issue here
23 measured 12 by 32 . 2 feet . One story screened-in
porch. It actually protrudes some 351 square
24 feet, due to a portion of it being recessed within
the existing house .
25 We have no neighborhood concerns . They' re
all family. The compound was created in 1917;
July 15 , 2004
29
1
2 it' s been held that way since then and will be
held that way forever as far as I can tell . There
3 are no environmental concerns . We had a very easy
time with both the Trustees and the DEC. All
4 other improvements are entirely compliant with
your zoning code they include a dormer, and entry
5\ way and an outdoor shower. There would be no
undesirable changes to the neighborhood clearly.
6 The benefits sought is quite simple because we
want to place the porch facing south, which makes
7 sense that' s what creates the relief that' s
needed. The relief is not substantial as it
8 doesn' t impinge on any property interest
there . No environmental impact . And obviously
9 the variance created is not self-created because
the house is at 35 feet from that lot line so any
10 addition in that direction would require a
variance . ( I asked Eve to speak to her brothers ,
11 which she did. David was kind enough to write a
note stating for the family, stating for the
12 family that, of course, they have no objection for
what Eve wishes to do . That is the quickest
13 variance I 've ever put on before this Board.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Access to the
14 property across the street from it, the Town
Harbor Terrace, how do those properties get
15 access; do they use the paper right-of-way?
MR. ANDERSON: What we've always done,
16 maybe Eve can answer, we were to park there, we
come in from the back and sort of park on the
17 lawn. When I go there, I usually park -- is that
at David' s house or Bobby' s? I don' t know which
18 one has which.
MS . MCGRATH: David' s . David' s next to
19 me .
MR. ANDERSON: I usually park there .
20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is your
principal access to this property?
21 MS . MCGRATH: I have it as Daly, I don' t
want cars in front of my house .
22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Access for the lots
on that would be to the east, opposite Town Harbor
23 Terrace that run along there?
MS . MCGRATH: They come on Town Harbor
24 Terrace .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is Lot 36 improved?
25 BOARD, MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
MR. ANDERSON: I'm not sure which one that
July 15, 2004
30
1
2 is .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s the one
3 directly to the .right .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The road doesn' t
4 go all across that property?
MR. ANDERSON: No. It stops at the
5 Hippodrome, which is owned by the Hoey' s, who are
also Dalys .
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It is a paper road,
but as you well know, there may come a day when it
7 will be improved.
MR. ANDERSON: The Hippodrome is entirely
8 wetlands so no house could be built there . It' s
literally a creek, so it will never lead to
9 anywhere that could be developed.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you.
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It looks like
you' re going to dormer out on the second story
11 it' s just a porch.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
questions .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have no problem with
it either. Anybody in the audience that would
14 like to speak on this application? Hearing none,
I will make a motion closing the hearing and
15 reserving decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
16 -------------------------------------------------
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What happened with
17 McFeely and Nigro?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nigro' s right here .
18 MS . NIGRO: I did misspeak. It is a Pre
Certificate of occupancy that we' re striving
19 toward.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That you don' t
20 have .
MS . NIGRO: That we' re working towards,
21 and this is one of the many steps .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me reopen the
22 hearing. Make a motion to reopen the hearing.
(See minutes for resolution. )
23 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : For the record, Mrs .
Nigro, tell us what has developed since the last
24 discussion.
MS . NIGRO: I went over to the Building
25 Department spoke with Damon, and he was the
gentleman I had spoken to previously about the
July 15 , 2004
31
1
2 rejection for the Pre C of 0. And he instructed
me that the steps I needed to take, previously I
3 did have an attorney that was handling it, for
which I can' t afford so I am doing it myself . So
4 he has been helping me with the steps . This first
step was for the guest cottage to have a deck, and
5 if I may make a statement if that' s appropriate?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Certainly.
6 MS . NIGRO: The deck itself matters little
to me personally but matters greatly to the
7 on-island resident who lives there . The island
itself has very little affordable housing for
8 on-island residents and this happens to be a very
attractive and nice one . The deck is used by them
9 quite frequently, and they felt passionately to
have it . It' s certainly easier for me to just
10 dismantle the deck, it' s very small, and then move
on. I ' m trying to do the right thing both for
11 this on-island resident and then in conformity
with the zoning regulations . I wanted to make
12 that statement, and I sent pictures, I sent a
variety of pictures . Some show preexisting
13 construction on the neighboring property, which I
feel is probably more egregious than the deck that
14 is on the house .
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : What happened with
15 the Building Department since you left this
morning?
16 MS . NIGRO: They wrote this letter. The
letter is basically stating that for me to -- I
17 need to get -- I' ll use their words, I need to get
this variance for the deck, which again is
18 preexisting, in order for them to do the Pre CO on
the cottage .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s interesting.
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : They have no problem
20 with the cottage apparently.
MS . NIGRO: They have no problem with the
21 cottage other than this deck. The cottage itself
is nonconforming because it sits in front of the
22 main house, but it was pre-1957 that it was
constructed. The deck itself was built post-1957,
23 however, the previous owner never bothered to go
through the motions of getting the proper permits,
24 which is what I am trying to do.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just asked our
25 Counsel or made him aware of the discrepancy
between the notice of disapproval, which is before
July 15 , 2004
32
1
2 us, which puts the issue of a guest house is not a
permitted accessory use in front of us in your
3 application as being one of the reasons that this
was disapproved. You' re seeking a permit for
4 construction of a deck addition to an existing
nonconforming guest house, and then he clearly
5 states it' s not permitted. So I 'm trying to
figure out, you' re saying that' s not the issue,
6 it' s just the deck, but that' s really not what the
notice of disapproval says .
7 MS . NIGRO: Again, when I received the
notice, I was quite alarmed because in my opinion
8 it also had changed the magnitude of my adventure .
And I called the Building Department and had a
9 discussion with them. That is what he is trying
to express in this letter. He said to me the
10 house itself was built pre-1957 . The house itself
already is grandfathered as a nonconforming
11 structure, however, you cannot make any
improvements on a nonconforming structure . So
12 that when they put the deck on that they did so
not only without a building permit but they put
13 the deck on a nonconforming structure that could
not have any further building done to it . So I
14 needed to clear up and get a permit for the deck
on a nonconforming, preexisting grandfathered
15 structure is what the Building Department said to
me, both verbally and what he' s trying to address
16 in this letter.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I read this
17 disapproval to mean just exactly what this lady
said, and I find that the building inspector is
18 almost always unclear in that he overstates the
reasons, and I don' t see any reason to hold this
19 lady up, other than I think we all agree that the
structure has been there and it is nonconforming,
20 and it is a residence and it has been and it seems
to satisfy the Building Inspector that it has been
21 always there . So I mean, if we accept her letter
and approve her deck then she goes and gets her
22 pre-CO.
MS . NIGRO : I also spoke with all the
23 neighbors and eventually spoke with them. I did
not bring any letters, I didn' t think to do that,
24 but the house itself, I took a picture of it .
It ' s charming. And again, if the Zoning Board,
25 I 'm respectfully asking them to do what I think is
the right thing to do . If the Zoning Board feels
July 15 , 2004
33
1
2 greatly that this is inappropriate, you know what,
I ' ll take the deck off, that' s what I' ll do, I 'm
3 that committed -- seriously -- I 'm that committed
to doing what the previous owner did not do . It' s
4 a hardship not for me, I don' t have to live there .
It is a hardship for the gentleman that is living
5 there and this deck provides reprieve, provides a
space to sit outside and grill a hamburger.
6 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : It' s possible that
we might be able to solve it by getting an amended
7 disapproval .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Let' s get the legal
8 issues before us .
ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: The question
9 put to me is that the notice of disapproval says
that the guest house is not a permitted accessory
10 use .
MS . NIGRO: Pre-1957, grandfathered.
11 ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: We have a
clarification from the Building Department, which
12 I believe seems to suggest to me that they would
issue a pre-CO for the guest cottage if the
13 variance and permit were granted for the deck.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s backwards .
14 They have stated they' re going to eliminate that
requisite --
15 ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: They would
issue a pre-CO for the guest house . It seems to
16 me that would satisfy that second problem.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The expansion would
17 simply revert back to the expansion of a
nonconforming use as opposed to a single variance?
18 ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: Correct, as
opposed to the underlying nonconforming.
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have a
problem with it . I think they should clean up
20 their act and rewrite it . Because a letter from
the Building Department we can add to the file, -
21 but unless they actually amend the notice of
disapproval . That' s what it' s been advertised
22 for. That' s what' s legally before us to address .
MS . NIGRO: They don' t see it that way. I
23 understand what you' re saying and I know my
opinion is not that much weight . They don' t see
24 that their wording is unclear and quite honestly,
seriously I had a heart attack when I read the
25 letter, I thought, I have a mountain to climb.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Ma' am, none of this
July 15 , 2004
34
1
2 is your fault . We' re trying to clear it up from
our end.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re trying to clear
it up so you' re cleared up .
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That statement in
there is in almost every one of their
5 disapprovals . They deny things that exist all the
time; they say it' s not allowed. I don' t see
6 where' s there' s any confusion at all . If you read
the file they can' t give her a pre-CO if there' s a
7 deck on there that doesn' t have a CO. If there' s
a deck that doesn' t have a CO. All she needs is a
8 CO and all we need to do is grant that . We' re
wasting more time on a porch than needs to be
9 wasted on this . A person' s coming all the way
from Fishers Island that' s a day' s journey alone .
10 This should just be approved and move on with it .
To me it' s clear. I'm one vote .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we have
12 to move on on it also. I think the issue of
cleaning up is a nice housekeeping issue, but it
13 appears that it' s not going -to work. We just have
to demand within the decision or at least couch it
14 in the decision saying quite honestly that the
Building Department based upon this new letter
15 recognizes the fact that the guest cottage is a
preexisting cottage prior to the zoning.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s okay with
17 me .
ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: I think it' s
18 fine, I think if you grant the limited variance
that you need to and send it back, and they clean
19 up the file . You can explain in your decision
that you do it with the understanding of X-Y-Z .
20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We don' t need to do
the notice of disapproval?
21 ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: No .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to close
22 the hearing, reserve decision until later. At
this time we' ll break for lunch.
23 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to reopen our
hearing of July 15th. It is now 1 : 05 p.m. I' d
25 like to have a resolution to open the hearing for
Ronnie and Janice Soffer to adjourn it and
July 15 , 2004
35
1
2 continue this on August 19th at 11 : 45 a.m.
(See minutes for resolution. )
3 --------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Jerry
4 Schultheis . This was a denial, a building permit
to construct additions, alterations to the
5 existing building. It was also brought to a
lawsuit and it was remanded back from the court to
6 us because we have a new member, Mr. Dinizio, and
I was absent at that time and had not had an
7 opportunity to view it or vote on it . So we are
reopening. Is there anyone who wishes to speak
8 for this?
MR. BRESSLER: For the applicant, Eric J.
9 Bressler, Wickham, Bressler, Gordon and Geasa,
P . C. , Main Road, Mattituck, New York.
10 I 'm a little at a loss this afternoon to
understand exactly what' s happening here . I heard
11 Ma' am Chairwoman, that you are reopening the
hearing. It is my understanding that the purpose
12 of the remand was for reconsideration of the
decision of the Board, and I am just a little
13 uncertain as to exactly --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Being that Mr. Dinizio
14 and I were not present the first time, it' s kind
of a reopening so we can hear testimony because we
15 did not hear it before .
MR. BRESSLER: That' s not my
16 understanding, and for the record, I'm going to
object to that particular procedure . Nonetheless,
17 if the Board is inclined to do something along
that line over my objection, I will proceed.
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don' t we
understand exactly what the court said, and then
19 we' ll go from that point . What is your opinion
for what the judge said?
20 MR. BRESSLER: My opinion for what the
judge said was that there was no support in the
21 record for the determination of the Board.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now we' re going
22 to give you support . And whatever the
determination of Madam Chairperson is in her
23 opinion on this situation, she was not present .
Now we' re going to give you support . We' re going
24 to give you all the support that we are going to
need to determine if it' s going to be as the
25 applicants want it or as the Board suggested.
MR. BRESSLER: I understand that that' s
July 15 , 2004
36
1
2 what you intend to do today. All I' m saying is
that that is over my objection. That having been
3 said --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Proceed.
4 MR. BRESSLER: What I ' d like to do is to
incorporate by reference the proceedings that were
5 previously had before this Board so that we don' t
reinvent the wheel . So that' s the first order of
6 business .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Eric, I' d just like to
7 hear briefly what the .applicant' s position was . I
didn' t hear it, Mr. Dinizio didn' t hear it .
8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You were only
absent for the decision.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was absent for the
hearing too . This is the first time that I went
10 down to view Mr. Schultheis' property because I
was absent for the --
11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Madam Chairman --
ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: I think your
12 request is fair to incorporate the record below
from the prior, I think that' s only fair. I think
13 it' s also fair to have a brief explication. And
again, I don' t think that' s prejudicial at all,
14 but your prior record is what it is and will be
part of the determination.
15 MR. BRESSLER: And whether or not a court
decides, it' s more than that remains to be seen,
16 but given that objection and reservation, I ' ll put
my client up here and have him describe for Madam
17 Chairwoman and Members of the Board what this is
about .
18 ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: I think that' s
how we should proceed.
19 MR. SCHULTHEIS : My name is Jerry
Schultheis . First I' d like to give you the
20 affidavit of sign posting. Here are two copies of
the testimony I will give today.
21 Basically, the subject matter I will go
over today is primarily in rebuttal to the
22 testimony that was given -- .
MR. BRESSLER: Just by way of
23 clarification, what' s been handed up is the
document bearing the title Zoning Board Hearing,
24 July 15 , 2004 submitted by the applicants; that' s
the cover sheet, and it consists of a series of
25 written submissions and photographs and documents
in support thereof . I ask that that be made part
July 15, 2004
37
1
2 of the record.
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : Usually we require
3 seven prints, would you be able to send us five
others by separate delivery for the record so each
4 member can have their own color copies for review?
It doesn' t have to be today.
5 MR. SCHULTHEIS : Is a total of five copies
required?
6 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : Five copies and one
for the record, six would be fine .
7 MR. SCHULTHEIS : The remaining copies will
not be in color then.
8 The document that was given to you
contains evidence presented to the Supreme Court
9 State of New York regarding the Article 78
proceedings brought by myself and my wife, Jerry
10 and Carolyn Schultheis, against the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the Town of Southold as well as
11 information to refute the testimony of the
Chairwoman of the Zoning Board at that point in
12 time .
The information contained in this document
13 addresses item by item every piece of evidence
presented by the Town. The following items will
14 be addressed in the document : The character of
the neighborhood; the fire and emergency access ,
15 issue; the fallacy of the request being
self-created; the environmental concerns raised;
16 the property constraints as they exist at the
location now, and the request for the
17 interpretation of code which was originally made
with the original application.
18 Just digressing from the material that was
presented to you, what the project was is we
19 presently live in a house that has 1, 000 square
feet . My wife and I , back a couple of years ago,
20 moved to this house full time after living in a
residence with 3 , 000 square feet before, and
21 basically we have one bedroom, a very tiny bath,
there' s no bath tub in the entire house, and our
22 desire is to give ourselves a little more living
room, okay, 1, 000 square feet as compared to the
23 size of houses that exist today is minuscule . Our
request is it to add 500 to 600 square feet over
24 in the existing building envelope . There' s no
attempt made to go any larger than the envelope
25 which exists at this point in time . There' s no
increase in setbacks . There' s no change in lot
July 15, 2004
38
1
2 coverage . At this point in time, the lot coverage
is 14 percent, which is well below the 20 percent
3 that the R40 code calls for.
So basically, what we' re asking for is the
4 ability to give ourselves a little more living
area, and we don' t consider it excessive to ask
5 for a total of 1, 600 square feet considering the
size of structures that exist today. So the basic
6 application was to add to the house, add to the
second floor, not increase the footprint of the
7 house one inch. That was the application.
And I come before you basically as
8 somebody that has considerable experience in
working with government . I spent over 30 years
9 working in government on Long Island and across
the country. I'm a graduate civil engineer. I 've
10 done graduate work in soils engineering. I have
served as a member of the Planning Board in the
11 Village of Lloyd Harbor and our responsibility was
to both address planning and zoning issues . I ' m a
12 past member of the American Planning Association,
and I have assisted in the implementation of many
13 information processing systems regarding the use
of lands throughout the metropolitan area . I 've
14 also served the Town of Southold. I was a past
member of the Police Advisory Committee . I'm a
15 present member of the Board of Assessment Review,
and I' ve just been named a stakeholder by the
16 Town. So I have some familiarity with the issues
in the town. I worked with the Town in the mid
17 190s doing a study on their information and
geographic information requirements -- information
18 system requirements .
Basically, when you look at the facts,
19 it' s difficult to comprehend the reason for the
Board' s actions . In my opinion, the evidence does
20 not support the ruling of the Board of Appeals .
And what is especially disturbing to us is the
21 posture taking by the Board that discourages the
care of senior citizens by immediate members of
22 their families . We find that very discouraging.
Now, what I would like to do is I would
23 like to take the rebuttal that was given by the
Town and address it item for item and share with
24 you what my thoughts are as far as the facts in
this case .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do we have a copy of
that?
July 15 , 2004
39
1
2 MR. SCHULTHEIS : Pardon me?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do we have a copy?
3 MR. SCHULTHEIS : That was given to you by
the court . This is the document submitted to the
4 court .
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : The attorney gave it
5 to the court; is that true? It wasn' t presented
here at this hearing?
6 MR. SCHULTHEIS : Your attorney did not
give you a copy of what was given to them at the
7 court?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We don' t have it
8 with us .
MR. SCHULTHEIS : We' ll provide you' a copy.
9 You can go item by item through the 17 items and
listen to my information and relate it to that
10 information.
Okay, I' ll address each of the 17 points
11 individually. Items 1, 2 , 3 , merely states the
facts regarding the position of Miss Tortora, and
12 has the history of the application and the local
demographics there associated with it .
13 Item 4 states that property is
significantly undersized and nonconforming. This
14 is true but you must realize that the structures
were initially built prior to any zoning in the
15 town. Any additions and alterations which were
made to that building all have necessary permits,
16 variances, Cos, whatever paperwork is required.
Review of the evidence submitted will show the
17 entire neighborhood within a 600 foot radius of
our dwelling is nonconforming to the zoning that' s
18 in place right now. One hundred percent of every
dwelling within 600 feet of ours is nonconforming.
19 Item 5 addresses the setbacks . The
setbacks are real and exist either because they
20 existed before zoning or because alterations which
have the necessary permits and approvals have been
21 undertaken.
Item 6 basically states a fact by the
22 requested addition. The addition that has been
asked for is completely contained within the
23 existing building envelope, which again has all
the necessary required permits and approvals in
24 place . The additional living space will be
contained completely within this existing building
25 envelope .
Item 7 states the Building Department
July 15, 2004
40
1
2 denied the application before the R40 Zone,
requires a setback of at least 35 feet . This in
3 fact is the reason for requesting' the variance,
that was the reason given for denying the building
4 permit . None of the other issues raised by the
Zoning Board are contained in Building
5 Department' s denial . It must be also noted that
the subject property is actually in the M1 Zone
6 and not in the R40 zone and residential
construction is an allowable use in the M1 Zone .
7 Item 8 addresses the application for the
variance . The application for the variance was
8 submitted with a cover letter which contains
significant amounts of information which addressed
9 many of the issues involved in this request and
seem to have been ignored.
10 Item 9 indicates the Board denied the
application without prejudice . It also appears
11 they denied the application based on testimony
referenced which was never heard at the public
12 hearing. There was the testimony of two residents
of New Suffolk that was presented at the public
13 hearing, one of whom has initiated a history of
contentious relationships with both the
14 petitioners and the people that owned the house
before us . And the fact there appears to be a
15 complete lack of understanding of the character of
the neighborhood.
16 Item 10 addresses the issue of the area of
the living room added and the setbacks . Again,
17 it must be stressed that the lot coverage remains
at 14 percent, which is less than the required 20
18 percent in the R40 Zone . As a matter of fact, the
coverage can be brought down to 8 percent by
19 combining with Lot 44 , which adjoins the subject
property. In other variances granted in the area,
20 the lot coverage was the basis for the decision
and setbacks, which were worse than .exist at this
21 particular location, were never addressed. This
is selective and nonconsistent interpretation of
22 the zoning laws .
Item 11 addresses the character of the
23 area and the detriment that was supposedly brought
to nearby properties . As a matter of fact, every
24 waterfront building, both residential and
commercial within 3 , 000 feet to the south of our
25 home is nonconforming, both for setback reasons
and building lot coverage reasons . And if we go
July 15 , 2004
41
1
2 to the north, the four immediate lots also exist
under the same circumstances . They do not conform
3 to the zoning. In addition, all the surrounding
interior lots are nonconforming as well as per the
4 R40 Zoning. The material contained in the
document submitted contains much evidence
5 regarding the issues of the character of the area,
the detriment, the purported detriment of nearby
6 properties and the issue of the pristine aspect of
the inlet, which was brought up by the Zoning
7 Board.
Item 12 introduces the issue of emergency
8 access . There was no testimony at the public
hearing on this particular subject — If you look
9 at the Town Code, it requires 15 feet of ,clearance
for emergency access . The right of way that
10 exists to access this particular property is 29
feet wide . If you go out and look at the large
11 objects such as poles, trees, et cetera, at no
point in that right of way will you measure less
-12 than 15 feet of clearance . If necessary, the
right of way can be cleared to 29 feet, if that' s
13 what' s required. The Town Code requires 15 feet .
In addition, we contacted the Cutchogue Fire
14 Department on this particular issue, and they
indicated they have no problem accessing the
15 property for emergency purposes . What is
especially disturbing on this issue of accessing
16 the property is to realize that the Board has
taken a posture that discourages the care of
17 senior citizens by members of their families at
their homes .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is so far
from the truth, Mr. Schultheis, I have ever heard
19 any statement in any document for the 24 years I
have been on this Board, and I ' m going to tell you
20 why. You were told and you were asked at that
hearing to please work on a project that would
21 fill in the area between your house toward your
garage . And for you to frivolously say that, I am
22 absolutely appalled at your statement .
MR. SCHULTHEIS : I read from Lydia' s
23 statement given to the court : "The Board also
determined that the house presently maintains no
24 suitable access for fire and emergency vehicles .
The additional living space requested by the
25 petitioners exacerbates this problem. In fact,
the petitioners explained that they wanted their
July 15, 2004
42
1
2 aging mothers to move into the new portion of the
house . The Board felt that an increase in the
3 potential number of people living at the house
would increase the potential demand for such
4 vehicles and create an unacceptable safety risk.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Based upon the
5 construction that you wanted, not based upon the
fact -- anything can sound the way you want it to
6 sound and you can interpret the way you want to
interpret it .
7 MR. SCHULTHEIS : That is addressed to the
issue of emergency access .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will stand up
in any court of law and tell you, sir, that that
9 statement is your interpretation. That is not the
way that hearing was constructed.
10 Excuse me, Ruth, I apologize .
MR. SCHULTHEIS : I consider myself to be a
11 reasonable person, an educated person, and that
was my interpretation of what that says .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then why didn' t
you do what we asked?
13 MR. SCHULTHEIS : We' ll get to that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then get to that
14 then. We don' t have this document in front of us,
therefore we have to use our thoughts to reflect
15 upon your document . This hearing should be
stopped at this particular point until we have
16 every one of those elements in front of us . But I
respect Madam Chairperson because this hearing
17 will not continue until such time I have a chance
to review every one of those documents you have
18 brought up today. I take this totally offensive
not having that in front of me .
19 MR. SCHULTHEIS : I am incensed that you do
not have the materials .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Enough. I want to get
to the facts, please, continue your presentation.
21 I haven' t heard it . I want to hear it .
MR. SCHULTHEIS : Item 13 basically says
22 that this whole situation was self-created and we
knew about this when we bought the house . We
23 bought the house in 1987 . In 1988 we got a permit
basically to redo our bulkhead and to put an
24 addition on the house . We added six feet to the
north side of the house, which is the portion in
25 question right now. Let me ask this : Where did
the Board get the information that we knew we
July 15 , 2004
43
1
2 couldn' t add to the house? That baffles we
completely. It was not presented at the public
3 hearing. It was not brought up . Where did it
come from?
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t know,
continue .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t know
what you' re talking about .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just keep going.
MR. SCHULTHEIS : Item 14 addresses the
7 issue of the stability of the bulkheading at the
house . Again, this concern was brought up at the
8 public hearing, and was addressed at the hearing.
The parameters of the design of the bulkheading as
9 well as the foundation was brought up at the
meeting; but for the record, the additional weight
10 of any addition to the house will have no affect
on the bulkhead because when the addition was put
11 on the house in 1988, a foundation was constructed
that basically brings the load of the house down
12 below any level that is supported by the
bulkhead. The foundation, even though it' s a
13 crawl space underneath, is eight feet deep, the
footing is wider, less pounds per square foot and
14 there is no weight exhibited on the bulkhead in
any manner.
15 In addition, when the bulkhead was built,
the design was based on the design of pressure
16 treated wood bulkheads by James S . Graham of the
American Society of Civil Engineers . Every member
17 that was used to build the bulkhead was larger
than what the design dictated; for example, the
18 three inch thick sheathing that was used instead
of the two inch sheathing is 225 percent stronger
19 than what was required by the design. So the
design of the foundation already elevated the
20 problem of any weight on the bulkhead, the weight
is not put on the bulkhead and the bulkhead is
21 over-designed. And that was brought up as an
environmental concern to reject the request .
22 In, Item 15, the issue of other feasible
less intrusive methods of construction was
23 addressed. In the attached document, there' s a
section called the constraints of the property.
24 In that document you will see where we were
mandated to place cesspools by the DEC, where we
25 were mandated to put in dry wells by the Trustees;
where there are deeded right of ways for
July 15 , 2004
44
1
2 underground electric, underground cable TV,
underground water and underground gas . You will
3 see where the garage is, what is required for back
up space . I referenced what we went through with
4 the DEC and the Trustees in getting the permit for
the project . Under no circumstances did they want
5 to consider any building closer to Cutchogue
Harbor.
6 So, based on the constraints that exist on
the site right now, the only real alternative is
7 to build up and not increase the footprint . And
the whole fallacy of this approach is that it does
8 nothing to change the existing setback, which was
the primary reason for rejecting the
9 application. The building doesn' t come back any
further from where it is now if I build in another
10 area, those existing conditions remain, does
absolutely nothing to change them.
11 Item 16 addresses the issue of seeking an
interpretation of the codes . When the application
12 was submitted, there was a cover letter submitted
with the application; in that cover letter it
13 specifically asked for the interpretation of the
code . At the public hearing that same request was
14 made . Yet the statements say no interpretation of
the code was asked for. The request was clearly
15 ignored.
As far as the last item, as far as I 'm
16 concerned, it' s obvious the denial of the variance
was done with prejudice . When you review the
17 facts, it was not rational but appears to be more
emotional based on the testimony of two
18 non-residents of the area, and it lacks the
presence of any evidence and should be changed.
19 That addresses the court documents, so to
speak. Also included in what I gave you is an
20 overview of the characteristics of the
neighborhood. There' s an aerial photograph that
21 shows you what the neighborhood looks like .
There' s a zoning map that shows you the zoning of
22 the neighborhood. There' s a petition of the
surrounding neighbors that we took regarding their
23 sentiment that the house was out of character and
a detriment to the neighborhood. One hundred
24 percent of those people approached agreed that
they did not agree with the Board' s decision
25 here . Talk about the pristine nature of
Schoolhouse Creek, contained in this document are
July 15, 2004
45
1
2 the pictures of the junk yard which exist next to
our house which clearly doesn' t support the
3 aspects of the pristine nature of the creek and
it' s at least encouraging to realize that in this
4 particular area the Zoning Board has taken a
position that they would like to see a pristine
5 condition in this creek. I .personally will take
that as a mandate that the junk yard that exists
6 needs to be cleaned up.
We also talk about the close by waterfront
7 residents, what exists in the area . If you look
at what' s there; not one of them within 3 , 000
8 square feet to the south is conforming and looking
to the north the four contiguous parcels are
9 nonconforming. And then we get into the area
where we have the two and three larger plots,
10 which is not comparable to the character of the
neighborhood in which the house is located.
11 I won' t go into the details of each of
those but for each of those points I brought up
12 there' s verbiage in the document that addresses
the specifics, there' s pictures; I talked about
13 the fire and emergency access .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s in this document
14 that you just handed up?
MR. SCHULTHEIS : Yes . We addressed the
15 fallacy of the request being self-created. I ' d
just like to ask the question, who on the Board
16 knows what we were thinking when we bought this
house? Where did that come from? Nothing?
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn' t
understand that question either. You want to
18 restate the question for me, Mr. Schultheis?
MR. SCHULTHEIS : Yes . In the document
19 presented to the court, it specifically said that
the petitioners knew when they bought the house
20 that they could never add to it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In that specific
21 language?
MR. SCHULTHEIS : Yes .
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I comment?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In your Zoning
Board decision it says Number 4 , variance
24 requested has been self-created since the
applicant purchased the property with knowledge of
25 restrictions in planning the additions . Now, the
applicant purchased this property in 1987 . And
July 15, 2004
46
1
2 the subject of this is Walz, which is an
interpretation that basically was never advertised
3 in the paper by the Town; it was something that we
did on our own, the Zoning Board. , So I don' t see
4 how, and I'm trying to explain this, the applicant
could have possibly known that they couldn' t build
5 up, on this property because building ,permits at
the time he purchased this property have been
6 granted for the very same thing that he' s asking.
for today.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not in its
proximity of the bulkhead.
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: , Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 119 2B and 239 . 4
9 both of the Zoning Code, the old code and the new
code would have still required a variance, and
10 that is the reason why that statement that Mr.
Schultheis made is a statement which very simply
11 meant that he could not do anything or Mrs .
Schultheis could do nothing without a variance
12 application before this Board.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I disagree .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re welcome
to disagree . And that' s my opinion.
14 MR. SCHULTHEIS : And history will show
that when those variances when requested were
15 primarily granted.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily,
16 sir. That was the purpose of the establishment of
those two laws by a past environmentalist who was
17 a Town Board member in this town.
MR. SCHULTHEIS : We talk about the
18 closeness to the bulkhead and I' ll have to bring
up the closest house to me on the water recently
19 requested in 1999 a variance to add to the
house .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure .
MR. SCHULTHEIS : They have zero front yard
21 setbacks . On one side they are one foot from the
bulkhead; on the other side of the house they have
22 enough room to park one car. They have about a 15
foot rear yard setback to the bulkhead in the
23 rear.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are they on a
24 peninsula like yours?
MR. SCHULTHEIS : No .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Unique property,
character of the neighborhood.
July 15, 2004
47
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : May I comment
again?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Quickly.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t 'believe
4 this applicant was denied for what you just
quoted, Jerry. It looks to me like it' s just,
5 242A, which is non-conforming, which is Walz .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Jimmy, I 'm
6 making a statement in general .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Sorry. You guys
7 made a decision, and you' re telling me now it' s
based on something other than what they were
8 disapproved for.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am making a
9 statement that the 75 .foot setback aspect of it,
that is what I am making a statement for.
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They were not
disapproved for that, Jerry.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
that .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How could you
possibly put that into the decision?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am saying,
Jim, in question, in toto, the purpose of the law
14 was that reason. What we had here prior to the
Schultheises -- and I can' t give you the exact
15 determination -- was an old bait shop, which was
then further made a house, which I assume they
16 purchased; is that correct?
M . SCHULTHEIS : It was made into a house .
17 That particular area was Larry Tuthill' s father
lived there, his sister lived there; he sold it
18 from the Kreminses who we bought the house from,
who lived there, then we bought the house in 1987 .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was
originally a bait house; it was Johnson' s store .
20 MR. SCHULTHEIS : It' s a house now. It was
the Kreminses' house before us and the Marjory
21 Tuthill house before that . We didn' t make it into
a house from a bait house .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
that .
23 MR. SCHULTHEIS : If we go back to the
1500s it was vacant land. Things change .
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And we ask you,
sir, for the second time at. this public hearing,
25 to create an addition between the house and the
garage .
July 15, 2004
48
1
2 MR. SCHULTHEIS : In my material is the
material that addresses the constraints of why
3 that can' t be done .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anything can be
4 done, and you know that that can be done, sir .
MRS . SCHULTHEIS : DEC and Trustees will
5 not agree with that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s not my
6 problem.
MR. SCHULTHEIS : As a matter of fact,
7 there' s a variance in place for the garage . One
of the things that could be considered, put some
8 living area above the garage, can' t do that
because the variance granted for the garage
9 construction by this particular Board says it can
be used for storage only.
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Between the
house and the garage .
11 MR. SCHULTHEIS : If you will look at the
evidence I supplied you, you will see where the
12 cesspools are located, where the septic tank is
located mandated by the DEC.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Change them, put
them in the right of way.
14 MR. SCHULTHEIS : That was tried. DEC is
not willing to do that, too close to the water.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the only
thing I can suggest to you.
16 MR. SCHULTHEIS : I have three years of
negotiations with the DEC as to where to put that
17 septic system. That' s the only place they said it
can go .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Drive pilings
and put it over it .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s very
20 difficult --
MR. SCHULTHEIS : The environmental --
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Excuse me, Lydia' s
speaking.
22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s very difficult
without following, I assume what he' s talking
23 about is Frank Isler' s affidavit . Although I do
remember one thing that he said that I ' d like to
24 make notice of . You said that you had applied for
an interpretation, I have a copy of your
25 application dated two 2/7/03 , type of appeal, you
checked a variance . You did not check an
July 15, 2004
49
1
2 interpretation of the code . I have a copy of a
letter dated January 7, 2003 at Paragraph 4 you
3 talk about asking for an opinion, request that
this section be considered as applying here of
4 100-239G; however, the next paragraph you say it
is our opinion that the above-mentioned section
5 100-239-4 applies but since we need to keep
requests for all approvals moving along to
6 minimize additional water damage, we are
submitting the request for a variance at this
7 time . That' s a clarification of you said that we
did not act on your request for a variance the
8 reason is quite clear, you did not --
MR. SCHULTHEIS : The reason for that was
9 that I spoke with Linda in your office, and it was
indicated to me that this was a possible reason,
10 but if I wanted to move along quickly, the way to
do it was to submit the application for the one
11 thing. That was the advice .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Nonetheless it was
12 your decision.
MR. SCHULTHEIS : It would have been easy
13 to put another check mark.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s why I 'm
14 correcting. In your earlier testimony you stated
that we refused to act on it . That is incorrect .
15 I have just corrected that . The reasons why are
irrelevant, what you stated is incorrect, and I
16 would like the opportunity to go back over every
word of t�is testimony compare it to the affidavit
17 that was submitted by outside counsel on this,
because there are several things that you have
18 said that don' t appear to be correct but without
benefit of the material before me, it' s difficult
19 to be able to address it .
ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: Did the
20 application for an Article 78 petition involve the
issueiof interpretation?
21 MR. BRESSLER: There was no
interpretation, so there was nothing to appeal .
22 ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: Then we
shouldn' t be dealing with the request for
23 interpretation right now.
MR. BRESSLER: Whether or not there' s a
24 request for interpretation remains to be
determined; the papers speak for themselves . We' re
25 not going to concede that that' s not so. The
documents say what they say.
July 15, 2004
50
1
2 ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: That' s correct .
But we have been remanded back here to deal with
3 specific things, and one of those things was not
the interpretation request, whether it was made or
4 not made .
MR. DRESSLER: If that' s the way you view
5 it , then that' s the way you' ll make your
determination.
6 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : I was wondering if
an application would be necessary -- we don' t have
7 an application for an interpretation.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s irrelevant .
8 Jerry, are you finished?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, I just want
9 to apologize to Mr. and Mrs . Schultheis . I have
absolutely nothing against you in question,
10 against your present property or anything of that
nature . I just want you to know that there were
11 certain things that you said concerning the senior
citizen aspect that upset me greatly, and I do
12 apologize to you personally, both of you, for
really getting a little off the subject on that
13 aspect . But I felt that I myself, as a member of
this Board, has to react to that situation because
14 in no time did this Board at any time that I sat
on it, which is 24 years ever, ever be
15 discriminatory in that sense . That' s my opinion.
MR. SCHULTHEIS : I accept that . I look at
16 myself as I come before you as an adversary. I
don' t agree with what you told me . And now I 've
17 come back and said these are the reasons I don' t
agree . We' re in an adversarial relationship here .
18 I 've said I don' t agree with what you said. And
I 'm taking my opportunity here to outline what I
19 feel are the issues .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you finished with
20 your presentation?
MR. SCHULTHEIS : The rest of the material
21 is contained in the document .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I don' t think
22 we can -- absolutely I agree with Mrs . Tortora --
can accurately review it properly until we have
23 what Mr. Isler had submitted to the court .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And, Madam
24 Chairwoman, we need of course the copies of this
for every Board member.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
in this audience that wishes to speak on this
July 15 , 2004
51
1
2 application? Larry, any kind for or against?
MR. TUTHILL: I ' d like to present to the
3 Board.
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : Mr. Tuthill is
4 presenting photographs, as well as Mr. Goehringer.
MR. TUTHILL : For the record, my name is
5 Lawrence Tuthill, and I am the owner of the
adjacent properties to Mr. Schultheis . And that
6 is I don' t like the idea that more or less my
testimony or anything brought up before this
7 organization be that I. am not a resident therefore
it should not be taken into account . I think it ' s
8 very important that a property owner and use his
business usually does not live on that property,
9 and this is zoned marina, therefore I have more
than a residential person because this is marina
10 property, his is also marina property and we' re
looking at this under different a aspect than a
11 residential . Therefore the considerations in
discussing this application should be taken as a
12 marina property and there are certain limitations
that I would like to request as so. And the fact,
13 as shown in the picture, there are about 150
boats that go in and out of this marina, and
14 there' s a lot of boat traffic in there : Mr.
Schultheis has complained many times about the
15 noise being made there, the various things because
there' s a marina operation going on, whether
16 bringing equipment onto the property and off the
property, which formerly, and still use now as, a
17 base for dock building operation. And certainly
this meets to the conformity of a residential area
18 in the fact that everything has to be spic and
span clean. If you also notice there are a lot of
19 buildings there and so the area' s clean, but my
main concern is that with the traffic going in and
20 out of there, when you go up the second story,
normally a lot of the noise is blocked out by his
21 bulkhead, but the bulkhead, when you raise the
building up, the noise coming from the people
22 going in and out of the marina is accentuated.
And as he said, he' s now having an elderly person
23 living there in this marina area, and I don' t
think that someone elderly wants to be woken up
24 during the night by some people shouting or
talking to each other or someone leaving in and
25 out of the area at all times because it' s not like
a car where you' re closed in, usually in the boats
July 15 , 2004
52
1
2 they' re on the outside speaking to each other,
they' re quite often using search lights coming in
3 to the area, and it' s very disrupting to someone
who is elderly, and I don' t think, if, like has
4 been suggested that the buildings be one story, it
wouldn' t be so objectionable, but to have to
5 listen to probably all the complaints in the
future that being in the second story you' re upset
6 by all this noise, we have buildings on Long
Island Expressway where they built all kinds of
7 big walls to stop noise from the traffic and this
also is traffic coming in and out . And I think
8 that these 150 people, boats running in and out of
the harbor should not have to worry about making
9 noise to disturb Mr. Schultheis .
Mr. Schultheis says how organized he is
10 and well-known, if you notice on his application,
his bulkhead goes out two feet into the creek, but
11 in his application, he never showed that there was
land on the other side, but realizing that there
12 was a canal is there, and so now it has gone out
into navigable waters . Yes, you have a permit
13 from the town, and yes, you have a permit from the
DEC, but if someone complained to the Coast Guard,
14 that bulkhead would have to be removed because
it' s going into navigable channels, that is out
15 into a street . He' s automatically thinking, well,
I have rights to this . We don' t have rights to
16 the center of the creek, you have some rights, but
they' re not so you could build out into them, and
17 they allowed him to build out into the middle of
the creek. On his original application when he
18 bought the property there was a line drawn on
there by the surveyor at the request of the
19 lawyer, but this line drawn on it showed where he
had rights to build on, use my property for a
20 float, and yet when told him exactly this line is
not there, to this day, the float is still on my
21 property, and I'm in the process of trying to get
it removed but because of a line drawn on a piece
22 of property which is not his, I have this
incumbrance on my property. He' s also built two
23 feet onto my property. It goes on and on. I have
rights, there are rights he doesn' t really have .
24 Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
25 who wishes to speak? Mr. Bressler?
MR. BRESSLER: Briefly in reply, we
July 15, 2004
53
1
2 appreciate Mr. Tuthill' s interest in our well
being and we thank him for that . However, given
3 the constraints of the property and the needs of
the applicant there, they are more than willing to
4 deal with that situation. Of course, we disagree
with the underlying assumptions of those comments,
5 and as to the balance of those comments, they are
plainly irrelevant and we ask that the Board deal
6 with them as such. If the Board has any, either
for me or for the applicant, we' d be happy to
7 entertain them. Otherwise, it' s 2 : 00 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' d like to have
8 a copy of Mr. and Mrs . Schultheis' Health
Department permit showing the actual position of
9 their cesspool system and sanitary system.
MR. SCHULTHEIS : In actuality, when it
10 came time to do the cesspool, we applied to the
Health Department, and they came back to us and
11 said we have an existing cesspool and it was not
necessary to get anything from them. And the only
12 agency that determined where that was to be
located was the DEC.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I have a
copy of that?
14 MR. SCHULTHEIS : That' s included in the
information I gave you.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn' t see
that .
16 MR. SCHULTHEIS : Under constraints,
there' s a copy of the permit granted by the DEC .
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But is there a
survey indicating the exact location?
18 MR. SCHULTHEIS : I will get that part of
it .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a
question? Eric, maybe you can help. I read the `
20 Court' s decision but honestly I'm not clear, I
wonder if you can summarize for me what he
21 said. Why are they back before us?
MR. BRESSLER: That' s a matter of some
22 debate . We had asked that the determination of
the Board be reversed based upon the fact that
23 there was no support for its decision, and in
reviewing the order, particularly on Page 3
24 thereof, the Court made it clear that the decision
was deficient in that there was not a sufficient
25 basis to support the determination. Then the
Court went through the various factors that the
July 15 , 2004
54
1
2 Board used, the undesirable change, no support,
exacerbate environmental factors, not supported,
3 in fact , the permits from the environmental people
were provided to you, suitable access, there was
4 no support , benefit in other ways, no support;
and, in fact, the Court found on the Walz issue
5 specifically that that was brought in in 2002 and,
of course, that was not self-created.
6 What happened then was apparently
realizing the deficiencies, counsel for the Board
7 submitted an answer, an affidavit which raised
additional issues . We rebutted them, the Court
8 determined that it was not going to even consider
those issues . Then it went on to say that because
9 there was no factual basis, it was arbitrary and
capricious, not supported, and it was remanded for
10 reconsideration. Now, we had a dispute at the
beginning of this particular hearing as to exactly
11 what that reconsideration consisted of, and it' s
our view that the record was not to be opened. It
12 was the Board' s view that the record was to be
opened over my objection; that' s been done . It
13 was stated by one of the Board members,
Mr. Goehringer, I believe that what was going to
14 happen was that the Board was going to go back and
they were going to find support one way or another
15 for what the Board determined to do, and that they
were going to set it forth. It was obviously my
16 view that having failed to do that in the first
instance that that sort of broad based
17 reconsideration was not appropriate, and I think
that' s something the Board is going to have to
18 deal with. That' s my take on it .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask one
19 more question.
MR. BRESSLER: Sure .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I witnessed the
exchange at the beginning and was somewhat
21 confused by it . I wasn' t here for the hearing,
like I said, I did read, and in all honesty, I
22 prefer to listen to testimony, and I was for
opening this thing because if I have to make a
23 decision on it now, my name' s going to be signed
to it, I want to hear it . What -- you don' t have
24 to answer if you don' t want to, maybe it' s a naive
question -- what did you hope to gain by not
25 having us open it? What would have been the
result of that?
July 15 , 2004
55
1
2 MR. BRESSLER: The result clearly would
have been a grant . The Court made it extremely
3 clear that the record that was presented below was
inadequate to support the determination.
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We were told to
act . What did you expect us to do?
5 MR. BRESSLER: Give us our relief .
ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: I have to
6 respectfully disagree with your interpretation of
the Court' s decision.
7 MR. BRESSLER: Of course you do .
ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: I must, because
8 I feel strongly about it . If the Court found
there was no way to support this decision in the
9 record, it very easily could have granted you your
relief . The Court sent it back for
10 reconsideration, which leads one to believe that
the Board can either find in the record greater
11 support or not find in the record greater
support .
12 MR. BRESSLER: That is something that you
could have done on the record.
13 ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: The Board has
elected to give you an opportunity to make a
14 presentation which your client has done .
MR. BRESSLER: What the Board elected to
15 do is reopen the record, and while I certainly
agree with the first part of your statement , that
16 the Board could go back and reexamine the record,
and while I don' t necessarily agree based on the
17 record with that determination, we didn' t
challenge it and the decision stands . And I think
18 what you said is manifestly so, at least the first
part of your comments; you can go back, look at
19 the record and determine whether there' s support
for what you' re going to do, what the Board has
20 chosen to do, and what we have done based upon the
Board' s position over objection and especially
21 given the feelings of some of the Board members
who weren' t here, we' ll represent the evidence,
22 and we will present whatever it is as part of this
reopened hearing that we deem appropriate,
23 reserving all our rights . So we presented the
stuff, you've heard it, we've given you the
24 material and there will be additional copies for
you to consider in addition to the material that
25 was put on the original record. But I think it' s
fair to say that after listening today, probably
July 15 , 2004
56
1
2 the members who didn' t participate have a fair
idea about what the dispute is about and what the
3 request is for, and probably upon review of the
documents will have a better idea. And I dare say
4 that the Board members who were here and
participated in it know exactly what' s going on,
5 and you can go back and everybody can review the
answer and Board Member Tortora' s affidavit, and
6 you can look at all that . But the issues are what
they are, and the record reflects what it
7 reflects . And I' d like to close up, unless
there' s any more questions, by saying that I think
8 that this application cries out for a grant . When
you look through the material, if any of you drive
9 down to New Suffolk, I know Board Member
Goehringer knows it intimately, I think you will
10 be drawn to the conclusion that the character of
the neighborhood is not going to be altered. I
11 think the latest request that the Board made is a
reasonable one, that is for the DEC material . I
12 think that if the Board reviews that material it
will appreciate the fact that the relief requested
13 here really is driven by the property, and what
can and cannot be done there, and if upon the
14 review of those permits and the existing physical
conditions, the Board reaches that conclusion,
15 we' d be extremely grateful . I don' t think that it
answers the question, and I think in the heat of
16 argument both sides said things probably they
shouldn' t have said, and to say we' ll take stuff
17 and move it here and there really doesn' t address
the issue because the Board has to weigh the
18 benefits and the burdens . And I think when you
look at where other agencies have said things
19 should be, and you look at the overall lay of the
land, I think you' ll probably conclude that this
20 is a modest proposal given what' s down there and
nobody' s going to be hurt by it .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How long will it take
to get from the DEC where the septic systems are
22 located?
MR. DRESSLER: How long from DEC, as
23 quickly as we can.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I reviewed the
24 documents, I don' t see an actual survey of the
property. I know we have bits and pieces of the
25 survey, and in no way am I refuting Mr.
Schultheis' credentials, but I don' t see a survey
July 15 , 2004
57
1
2 of the property; there' s nothing that says there
was a survey here created by anybody.
3 MR. BRESSLER: I think there was one with
the original application.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Has that changed
in any way?
5 MR. BRESSLER: The survey has not changed.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you could
6 submit a clean copy of the survey, I would
appreciate it, doesn' t have to be today.
7 MR. BRESSLER: No problem.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a couple
of more questions?
9 MR. BRESSLER: Please .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we covered
10 pretty much the self-created part of it . Number 3
on the reasons for the Board' s actions is the
11 relief requested is substantial; then it goes on
to say the addition is 22 . 7 feet closer than the
12 code requirement; are you building an addition
here or --
13 MR. BRESSLER: We' re going up within the
building envelope, and the only reason that the
14 numbers are the way they are is because of the
2002 rule .
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The 22 . 7 feet that
is the nonconformity, so to speak, that' s the
16 existing nonconformity. This sentence seems to
indicate that you' re building that, you' re not
17 building that .
MR. BRESSLER: We' re already
18 nonconforming.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . That 22 . 7
19 feet existed 10 years ago, and you' re not adding
to that .
20 MR. BRESSLER: No. The nonconformity is
going to be, one way of thinking we' re going to be
21 further away from the property line .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm looking at the
22 reasons here, going over, trying to find some
logic . I guess the benefits sought by the
23 applicant, some other reason I guess that' s what
Jerry' s been talking about the other side of the
24 house, you' re saying, look, I have stuff there .
MR. BRESSLER: Right, I've got cesspools
25 mandated, I 've got underground utilities, and
while Member Goehringer is right, anything
July 15 , 2004
58
1
2 theoretically can be done, provided the other
agencies agree; that isn' t always the best way to
3 go . And once you see the DEC stuff, you' ll see
other areas are precluded.
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Also considering
the amount of money you have to spend could be a
5 hardship and a reason for granting this
application. And the undesirable change,
6 basically this is residential use and I understand
what Mr. Tuthill said, this is really a huge
7 marina, if you look at it, and inside we have a
residential use, which is a lesser use than marine
8 use .
MR. BRESSLER: It is less intrusive .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Less impact on the
environment and certainly if these people chose to
10 live there, they know about the noise, and they
know it' s a busy place and Mr. Tuthill needs to
11 run his business, and they can complain about what
they want to complain about, but they know that
12 it' s there and that' s obvious . That' s not a
reason for us to deny because they are being kept
13 awake by Mr. Tuthill .
MR. BRESSLER: I don' t think so, and in
14 response to that, while you and I may chose not to
live at the mouth of the creek where people come
15 and go, nonetheless, it pleases the Schultheises
to live there and they like it .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think if the Board is
agreeable, that we could adjourn this hearing
17 until the September meeting. We have a lot of
information to go through. People have vacations
18 coming up. We are remanded to September 16th.
MR. BRESSLER: That' s adjourned for the
19 purpose of making the submissions giving the
Board --
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And also give us a time
for us to review Mr. Isler' s and your responses to
21 it , and gives us more time to be more thorough.
BOARD SECY -KOWALSKI : We need those
22 submissions a week before that meeting so the
Board can have it ahead of time and prepare . If
23 you can have it two weeks .
MR. BRESSLER: We' re closing the
24 testimonial portion of the hearing? You' re going
to entertain further witnesses?
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don' t like to close
it, maybe you have something further to say.
July 15 , 2004
59
1
2 MR. BRESSLER: No . I want to make
submissions and my clients are asking me, do I
3 need to come back here, and if the answer is we' re
going to make submissions and give you the
4 documents you need, I'm going to tell them, no,
the Board will then consider it in due course .
5 BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : The Board may still
have questions .
6 MR. BRESSLER: If the Board feels
otherwise, then I' ll tell them they have to be
7 here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Some of the Board may
8 still have questions after they review all the
documentation. There' s a lot of stuff to go
9 through here, and at least for me and Jim too, he
has to carefully review everything that has been
10 said on both sides .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Ruth, in all
11 honesty, I understand that the Court' s decision
was we' re supposed to base this on testimony that
12 you based it on, that the former Board based it
on, and I 'm perfectly willing to go through the
13 record. I would be hesitant to have someone,
based on the actions that have happened, have a
14 second bite of the apple, so to speak, be able to
come back in September and add more information
15 than was the subject of the --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Limit it to --
16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We have this
already submitted in evidence .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I couldn' t agree
with you more . These are the applicants . These
18 are the people who are explaining to us where they
went, and coming back to you explaining their
19 journey. Any neighbor now that comes in has a
second opportunity now, I don' t think they deserve
20 to do whatever they wish to do, postpone this
hearing, come in in September and say I need
21 another month.
MR. BRESSLER: That' s exactly the evil I'm
22 trying to avoid, we' ll answer your questions, but
I don' t want to go through another whole round
23 here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, it could be just
24 limited to the --
ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: I think if you
25 leave the hearing open for the purposes of the
Board' s questions and response for the latest
July 15 , 2004
60
1
2 round of submissions .
MR. BRESSLER: Fair enough. The public
3 has had two bites at this and I don' t want to get
into --
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree with you.
MR. BRESSLER: Fair enough. What' s the
5 September calendar date?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: September 16th.
6 ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: The purpose of
that is I think the Board wants to be in a
7 position, Mr. Bressler, to come to a resolution at
that meeting.
8 MR. BRESSLER: Great, we encourage it .
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to keep
10 this meeting open and reconvene on September 16th
at 1 : 00 p .m.
11 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
Susan Lomangino for a Horse Farm on Old Main Road
13 in Mattituck. Beautiful piece of property.
MS . MOORE : Good afternoon, Pat Moore,
14 51020 Main Road, Southold. I have with me today
Mr . and Mrs . Lomangino. They' re the owners of the
15 property, and if there are any questions that come
up, they' re here and hopefully we can answer them.
16 This piece of property, as you can see
from the survey that was submitted to you, is
17 approximately 51 . 7 acres, It is presently being
used as a horse farm. Mr. and Mrs . Lomangino live
18 in the house that is off of Old Main Road. In
addition to their house, they also have some
19 accessory buildings . This piece of property was
part of the Husing estate . A little bit of
20 history, when they went to contract with Mrs .
Husing, one of the requests that was made in the
21 will was that the old house that was there that it
be used for firematic purposes as a training for
22 the fire department . Mrs . Lomangino has always
been very involved in the community, wants to be a
23 part of the community and honored that wish. And
the house that was there at the time did go
24 through an control burn exercise . That ' s a little
bit of history there . .
25 Mrs . Lomangino originally came to the
Building Department and asked for a building
July 15 , 2004
61
1
2 permit for the horse barn. The barn is presently
there . It' s existing, and it' s a beautiful
3 facility.
Even though the similar, the identical use
4 of a horse farm, one it' s a agricultural permitted
use in our zoning code, the fact that the Building
5 Department was concerned about others using it
triggered the review of a special permit for a
6 riding academy. The reality is that it is a
private barn. People that come to house their
7 horse, to board their horse have to make
arrangements with the private owner. It' s like
8 every other barn in the Town of Southold and
probably on the north fork, Riverhead included.
9 Certainly it was a bone of contention caused the
stopping of construction every several times, but
10 finally there was an agreement with the Building
Department, fine, we' ll come in for a site plan,
11 we' ll come in with a special permit application,
and here we are .
12 During the course of the review, I also
gave you a modified plan that was delivered to
13 you. Mr. and Mrs . Lomangino found that, you know,
you build it, they will come . As soon as they
14 built this beautiful facility, they were getting
more and more inquiries by private horse owners to
15 have their horse boarded. Again, that is a
permissible use in our code, but under the guise
16 of a riding academy, stables, we' re asking that
that use be authorized as a special permit . They
17 found that very quickly the 10 stalls that they
have now presently inside the facility are being,
18 one, filled up by their own horses which they have
12 horses of their own; there is a request for a
19 15 additional stalls, which will be in a shed, the
shed pop-out that I had given the Board after my
20 original use special permits submission. At the
time they said, I see this coming down the line
21 within a year or two, and I said by the time we
get all our permits and approvals, we might as
22 well get the application, because the application
was early enough on the process that the site plan
23 review could go with the stalls as they will
ultimately be constructed.
24 In addition, you have a small viewing
area, viewing room, where, when you have riders,
25 children in particular where the people come in
for horse lessons, you might have parents,
July 15, 2004
62
1
2 observers in the observatory; so that is something
that makes sense, kind of making the whole use
3 work very well and since it' s a new facility,
building it the way it should be rather than
4 piecemeal .
So here we are, I 've given you in written
5 testimony, the standards of a some permit, and I
believe we've met all those standards . For me to
6 repeat everything that was already in writing, I
don' t want to keep you here indefinitely. What we
7 also want to point out is that eventually -- we
have 51 acres today, it is realistic that for
8 liability purposes eventually it would make sense
for them, since this is now going to be a riding
9 academy, this is a business, setting off the barn
on whatever acreage is appropriate at the time,
10 probably 10 acres, more or less, it really will
depend what the Planning Board feels is
11 appropriate . There' s no intention presently but
we want to make sure that you have it in the back
12 of your mind when you' re granting the special
permit that you don' t inadvertently write it in
13 such a way that we have to maintain 51 acres in
order to have this special permit be -in force . We
14 want to be sure that you know right from the onset
that the reality is that this structure should be
15 set off in its own parcel . As I said, for
liability purposes . .
16 And I apologize, my client didn' t realize
that he needed seven prints of all the
17 photographs . I will get you additional prints
after the hearing.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You would need 10
acres at least with that horse barn?
19 MS . MOORE : Yes, for practical use, 10
acres, so if you wish to make it as a condition of
20 the special permit .
I have several pictures, and what I' ll do
21 is I've labeled them on the back, numbered and
I ' ll just describe them on the record, and I ' ll
22 present them all as a packet . The first picture
which I thought was a very nice picture was a
23 picture of the inside of the barn right now where
the stalls are . I joke with the client if I were
24 to die and come back as a horse, I would want to
live on these properties because these animals
25 live better than some humans . It' s a beautiful
facility and I'm sure you made your inspection and
July 15, 2004
63
1
2 admired it as I have .
The entrance, they put on an entrance that
3 is certainly befitting of the quality of the
facility that they wish to have . It' s not a
4 slap-dab barn. It' s a lovely --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is a Morton
5 building?
MS . MOORE : It' s a Morton pre-fab
6 building, correct . The inside is customized.
It' s got stalls that are not typical horse stalls .
7 They also added a feature which because of the
special permit request, our advice was to put in a
8 fire alarm system that would trigger an automatic
alarm to the firehouse . It' s actually been
9 installed. It is not required for the purposes of
a barn to get a CO for personal use, but we
10 thought that given the Board is being asked to
grant a special permit for technically a
11 commercial use that this added feature, whether
the Board would impose it or we would do it
12 voluntarily, it made sense to do it
nonetheless . So I have additional photographs in
13 there, but the west side, you see east, west,
north, we have all the sides, including the
14 inside . If you would look at Photograph 5 , you
see at the very top it was right after it had been
15 installed, there' s a ladder that shows the alarm
system that is up high, obviously for the heat,
16 it' s triggered by heat . There is a pull switch,
so it' s an emergency pull switch. It also has
17 sensors and in the event of a fire, the fire
department will be notified immediately.
18 These are very valuable animals and
they' re like family pets, so the fact that there' s
19 human activity, it' s not so much the human
activity but the animals themselves that should be
20 protected.
All the elevations are here. We have
21 emergency exit signs that have been installed
inside, that' s Photograph 15, which shows that .
22 There' s also a fire sensor and switch in the
bathroom; there' s a photograph with lovely horse
23 decals, that' s the bathroom, it' s Photograph 14 ,
and that shows you again that there is a fire
24 suppression alarm in the bathroom. So that if
someone' s in there there is an alarm. On the
25 outside of the building there' s red boxes, it' s
Photograph 13 . And lots and lots of pictures of
July 15 , 2004
64
1
2 the fire suppression system, they' re very proud of
the fire suppression system because it is state of
3 the art, a Magnum Fire Alert system, and it was
done like everything else here, first class . I ' ll
4 submit those photographs for your record
(handing) .
5 I' m here to answer any questions and the
owners are here to answer any questions . I think
6 we've touched on or I 've touched on some of the
salient points regarding some of the special
7 features of this special permit .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I?
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Moore, I
9 was away so I haven' t been inside the buildings .
I would like to reserve the right to come down and
10 take a look.
MS . MOORE : Please do.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The major
portion of the building is what we refer to as the
12 horse arena; is it not?
MS . MOORE : When you go inside the
13 building -- there' s a floor plan. I have the
bottom of the plan, the ledger down at the bottom
14 right, so we' re facing the same direction. What
is existing today is where it shows tack room, the
15 area down at the south end, the bottom of the
drawing; are you looking at it the same way I am?
16 The bottom there are the horse stalls that are
presently there . And we have a photograph that I
17 submitted that shows the detail of the horse
stalls that are individualized stalls made of oak
18 stalls with cement footings and sand with a rubber
base . What you then do the entrance into the
19 larger exercise area, which is the riding rink,
it' s not like a car race track, it is an open area
20 with a very thick layer of sand and the horses --
imagine the horses you see in like pictures in
21 Disney films, I think of like Black Beauty where
they' re practicing on a line and the horses are
22 exercising and the trainer is standing in the
center, and the horse is on the long run are
23 exercising around the stable . So that area, the
space is dimension-wise, if I could find it, 180
24 by 120 -- the rink is 100 by 180 is the exercise
area, and in that area you could have students
25 practicing, you have them going in a circle
learning how to ride, or you can have exercise of
July 15, 2004
65
1
2 the horses . So it' s an open area with very high
roof line . There are skylights throughout the
3 building for natural light and interior lighting
for dusk-type of exercise .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the
reason of my question is since the arena is
5 already existing, regardless if it' s used for an
arena or exercise room, which are one and the same
6 thing from an equestrian point, different uses at
different times, is there any anticipation of the
7 construction of an additional arena on this site
at this time within this 10 acre parcel?
8 MR. LOMANGINO: Absolutely not .
MS . MOORE : Absolutely not from them.
9 This has been a major investment . That is not the
plan. The horse stalls, when you go to see the
10 property you' ll see there are paddocks all
throughout . The horses that are there exercise
11 and use the balance of the property, it ' s very
natural, 50 acres, it' s probably one of the
12 largest tracts . Plus, adjacent to this Peconic
Land Trust or Nature Conservancy, acquired a huge
13 tract, which also serves as part of the open space
for trails and so on. Sometimes you do have
14 people using those trails, bikers, mountain bikers
using the trails and actually they found that they
15 tend to come onto the property and ask for
bathrooms for emergency use . They have actually
16 had porta potty -- during construction the porta
potty that' s been out there is well used. Did I
17 answer your question?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . The last
18 issue is this came up once before on a building
that was not constructed in this town, what about
19 adequate security?
MS . MOORE : I'm glad you asked that .
20 Mr. Hickey lives right across the street and Mr.
Hickey is --
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ever vigilant .
MS . MOORE : He' s our neighborhood watch.
22 He also feeds the horses as far as carrots . I
understand he gets great vegetables from the horse
23 manure . He can attest to that . They have
received a great deal of support from the
24 neighbors here, and Mr. Hickey is prime example of
someone who loves what he sees there and the use
25 of the property. And he actually provides the
security. You also have the owners that are,
July 15, 2004
66
1
2 whether it' s on a 10 acre tract or it' s part of
their overall parcel, they live right there . And
3 that was a real conflict in the household on
whether or not to even open this up, call it a
4 riding academy. You have people that come on and
it' s your private property. So they are very
5 selective in their invitations to the property, to
the owners that stable their horses there . So
6 it' s a very select, very controlled environment .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just realized,
7 Mrs . Moore, of course, the other problem I have is
that myself and my wife own two contiguous houses
8 to this .
MS . MOORE : I don' t know that you' re
9 contiguous . I think the Peconic -- you' re
actually not adjacent to it . You have the open,
10 the acquisition, so I don' t think you' re
disqualified from voting because you' re in the
11 vicinity, and I'm sure in many instances any
application is in the vicinity of any one of you
12 so you' re not adjacent .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not
13 contiguous you mean?
MS . MOORE : Right .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I like your
16 fire alarm system, I'm in the business . Is there
a suppression system here, is there water when the
17 alarm goes off and water comes down?
MS . MOORE : No. I
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not a fire
suppression system, it' s a fire alarm.
19 MS . MOORE : I 'm sorry, I misspoke .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At this point,
20 noticing the one picture you have hay above
several of the stalls; is that normally where the
21 hay is stored?
MS . MOORE : It' s right there for the
22 horses . But take a look when you go inside you' ll
see that the roof line pitches way up so you' re
23 actually 30 or 40 feet . The stalls, imagine an
office space with partitions . The stalls are
24 somewhat mobile . They can be placed anywhere,
they' re in place right now, but they are taking up
25 a portion of the building in its fixed position.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
July 15 , 2004
67
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have any
questions . It' s a beautiful place and I wish them
3 much luck with it . Is there anybody in the
audience wishes to speak for or against this
4 application?
MR. HICKEY: Jim Hickey, Old Main Road in
5 Mattituck. I live directly across the street and
a little history, I was born in Mineola . I lived
6 one block from the Mineola Fairgrounds, which used
to be the Queens-Nassau Agricultural Society. As
7 a child I grew up working over there in the barns,
they stabled standard bred horses and they raised
8 them at Roosevelt Field. And my grandfather was
the village blacksmith in Mineola on Jericho
9 Turnpike in the 1890s . So I go way back. And I 'm
very grateful that Miss Lomangino took title to
10 that property, Miss Husing, because Miss Husing
was a great neighbor and the property is still
11 like it always was, and it' s going to remain that
way. So I 'm one hundred percent for it .
12 As far as security, I had a guy down the
road arrested. He shot a fox there one morning
13 down range from me, and he' s lucky I didn' t have
my revolver on me ' cause I would have returned the
14 fire . He gave me lip so I immediately called
conservation, signed a deposition, and it went
15 from there . He was arrested. So I think I know a
little about security. I was a police officer for
16 30 years .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you,
17 Mr. Hickey. Is there anybody else in the audience
that wishes to speak? Yes, ma' am.
18 MS . GAMBLE: My name is Marion Gamble, I
live directly, 245 Bray Avenue, directly behind
19 the Lomangino horse arena. First of all, I want
to say, the grounds and everything there is
20 beautiful . It' s immaculate . The barn is lovely.
My big problem is I think they' re putting the
21 manure to the back, and I cannot open my windows
in my kitchen, dining room area, which makes it
22 kind of sticky because, I have a handicapped
husband and a handicapped daughter and to have
23 central air conditioning, we cannot afford it, so
we have to open the windows once in a while . And
24 I would only like to request that they move the
storage of manure, which is natural with the horse
25 farm and everything, but to move it at least
southeast, where there is more property space
July 15 , 2004
68
1
2 between the manure and homes . Now my neighbor
also asked me, she couldn' t come, and that is the
3 Richard McGill family, to address the same thing.
We have no problem with the horse arena, the horse
4 barn farm. We love animals . It' s fine, it' s
beautiful, but this does deter us from having our
5 windows open in the nice weather and/or outside to
eat . I didn' t even put any lawn furniture out
6 because it is impossible and she is the same way.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Mrs . Moore, maybe
7 you ought to make your client aware that the code
prohibits outdoor stock piling of manure . That
8 would solve that problem.
MS . MOORE : I think you can' t have manure
9 within a certain distance of a property line .
MS . LOMANGINO: We have a landscaper that
10 we call in and he comes in and he charges us, and
he' s removed it . It was stockpiled over there,
11 but if you go and look, he removed it . You' re
probably going to get some smell from the horses,
12 and we will make sure that we don' t stockpile it
anywhere near there . As a matter of fact, it' s
13 stockpiled on the far end of the property.
MS . GAMBLE : I'm on Bray Avenue, I can see
14 it . There' s like 100 feet .
MS . LOMANGINO : Come in one day and I ' ll
15 show you where we put it .
MS . GAMBLE : I can see it . That' s the
16 only objection we have . If you could move it
further over.
17 MS . MOORE : For the record, if you ever
have anybody that has .a complaint about something
18 like that, they are always there, and they are
very concerned about that kind of problem. So, by
19 all means, have them call, you don' t have to go to
code enforcement, I know people don' t usually like
20 to bother other neighbors and confront it .
MS . GAMBLE : No. We' re very pleased with
21 what that land has been used for. Like I said,
just move it over. Thank you.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else that
wishes to speak for or against this application?
23 If not, I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing and
reserving decision until later.
24 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is David
and Patricia Berwald, for a studio in their garage
July 15, 2004
69
1
2 plus a deck on Aquaview Drive, East Marion.
MS . MOORE : This application as you can
3 see, the owners went in to the Building Department
and sought to do some alterations to an existing
4 garage . The alterations, what they tried to
explain to the Building Department was that -- and
5 none of these structures were variances, I don' t
believe so, I think it was -- the concern was the
6 use . They kept insisting that it was a dwelling,
they being the Building Department, the owners
7 said no, I'm not putting a kitchen; I'm putting a
small toilet-bathroom, I am an artist, and I just
8 want some space to do my -- can' t call it a hobby
because she is an artist professionally -- but her
9 own personal art, painting hobby, I hate to insult
an artist by calling it a hobby. Nothing that
10 they did could convince the Building Department
that it is not a dwelling. So they issued a
11 notice of disapproval and here they are .
It is an existing garage . Because of the
12 height requirements in the second floor space,
there has to be a dormer. And the house is a Long
13 Island Sound front parcel, so it makes absolute
sense to open up to get natural light and to put a
14 little deck area so on the beautiful days you can
paint outside instead of inside that space . As
15 you can see on the survey, but also if you went to
see the property, the house is very modest . It' s
16 a teeny little, 22 by 36 bungalow and some day
they hope to improve upon it but right now the
17 budget only allows for small dormer on the garage .
That' s all they want .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have a CO for
the garage?
19 MS . MOORE : Yes . That was obtained. They
bought the property and the CO for the garage was
20 obtained by the prior owners .
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : Could you give us a
21 copy?
MS . MOORE : Sure . Do you have any
22 questions? It' s somewhat disturbing it would be
nice if the Zoning Board would give some guidance
23 to the Building Department that when you put a
bathroom in a garage, it' s not a dwelling.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You never know.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s not a garage
25 then.
MS . MOORE : If it houses your car, it' s a
July 15 , 2004
70
1
2 garage, and many times just because you' re a
female artist doesn' t mean that you don' t have
3 hobbies . If you were a male tinkerer of cars, you
might have your own little workshop. So all
4 throughout town it' s a typical use is using your
garage and a little extra space .
5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Are there cars in
it now?
6 MS . MOORE : Yes . The first floor is
completely open for cars . Because when I was
7 there there were no cars there . It' s funny
because I had the same reaction when I saw it .
8 They opened the garage doors, I went, oh, yes,
this is definitely a garage . It has nice windows
9 because the prior owner used nicer windows to try
to match the style, kind of improve upon, not make
10 it quite so severe as a garage . But the space
inside, I will swear, I 've gone inside it, it has
11 a garage floor, slab.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I saw that .
12 MR. BERWALD: I'm storing my lawn and boat
equipment there .
13 MS . MOORE : It has an open wood staircase
going up to the second story. It requires a
14 dormer.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is this going to' be
15 heating?
MS . MOORE: Yes . Probably you need some
16 kind of electric heat .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What kind of heat?
17 MR. BERWALD: Electric .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What type of
18 plumbing?
MS . MOORE : Half bath plumbing, toilet,
19 sink.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I grew up in this
area, so I had relatives that lived next door for
21 a while . It' s a beautiful view. I have no
objection. I can understand the confusion as far
22 as having a toilet, but I also understand that
that doesn' t make a dwelling, you know maybe we
23 should interpret it that way.
MS . MOORE : The code says a kitchen makes
24 a dwelling. A bathroom does not make a dwelling
it' s an independently living unit .
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You' re not
expanding anything other than that little deck. I
July 15, 2004
71
1
2 wish you all the luck in the world. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any
questions .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the dormer is
5 the only thing that has to be placed on here?
MS . MOORE : The dormer goes over as part
6 of -- it' s a full-length dormer over the top of
the existing garage because . Otherwise you go up
7 and the ceiling height is five feet . It' s about
five feet, the rafters are about five feet, it
8 needs the dormer to pop out to the right height .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What kind of
9 restriction do we put on it, not necessarily for
this owner but for subsequent owners?
10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s difficult
because the one we did out in Greenport, we did
11 the artist' s studio, which two months later they
turned around and sold as a two-family house . And
12 it was actually marketed and advertised that way
in the paper, despite the fact that they
13 represented to us that it was merely an artist' s
studio.
14 MS . MOORE : I think the Building
Department could place conditions on a C of O.
15 That' s the place to do,it . They could do it
routinely. I think it would solve the problem
16 universally in this town if the Building
Department just said art studios are not a
17 dwelling.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not habitable .
18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: They did that in
this particular case .
19 MS . MOORE : Then you have a violation and
you' re back here . You can' t prevent violations,
20 it' s like preventing murder. You can have severe
consequences but people will kill each other
21 anyway. Same with zoning.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t know if
22 that analogy is correct .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just wish there
23 were some way because we all -- I'm going back to
this one in Greenport -- we all sat here and were
24 extremely sympathetic because the man wanted a
second story. He wanted a bath in there because
25 he didn' t want to have to walk back to the main
house; and in point of fact, we were schnookered
July 15, 2004
72
1
2 all the way down the road, and they even had the
audacity to put this ad in the newspapers .
3 MS . MOORE : That' s not always the owner,
that may be the real estate broker. I've run
4 across many of those where people have come to me
and say the real estate broker put that, that' s
5 what it was, and I'm like, no, that' s not what it
is . People get hoodwinked all the time and then
6 they come back to you and given the right
circumstances --
7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That was my
concern, that there was some way to avert --
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to look
at the one on County Road 48 with the gentleman
9 that wanted the library to bring his law books
out . So let' s look at that decision. On the
10 sound, same situation.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Years ago we did
11 Maryanne Moore .
MS . MOORE : This is becoming an artist' s
12 haven.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: ' He moved to
13 Chicago .
MS . MOORE : Another artist will follow.
14 We' re willing to do whatever' s reasonable to
assure you this is an artist' s studio, private
15 studio.
MS . BERWALD : May I say something? I 'm
16 Patty Berwald, I'm a graphic designer, but I' m a
fine artist by training. I want to paint . I 'm 50
17 years old. I 'm coming towards my retirement, and
I would like to live out on this property some
18 day, I really would. We bought it with great
effort of our own, my husband and I, to have this
19 freedom to relax and enjoy the beach and
Greenport . My aunt has been in Greenport for many
20 years and she' s the one who sold us the property.
I'm there to paint . I'm there to take pictures .
21 If you know the area and you know our bluff, I ' m
sure you can see how that would be just a perfect
22 place to relax. We just bought this property last
year and our intention is to retire out here, and
23 to find a way to live here, not to sell the
property. It' s a tiny space really. All I really
24 need, it' s like 17 by 21 with some light and a
place to move outside . I just want to let you
25 know that my intention is very much aesthetic, and
I would like to have this space because my house
July 15 , 2004
73
1
2 is so small, and this is really why I came out
here . I'm a visual person, we love to swim. I
3 really want to use this extra place for a very
simple and recreational reason. I just wanted to
4 let you know that I hope to always have this house
and not to sell it . I love the area and I would
5 like to feel welcomed here and be comfortable like
anybody else .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: With no further
questions, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing
7 and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
8 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
9 Latapie . It' s about that garage that we didn' t
know what it was going to look like . Is there
10 anybody here who would like to speak on this
application?
11 MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
Environmentals .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm dying to know how
they' re going to go into that garage, Bruce,
13 because of the elevations there .
MR. ANDERSON: Just a couple of quick
14 questions . Number 1, the zoning application is
before you in writing and you can see that ; the
15 big question here to me, I would think if I were
you is, and of course, the relief we seek here is
16 to place a detached garage between a dwelling and
a road where a detached garage is supposed to go
17 in the rear yard. Except if you' re on a
waterfront parcel, which is precisely what we have
18 across the street, if you've been to the area, a
detached garage between the house and the road.
19 If you have also been there, you realize the
entire property except for where the structures
20 are, the house, the pool, et cetera, is treed, so
the placement of this garage is done in a way so
21 that no more than one, perhaps two trees have to
come down. That' s why we proposed it in a
22 location where we have proposed it . And I think
that' s a beneficial result, unfortunately we need
23 a zoning variance to do it .
Having said all that, that garage would be
24 81 feet from the road, which is far in excess of
what the front yard setback is for this particular
25 lot, in fact, it' s about twice what' s required
here . And there' s no doubt that if the garage
July 15, 2004
74
1
2 were connected to the house it would become part
of the principal structure and we wouldn' t even be
3 before you. Of course, to do that would involve a
tremendous amount of site disturbance, a
4 tremendous amount of construction. It would, in
my opinion, detract from the quality of the
5 neighborhood.
The zoning reasons given in the
6 applications, specifically in the addendum I think
speak for themselves, but it - is critical for me to
7 understand why the garage in that location. If we
were to put the garage behind the pool, we would
8 not be here . However, if you look at the setbacks
between the house and the side lot line, the 22
9 feet -- 15 feet on one side, 25 feet on the other
side and realize that that too is heavily treed,
10 you would actually be imposing upon your neighbor
in putting a garage in that location. In fact, I
11 spoke to Mrs . Crowley, I believe, whose property
extends to Lot 310 , which you see on the bottom of
12 the survey, to explain ,that her interest has been,
it seemed to me, to maintain the wooded character
13 of that site . So this application does that .
The siting of this garage in this slope
14 requires a grade manipulation, which is shown on
the survey. Then also it' s somewhat recessed on
15 the south side as you go up the hill, which
accounts for the retaining wall and the small set
16 of stairs . So there would be a flattened area for
which the garage can be sited. That' s why those
17 changes are shown on the survey. What' s left is
also it' s placed in such a way to utilize the
18 existing driveway. So we don' t have to tear up a
driveway, clear more trees to create a new
19 driveway, thereby also detracting from the
neighborhood.
20 That is really what this is all about . It
is just that simple, and I would argue it' s a good
21 project, even though we have a technical problem
with zoning, because it is between the house and
22 the road, although double what the setback would
be in this particular zone given the size of this
23 lot, we request the location of a detached garage
where we requested for those reasons, and we think
24 they' re good enough reasons support the granting
of a variance .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth, can I ask
a question?
July 15, 2004
75
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bruce, I have to
3 tell you that you have come across with some
really interesting applications, but this one has
4 got me going, why a basement in a garage?
MR. ANDERSON: Very simple, Francois
5 Latapie is a restaurateur, owns a couple
restaurants in New York City, and he wishes that
6 space in the cellar to store wine .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why the unheated
7 attic area. There' s enough blatancy of taking
.this building out of the required rear yard and
8 placing it in a front yard and now building it . I
realize that' s a good portion of that basement is
9 going to be in the ground, but some of it may be
existing on the road side . Now we' re placing it
10 two stories up on an uneven surface, the slope of
a hill . I can buy the basement area, but I can' t
11 buy the second story area. And you know, the .
minute you deal with that second story, we' re now
12 talking the only way to produce something like
that and for this Board to address it, in my
13 opinion is substantial screening, screening that
will cost $25, 000 because each one of those
14 arborvitae are $1, 000 a piece, 18 feet high. And
I don' t know what it' s going to look like .
15 MR. ANDERSON: Let me put it to you this
way: When we say screening, and you' re talking
16 about the height, and we agree that it does comply
with the height ordinance, the point is you' re
17 putting it in an area that' s dominated by mature,
tall oak trees .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you' re going
to have to reserve the right to look at the
19 screening of this, if the Board is so inclined to
grant the application as it is applied for. And I
20 mean, the earth tone figures, we' re not here to
design your building, but it' s got to be earth
21 toned out to the Nth degree so it doesn' t stand
out like a sore thumb on the side of that slope .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s high, Bruce,
17110" to the midpoint .
23 MR. ANDERSON: We have spent a great deal
of time talking about the garage, myself and the
24 applicant . We have spent some amount of time
talking about the basement, storage of wine, which
25 I think is fine . We have spent no time talking
about that attic space .
July 15, 2004
76
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s get rid of
it .
3 MR. ANDERSON: I thought what you might
ask me is would you accept alternative relief .
4 And I think where you' re going with it -- your
fear, and I can understand what you' re saying, is
5 on the down slope side it' s going to look bigger
than on the up-slope side, I think that' s what
6 you' re saying. That' s a true statement . I have
heard nothing from the client, we haven' t
7 discussed it because frankly it didn' t occur to
me . I 'm more concerned about the placement of
8 that structure on the lot with regard to the trees
that are on that lot, but that really should
9 suggest to you very clearly that the intent here
is to save as many trees as possible because the
10 structure with the height, the whole- thing could
go in the rear yard except that you basically have
11 to destroy the property to do it and you would be
infringing upon your neighbors . If you wish, I
12 can ask that question to the client because I 'm
sure it' s a storage issue . I'm sure, it doesn' t
13 necessarily have to be eight feet high or whatever
it is, I don' t think that' s critical to the needs,
14 but I can certainly give that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can create
15 the same aesthetics and create the same gambrel
roof line by dropping that gambrel roof line down
16 and integrating it down into that first story
above the window area, and still create a little
17 bit of storage up above, and totally lower that
building so it doesn' t have to be significantly
18 screened.
MR. ANDERSON: I agree with that .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree with that .
MR. ANDERSON: I don' t know standing here
20 how much.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Five feet at
21 least, five or six.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To the ridge it
22 doesn' t say. It' s got to be well over 20 feet ,
Bruce .
23 MR. ANDERSON: That could probably work
just looking at the exterior elevation.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then it wouldn' t be so
visible from the road either, and Jerry' s right,
25 you wouldn' t have to put so much screening in
there .
July 15 , 2004
77
1
2 MR. ANDERSON: When I look at the
screening issue, my personal feeling is because
3 you have the -- don' t forget you' re going up the
slope, obviously the trees down by the road are
4 somewhat lower than it is trees on the top of the
hill . I think probably the adequate screening
5 here would be more of a shrub-type screening.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have to see
6 what the building looks like .
MR. ANDERSON: We can certainly come back
7 and show you. If we can do it, we' re happy to do
it . I can' t tell you why we can' t standing here,
8 but I have to talk to the applicant about it . I
could also propose some shrub plantings and give
9 you a visual look if that' s something that would
be helpful .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good. Lydia, have any
questions?
11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t know, just
seems to me this is more work for Bruce, not that
13 I don' t want you to have the work, Bruce, it seems
like 80 feet away from the road you' re proposing
14 to put a garage; how far are you away from the
house?
15 MR. ANDERSON: We have sited this thing
basically below an existing parking area.
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not exactly, 100
feet, 200 feet?
17 MR. ANDERSON: No, 55 feet .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 55 feet, if you
18 built a 55 foot addition to this house you could
still go another 80 feet .
19 MR. ANDERSON: That' s right . I could
build a tunnel .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. You have to
have a structure with a roof on it, you have to
21 call it living space, you can' t call it a
breezeway, but certainly you can do all that and
22 doesn' t even have to be before us .
MR. ANDERSON: That' s right .
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s my comment .
MR. ANDERSON: The weakness of the
24 application, you could do lots of things here, you
could tear the house down and build a mansion, I
25 see a lot of that going on out there . So this is
a way of doing something that' s small, hopefully
July 15 , 2004
78
1
2 tasteful, relatively reasonably cost, although not
cheap, and it' s a way to sort of maintain the
3 residential character, to do that I need a
variance .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bruce, I think we
would appreciate if you came back with new
5 drawings and five foot smaller, screening.
MR. ANDERSON: We' ll look at it . If we
6 can' t do it, I will give you a reason. That may
not be a problem to the applicant, I simply don' t
7 know.
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : August 19th, would
8 be okay with you then.
MR. ANDERSON: We may just do the
9 schematics for you. Obviously it has to be done
by an engineer, I can give you something that will
10 look just as good as this, and I have to talk to
the client about it, obviously.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Jakarusso?
MS . JAKARUSSO: I'm Johanna Jakarusso . I
12 am 25 feet from this proposed addition, and I
think I represent a long time resident . I have
13 been on Broadwaters Road now since 1983 . I have
sat here since 1 : 00 and I have listened to people
14 talk about the character of neighborhood, the
freedom to enjoy, and how the code of Southold
15 should aim for the higher standard, and how you
have spoken about granting an artist permission to
16 build something that two months later he turned
around and sold as two separate entities . My
17 neighbor Mr. Latapie, who I don' t even know who he
is, already has a two-car garage attached to his
18 house . This proposed addition would 'be 25 feet
from my house, and it would be a terrible eyesore,
19 a detraction to the character of our neighborhood,
which is a family neighborhood; and the noise
20 level because of this elevation, if he chooses to
bring in things other than cars, would be
21 phenomenal because it already is . He wants to put
it in the back, that' s what the zoning says,
22 that' s what should be done, but don' t ask the rest
of us who live in the neighborhood to suffer
23 because he chooses to do something that he calls a
garage and may turn out to be an
24 apartment -- let' s be .honest . He' s putting in a
shower. He' s putting in a wine cellar that could
25 be converted to a kitchen. It doesn' t belong
there . It destroys the whole character of the
July 15, 2004
79
1
2 neighborhood. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: If I may? Understand, that
3 the space will be unheated. Understand, it is not
to be used as a residence . It is not designed
4 that way. It is designed in a way that would be
mores difficult to go down that road than the
5 application you just looked at, more difficult .
There is no shower in the interior.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Heat .
MS . JAKARUSSO: I have it right here . I
7 went down to the Building, what' s that?
MR. ANDERSON: That is a bathroom and a
8 sink.
MS . JAKARUSSO: It says shower.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Submit that as
evidence . Bruce, address the Board.
10 MR. ANDERSON: There will be no shower, I
am representing that . Put it as a condition. It
11 is not a problem. It will in no way in shape be
used for that purpose . In fact, if we do lower
12 the roof, which I see no reason why it can' t, it' s
not even a habitable space .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If the Board is
agreeable, then I make a motion to close the
14 hearing.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Wait . That last
15 statement . What does that mean, you' re going to
lower the roof?
16 MR. ANDERSON: Jerry had suggested that it
can be lowered five feet . I have represented to
17 you that I don' t see any reason that that could
not occur because, frankly, I haven' t even had
18 that discussion with the applicant .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand that,
19 but what will the height of the ceiling in the
attic be, approximately?
20 MR. ANDERSON: If you look at the exterior
elevation, right now with the gambrel it' s quite
21 high, it' s some 12 feet .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That I understand.
22 So you' re going to lower it five feet?
' MR. ANDERSON: If the applicant has no
23 objection to it . I will probably see an
alternative relief that might very well say that,
24 unless I can convince you otherwise . Standing
before you now, I have no reason to fight for the
25 height , I don' t know. This involved a discussion
between the architect and the applicant and my
July 15, 2004
80
1
2 understanding it' s storage, and I take a person
for what it' s worth. So can a space be used for
3 storage that has less ceiling height? My answer
would be why not?
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It can.
MR. ANDERSON: What are we talking about,
5 lawn furniture, whatever, I don' t need 12 feet to
that do that . So I'm not objecting to it unless I
6 discover some reason, and if it' s not to be, the
man could easily expand his house . He could
7 triple the size of the house, .and never come
before you. He could put that exact structure in
8 the rear yard, and by the way, Mrs . Jakarusso,
should be that under that circumstance that garage
9 can be five feet from the property line . It' s 25
feet from the property line .
10 MS . JAKARUSSO: It' s a wooded area back
there .
11 MR. ANDERSON: Regardless, the setback for
an accessory structure is five feet . I won' t be
12 before you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . I make the
13 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later subject to receiving the revised
14 plans .
MR. ANDERSON: Or something from me .
15 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. McFeely. For an
as-built deck in Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel .
17 MR. MCFEELY: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just tell us what
18 you' ve done .
MR. MCFEELY: I had a deck that was
19 attached to my house with an overhead awning. The
deck was 20' by 201 . It wasn' t large enough for
20 my family. I've had taken it down, discarded it,
put a new deck up 24 ' by 231 . I discarded the
21 galvanized pipe awning structure and put up
structural columns with a 23 foot beam across and
22 a hard roof all tied into the house; my house is
shaped that way. It' s virtually the exact same
23 spot as the deck with the awning over it, except
it' s three feet bigger, four feet bigger. The
24 roof sticking out is the same extension that the
awning was . I thought I could do it without
25 permits . I was 100 percent wrong, so that' s_ where
we are . It' s virtually complete . The closest
July 15 , 2004
81
1
2 point to my bulkhead is 69' 10" as opposed to the
code of 75 feet . The other corner of the bulkhead
3 runs angled a little about 78 , 79 feet . That' s my
story.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The existing
5 part of the deck that is not undercover is going
to remain open to the sky?
6 MR. MCFEELY: Will always be the way it is
now, correct .
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No intention of
ever closing it?
8 MR. MCFEELY: No intention of projecting
any further, no intention of covering it over.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. McFeely, is
there any intention of closing in that porch area
10 which you created, meaning the roofed-over porch?
MR. MCFEELY: No. I was thinking of maybe
11 a canvas drop cloth in case rain came in there .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I meant
12 , permanent .
MR. MCFEELY: No permanent closing, no
13 screening, no windows . And my apologies for
missing the meeting this morning. I don' t know
14 where I got 6 : 40 from.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You were thinking the
15 old days . Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No . You' re just
16 going to expand this toward the side yard four
feet?
17 MR. MCFEELY: The side yard goes either
three or four that way or three or four the front,
18 and it is setback further than all the houses, six
or eight houses east and west of me .
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The survey does
show the location of the structures here .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in the
audience wishes to speak on this hearing? If not,
22 I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing reserving
decision until later.
23 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
the Fire District who wishes to project an antenna
25 that' s 20 feet higher than the average height of
23 feet of the building within 300 feet of the
July 15 , 2004
82
1
2 facility. Yes, sir?
MR. MULRAIN: Good afternoon, Madam
i 3 Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is Anthony
Mulrain, and I'm a partner at the Greenberg
4 Traurig law firm in Manhattan. I 'm here this
afternoon representing Omnipoint Communications in
5 connection with their application for an area
variance at the premises located at 55135 Main
6 Road here in the Town of Southold.
As the Board may be familiar, Omnipoint
7 Communications is a federally licensed provider of
wireless telecommunications services, essentially
8 Omnipoint is a cellular telephone company.
Omnipoint service is relied on for purposes of
9 making mobile telephone calls . As we have
expressed in the application, Omnipoint has a
10 significant and ongoing gap in its coverage here
in the Town of Southold. As a part of the
11 proposed remedy for that coverage gap, Omnipoint
has made an application to this Board in order to
12 replace an existing 40 foot wooden monopole at the
fire department with a 60 foot monopole that would
13 essentially be steel in terms of material . At a
height of 60 feet, Omnipoint would be able to fill
14 the design coverage gap. The reason that we
cannot use the existing structure is in part at a
15 height of 40 feet, Omnipoint would not be able to
fill its coverage gap. Indeed, we have done an
16 analysis, we have learned that at a height of 50
feet, Omnipoint also would not be able to fill its
17 gap in coverage .
This afternoon I have with me a number of
18 individuals who could provide testimony to the
Board. One is Lou Cornacchia from Syanetics, who,
19 if it pleases the Board, I would actually like to
speak with the Board and here' s why. Over the
20 course of the last month or so we received some
correspondence from some concerned residents about
21 the sound emanating from the horn that' s at the
tower. I'm sure the Board knows that horn is used
22 by the fire department not by Omnipoint . Indeed,
the reason that we requested that this Board
23 adjourn our hearing originally scheduled for last
month was so we could do an evaluation of whether
24 there is anything that we could possibly do to
mitigate the noise that' s coming from that horn.
25 I do have Mr. Cornacchia here, he' s done an
evaluation and I' d really appreciate the
July 15, 2004
83
1
2 opportunity for him to address the Board.
I also have with me Tom Turkel from
3 William F. Collins Associates . Mr. Turkel is the
architect on the site . There could be certain
4 questions that he could address that would be of
use to the Board. Additionally I have Mike Lynch,
5 Mr. Lynch is a real estate appraiser. Mr. Lynch
would testify that there would be no diminution in
6 real estate values as a consequence of the pole
replacement . I have Donna Stippo, project
7 planner. Miss Stippo would testify that there
isn' t a significant impact or reality any change
8 in impact to the surrounding areas as a
consequence of extending the pole . And I also
9 have Nicholas Balzano, who is a radio frequency
engineer who designed the site who could give an
10 explanation as to why it needs to be at a height
of 60 feet .
11 I think that we put together a pretty
comprehensive package to the Board and hopefully
12 I 've given a good general description to the Board
in terms of what the application is about . If it
13 pleases the Board, I ' d like to bring Mr.
Cornacchia forward and then to the extent that
14 you' re interested in any further testimony, we
have further testimony that we could provide as
15 well as additional reports .
ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: Could you
16 briefly describe for me as how you arrived at this
location as opposed to other locations assuming
17 that you need somewhere in the vicinity to fill
your coverage gap, but why this spot?
18 MR. MULRAIN: The best way to explain
would be to start from the general and work back
19 to the specific . Omnipoint has a license to
provide services over a very wide area . Omnipoint
20 provides services from the east coast to the west
coast and in designing a network wholistically,
21 you have a map and you come up with a design for
your entire licensed area. Getting smaller, you
22 come up with the design for a particular state,
smaller than that, a particular county, smaller
23 than that a particular municipality. We could
tell you today the general vicinity that we need a
24 site in just about every area of this town or even
adjacent towns . It' s all based on what we call a
25 search ring analysis . Within this particular
search ring, there are, I would imagine, different
July 15 , 2004
84
1
2 varying locations that Omnipoint could look at,
this particular location at a height of 60 feet
3 given the proposed sites in different areas of the
town allows that coverage to drop in very evenly.
4 As a matter of fact, I have some information that
might be useful to the Board.
5 ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: Basically my
question is, is it this site because it' s already
6 a pole or would you have to build a new pole at
another site?
7 MR. MULRAIN: There' s actually a few
reasons .
8 If you turn to the last couple of pages
that you have, you see some maps, basically, you
9 have Map A, you have Map 1 and you have Map 2 , if
you look at Map 1, just to help the Board, you see
10 a red dot right here (indicating) . That red dot
shows where the proposed site is; if you look at
11 the entire white area on the map, you will notice
there' s no coverage there . Coverage is indicated
12 by green and by yellow, and when there' s white
there' s no coverage . So we've got to find the
13 site that fits, that would provide a blanket of
coverage to that area. If you turn to Map 1, Map
14 1 shows what coverage would be provided from the
subject site, from the site that we have applied
15 for at a height of 50 feet . And you can see that
it' s still choppy; there are areas there that are
16 not covered. If you turn to the next page that' s
a height of 60 feet, you can see that coverage is
17 more complete . So to answer your question, at
least as best I can, we had to identify a site in
18 this general area that would provide the level of
coverage that you' re looking at on Map 2 , but at
19 the same time not cause a significant aesthetic
impact to the area, and that' s how this site was
20 selected.
ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: A little more
21 specifically my question is, are there other areas
in question in that area that might work but you
22 would either have to build a new pole or more
intrusive or less intrusive?
23 MR. MULRAIN: Yes, absolutely yes .
ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: Is this the only
24 site in that area that would not require the
building of a new pole?
25 MR. MULRAIN: This is the only site that
we have identified that would work, that would
July 15 , 2004
85
1
2 simply be a swap for one pole for another. In all
other instances we would have to install a pole
3 that was never there before and so the impact
would be significantly different . If it pleases
4 the Board, I' d like to bring forth Mr. Cornacchia.
MR. CORNACCHIA: Thank you very much. My
5 name is Lou Cornacchia, I 'm president of Syanetics
Corporation. I'm an electrical engineer, graduate
6 of Manhattan College School of Engineering.
My background essentially is I worked with
7 the Department of Defense for about 25 years on
microwave systems for countermeasures in
8 reconnaissance systems, flight control . And I
have worked with the wireless industry for about
9 14 years in providing interference analysis, FCC
compliance analysis, and other services similar to
10 RF communications . I did perform a series of
reviews or studies, one regarding particularly the
11 existing fire department antenna -- I'm sorry,
siren, which is located on a wooden pole that is
12 located adjacent to the building, the fire
department building, having an approximate
13 elevation of about 55 feet, and the siren is
approximately, the bottom of the siren is
14 approximately 54 feet . And it was manufactured by
a company in Wisconsin called Alerting
15 Communications of America, and it' s a 10
horsepower motor driving, what is termed a
16 single-phased motor. But essentially it' s a siren
that has the capacity to alert the temporary or
17 volunteer fire department out to a distance of
6 , 000 radial feet or a radius of 6 , 000' feet under
18 the moist adverse weather conditions . That is a
FEMA code requirement .
19 The relative specs of the antenna -- I ' m
sorry, I keep saying antenna but it' s the siren,
20 essentially is to provide a coverage of a two mile
circle . Fire department has stated to me, and
21 I 've been speaking to Donald Sayer, who is the
commissioner of the fire department, indicated
22 that they have reached a prior agreement with
either the town or local members of the community
23 that they would only use the siren for rescue
purposes in alerting their volunteer personnel
24 between the hours of 6 : 00 a.m. to 6 : 00 p .m. and
will only sound the siren from 6 : 00 p.m. to 6 : 00
25 a.m. under a general alarm or let' s say a critical
crisis condition. So that the limitation of the
July 15 , 2004
86
1
2 use of that siren during the day' has been stated
as I indicated. They are apparently adhering to
3 that and the only other times beyond the 6 : 00 a.m. -
to 6 : 00 p .m. period will be again for more adverse
4 conditions that might surface where they must
locate and advise their volunteer fire department
5 of their need. We, in fact, did this morning and
precisely at 12 : 00 noon took measurements coming
6 from the siren when it was turned on. In our
readings, we had two essential readings, one is
7 the peak reading at a distance of 100 feet at
ground level, or six feet above ground of 121
8 decibels peak in about 99 . 8 decibels, what is
termed fast AFLAQ readings, which is the averaging
9 of the peak readings . We attempted to take
readings of a 200 foot distance, which is the
10 location of the senior citizens facility, which is
nearby at approximately 204 feet from the pole,
11 which is mounting or holding the siren, which is
mounted to it, and we never quite made it there
12 because the siren was shut off, it was only on for
about 20 seconds, and it didn' t reach its full
13 potential for at least four, five or six seconds .
But we could theoretically calculate that sound
14 level at the building level or building itself 204
foot radial distance of about 115 decibels peak
15 with an average reading of about 93 . 8 . I am not
aware of a Southold noise ordinance, so it just is
16 a comment . We certainly are not in violation of
any ordinance since it doesn' t exist . This is a
17 need that has been suggested, was required by the
fire department primarily because the means for
18 our otherwise locating and advising the personnel
temporary personnel on a need-basis through other,
19 telephone or radio was not reliable at two miles,
and this is a need that they have for coverage of
20 two miles, even though the radius that this
provides for reliably at 6 , 000 feet under the most
21 hostile conditions is what this siren was designed
for. It' s still able to be detected at two miles
22 and they rely on that factor. Any questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at this
23 time .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think we have
24 any further questions about that . Sir, we
appreciate that you have gone to the trouble to do
25 that because the residents were concerned, but if
they' re limiting and they have worked out an
July 15, 2004
86
1
2 use of that siren during the day has been stated
as I indicated. They are apparently adhering to
3 that and the only other times beyond the 6 : 00 a.m.
to 6 : 00 p.m. period will be again for more adverse
4 conditions that might surface where they must
locate and advise their volunteer fire department
5 of their need. We, in fact, did this morning and
precisely at 12 : 00 noon took measurements coming
6 from the siren when it was turned on. In our
readings, we had two essential readings, one is
7 the peak reading at a distance of 100 feet at
ground level, or six feet above ground of 121
8 decibels peak in about 99 . 8 decibels, what is
termed fast AFLAQ readings, which is the averaging
9 of the peak readings . We attempted to take
readings of a 200 foot distance, which is the
10 location of the senior citizens facility, which is
nearby at approximately 204 feet from the pole,
11 which is mounting or holding the siren, which is
mounted to it, and we never quite made it there
12 because the siren was shut off, it was only on for
about 20 seconds, and it didn' t reach its full
13 potential for at least four, five or six seconds .
But we could theoretically calculate that sound
14 level at the building level or building itself 204
foot radial distance of about 115 decibels peak
15 with an average reading of about 93 . 8 . I am not
aware of a Southold noise ordinance, so it just is
16 a comment . We certainly are not in violation of
any ordinance since it doesn' t exist . This is a
17 need that has been suggested, was required by the
fire department primarily because the means for
18 our otherwise locating and advising the personnel
temporary personnel on a need-basis through other,
19 telephone or radio was not reliable at two miles,
and this is a need that they have for coverage of
20 two miles, even though the radius that this
provides for reliably at 6, 000 feet under the most
21 hostile conditions is what this siren was designed
for. It' s still able to be detected at two miles
22 and they rely on that factor. Any questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at this
23 time .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think we have
24 any further questions about that . Sir, we
appreciate that you have gone to the trouble to do
25 that because the residents were concerned, but if
they' re limiting and they have worked out an
July 15, 2004
87
1
2 agreement with the neighbors, that' s fine .
MR. CORNACCHIA: I don' t know how long
3 standing that agreement is, but it' s what I was
told.
4 MR. MULRAIN: Madam Chairwoman, we have
provided you with general information regarding
5 the application in written form. I have walked
the Board through general information about the
6 site, essentially there are no flashing lights .
With the exception of the siren that' s already
7 there, there would be no noise that comes from the
site . There would be no additional traffic,
8 maintenance have visits to the facility would be
approximately once monthly; there' s no impact on
9 parking. It' s essentially a site that has no real
impact on the community.
10 Having said that, I do have a number of
witnesses here to the extent that any member of
11 the Board has questions that I or any of my
witnesses can answer.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' d like to see
visual impact and design.
13 MR. MULRAIN: For purposes of the design,
I can bring forward Tom Turkel . Tom is an
14 architect with William F. Collins Associates .
MR. TURKEL: Good afternoon, my name is
15 Tom Turkel I'm an partner with William F. Collins
Architects . Our offices are in Setauket at 10-1
16 Technology Drive, Setauket, New York.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I proceed?
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How many
18 collocations can this monopole locate?
MR. TURKEL: Dependent on the technology
19 of the other carriers . We' re proposing a 60 foot
high pole here, that' s not very high; that' s at
20 the height we need to be to achieve satisfactory
coverage as was explained to you before by
21 Mr. Mulrain, and you looked at the map. A carrier
could go beneath us on the pole, but I don' t know
22 what kind of coverage they can get .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Has there been
23 any new technology, and I realize no one has come
forth nor have we finished or completed this
24 hearing, to make these poles a little more
appealing? They are the ugliest looking things I
25 have ever seen in my life, and I am not saying
that the 300 foot pole in West Hills which looks
July 15, 2004
88
1
2 like I don' t know what kind of tree is any more
appealing than this is . I am more concerned with
3 my discussion with your organization -- not your
organization but the organization that is bringing
4 this application -- with our park district in
Mattituck, with the ability of putting up flag
5 poles, and you bring up an interesting point here
because there is a great possibility that there is
6 limitation in reference to coverage for any future
collocation on this pole . I don' t understand
7 why -- and I have no objection to this fire
district which is a sister fire district to a
8 community that I live in within this town -- why
we' re not pushing flag poles or some other device
9 other than the blatant looking aspects of this
pole and this device that sits above it . I
10 realize it' s an extremely important thing to have .
We really can' t live without these
11 telecommunications systems today.
MR. TURKEL : Let me say that there are --
12 and you've all seen these things, we all live with
them on a daily basis -- there are a number of
13 types of poles . There are guy towers, which you
have seen, very thin, kind of a lacy, vertical
14 tower without any splay to it, but it has two to
four cables running out a substantial distance to
15 dead men, a big chunk of concrete buried in the
ground, to keep the tower from flopping over.
16 It' s kind of a delicate, lacy thing. It' s not
visually objectionable, some get quite tall, 300,
17 450 feet . The next step in towers beyond that is
what' s called a lattice tower, kind of looks like
18 the Eiffel Tower, for lack of a better
description, either three legged or four legged
19 tower. The next version of the tower is what' s
called a monopole, which we have here . A monopole
20 has several varieties to it . One is you can mount
the antennas compactly close to the pole, as we
21 have attempted to do here to ameliorate its
appearance somewhat . You' re all familiar with the
22 monopoles that have a triangular platform or hat,
an isosceles triangle about 14 foot per side, it
23 has four antennas along each side and it makes
each pole look much bigger and uglier if that' s
24 possible . This pole is a happy medium, other
types of poles, there are definitely flag poles
25 that can be had, and there are also fake trees you
see them if you drive down on the Jersey Turnpike,
July 15 , 2004
89
1
2 but it does disguise the antennas .
This pole that we' re proposing here is
3 kind of middle of the road. In all the years that
I 've been doing this, which is about 15 or 16
4 years, I've always waited for somebody on the
Board to say, well, how would you like to live
5 across the street from a cell site? As a matter
of fact I do. In my case the cell site' s on the
6 water tank, but the fact of the matter is we all
live with certain things that are more functional
7 than aesthetic in our daily lives, which includes
in my case the water tank across the street to
8 which antennas were added or to certain towers,
you drive up and down the Long Island Expressway,
9 there is series of towers with microwave dishes on
them. Without that you wouldn' t have any local
10 long distance or long distance service, so some of
these things become a necessary evil .
11 As necessary evils go, this pole is fairly
benign. I don' t argue with your point . It
12 certainly is not an objet d' art, but it' s pretty
mild compared to some of them.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question I
have and I' ll make this last final statement, and
14 that is, I don' t understand why, when you' re
dealing with a municipality, and there is no
15 collocation possibility, I mean there is a
possibility of one collocation on it, why carrier
16 doesn' t push such aesthetic things as flag poles?
And that' s just a visual opinion in this
17 particular situation.
MR. TURKEL: Why would they not push for
18 multiple carriers?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, push for a
19 flag pole, which would be much more of an
aesthetic device .
20 MR. TURKEL: Several reasons . First
reason is that you would have to put more antennas
21 on the flag pole because you get less of them.
This antenna is six foot tall and I think two
22 antennas within each body. You go in the flag
pole your space is reduced, and you have to put
23 more antennas inside the same body to come up with
the same number of antennas, but when you do that,
24 there' s no free lunch involved. If you add more
little pieces inside, you reduce the capacity of
25 the pieces so you lose coverage . Each of these
sites are basically very simple and at the same
July 15, 2004
90
1
2 time sophisticated in the sense that they are
designed to solve a unique problem in this
3 situation. Five miles down the road you could
have a similar appearing situation which because
4 of topography or other conditions would require a
different engineering solution. This is a good
5 engineering solution for this community and this
service gap is why it' s done like this .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you give me
a quick percentage of what you think the reduction
7 loss would be if you used at flag pole of a
similar height?
8 MR. TURKEL: That is so far out of my
field, sir, I can' t do that .
9 ) BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was a nice
presentation.
10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: One question: The
flag poles are a lot more costly?
11 MR. TURKEL: Not substantially so. The
difference between the pole that we have or a
12 taller monopole and a flag pole is that up to the
bottom of the area of, the pole that' s covered with
13 the stealth skin, you have the same pole that
we' re proposing here . Above at some point they
14 stop that pole, they put a base plate on there and
put a strong but thin steel shaft up the center,
15 mount the antennas around that very compactly and
very small and then they cover that with a radio
16 frequency transparent material that appears to be
the same as the pole below it, and then they put
17 halliers and cleats on it and a truck on the top,
which is a fancy name for the ball, and it looks
18 like a flag pole .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the
19 . difference in cost, that' s what I was trying to
find out?
20 MR. TURKEL: Pure speculation on my part,
twice the cost, maybe more .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If I understand
22 you correctly, a flag pole disguising the antennas
that way would reduce the coverage areas?
23 MR. TURKEL: Wouldn' t reduce the coverage
areas, that would reduce capacity, but again
24 that' s out of my area of expertise, but it would
reduce capacity because of the configuration of
25 the antenna. I could be all wrong, it' s not my
field.
July 15, 2004
91
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The reason you' re
not using the flag pole is cost?
3 MR. TURKEL: It' s not cost . As I tried to
explain before, each of these sites, though they
4 seem similar to other sites, is uniquely designed
to cover the gap for this area, based on the size
5 of the gap and the topography and what' s here .
' And a similar appearing situation, five or 10
6 miles down the road the engineering solution
that' s recommended might be entirely different
7 because of the variation of the factors .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You can' t answer
8 the questions that I think it' s coverage, that' s
the reason why you' re not using a more aesthetic
9 pole, but somebody here can?
MR. TURKEL: Yes .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So we' ll ask that
question of that person.
11 MR. MULRAIN: Let me give the Board a few
points of clarification. One of the problems with
12 the flag pole is you can' t put the horn, which is
a rotating horn that the fire department uses
13 inside a flagpole or around a flagpole, that would
be the main problem with respect to the flag
14 pole . As Mr. Turkel explained to you, his
expertise is really not in network design, that' s
15 really the area for a radio frequency engineer,
but let me tell you a little bit of what I know
16 with respect to flag poles . One of the issues
with a flag pole is that once you've installed the
17 flag pole, that' s it . A flag pole can' t be
extended. So if someone comes and makes an
18 application to this Board say six to 12 months
later and they say if that pole at the fire
19 station can be increased in height by 10 feet, you
don' t have that option available to you, you can' t
20 increase the height . You can increase the height
of a monopole . The other issue is, and I' ll bring
21 Nick Balzano forward, in addition to causing a
capacity problem, it also causes a coverage
22 problem. The signal is degraded when the antennas
are inside of a flag pole . Hopefully that gives a
23 more expansive answer. To the extent that since
we' re on this topic the Board is interested, I can
24 bring forward Mr. Balzano who can answer the
questions about coverage even more pointedly than
25 I can.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ' d like to hear
July 15, 2004
92
1
2 from him.
MR. BALZANO : Basically this is a
3 topographical map representing Southold. Here we
have in gray we represent the existing site in the
4 area, and in blue we are representing the site
that will be added in the future in the network to
5 fully cover the Town of Southold. The red dot
represents the subject site at 60 feet and the
6 yellow dot represents the future site that has a
similar design to our site here in Southold.
7 The first overlay represents basically the
coverage offered by the existing site . Basically
8 the green area represents reliable coverage . What
this means is that within this area a customer
9 will be able to receive or make phone calls and
will not experience a drop of call traveling along
10 this area. The clear area is that represented gap
in coverage or unreliable coverage . What this
11 means is a customer within in area or traveling
from uncovered area to uncovered area will
12 experience a dropped call or will not be able to
receive or make phone calls . As you can see here
13 in Southold, basically, there is an extensive gap
in coverage in the areas, basically we have almost
14 1 .4 miles along Main Road, almost half mile along
Young' s Avenue and two-tenths of a mile along
15 North Road.
Finally we come with the second overlay.
16 The second overlay is basically the coverage
offered by the subject site at a height of 50
17 feet, how you can see the site and I can' t say
this is the coverage that will be offered by the
18 flagpole for the reason Mr. Mulrain said, the
enclosure around the antennas will basically
19 degrade the way the signal travels, and it will
basically reduce the coverage . Also because we
20 were looking right here to achieve our coverage
with a minimum height, not basically extend what
21 is existing but try to utilize what we already
have . Now you can see here, this is 50 feet or
22 similar to a flag pole, a gap in coverage will
still exist along Main Road and along Raynor Road,
23 so that means that if I initiate a phone call
under the coverage of our subject site, and moving
24 outside the area, most likely I 'm going to drop
the call . This is the coverage offered by our
25 site at 60 feet and with the current configuration
we are proposing. Now you can see the coverage
July 15 , 2004
93
1
2 expands a little bit . It has enough overlap with
the existing coverage in green, and this means we
3 will provide reliable coverage for our customers .
When I explained this, I tried to have an analogy
4 with umbrellas and on a rainy day. Basically a
customer, what we are trying to achieve with our
5 network is to cover an area with umbrellas . If
somebody walks through an area with the umbrellas
6 and the umbrellas are not overlapped, I have a
greater chance to get wet . The existing coverage
7 and our proposed coverage overlapped one another,
I have a greater chance with that communication
8 while I'm traveling through is going to fall,
that' s why we need our site at 60 feet .
9 Basically that' s the minimum height that we need
to achieve our coverage objectives .
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question
still remains, what is your opinion in your
11 expertise regarding the difference between a
monopole at 60 feet and a flag pole at 60 feet?
12 MR. BALZANO: The coverage will be
reduced. I will not meet my coverage objectives .
13 I would need to go higher in order to achieve the
same coverage that I would achieve with our pole
14 with that design at that height .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much higher?
15 10 feet, 20 feet?
MR. BALZANO : To be safe, between 10 and
16 20 feet. to have that kind of overlap with the
existing coverage .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How much would it cost
for a flag pole?
18 MR. BALZANO: I don' t have that kind of
knowledge, probably.
19 MR. MULRAIN: We would be glad to provide
that .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jim.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The first picture
22 you showed us with just the green, that is not
your current coverage?
23 MR. BALZANO: This is not the current
coverage . This is the coverage plus what I would
24 need in the area to completely cover the entire
Town of Southold. The existing coverage comes
25 from this side in gray, the triangles, and here we
also have added the coverage from future proposed
July 15, 2004
94
1
2 sites .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Concerning this
3 flag pole versus what you want to put up there
now, which I'm assuming is a hat on top, right?
4 MR. BALZANO: Is antenna around the pole,
yes .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Isosceles
triangle?
6 MR. BALZANO: No, will be flush mounted to
the pole, we will have two sets of antennas, one
7 on top of each other, but we' re not having an
array that triangles will be flush mounted to the
8 pole so basically you will see just the pole
itself with the panels for the same probable width
9 of the pole itself, so basically you don' t have
anything that exceeds the width of the pole .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Approximately what
is the width of the pole where the antennas are
11 going to be?
MR. TURKEL: About 18 to 20 inches at the
12 top and about 24 to 38 at the bottom depending on
the design and factory we buy and the overall
13 height .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Would that include
14 the antennas?
MR. TURKEL: Yes .
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So 18 inches at
the top is going to be with the antennas?
16 MR. BALZANO: Keep in mind, the width of
the antenna is 12 inches so we have at the top 18
17 inches, so actually we have six inches exceeding
on both sides of the antenna. Basically we still
18 look at the pole itself .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re asking for
19 60 foot antenna, can that antenna be extended up,
the one you' re proposing right now?
20 MR. BALZANO: The pole I assume can be
extended.
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What would be the
maximum height considering the base,
22 approximately? Another two carriers, another one?
MR. TURKEL: That can be designed into the
23 pole based on the foundation. You have to
determine, the structure is always designed from
24 the top down. You figure out how tall you want it
to be, what' s going to be at the various levels,
25 l develop the engineering data to design the
foundation, which is usually the limiting element,
July 15, 2004
95
1
2 I was going to say weak link -- bad analogy -- but
that covers the height of the pole .
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that' s why
I 'm asking the question, the federal government
4 does encourage collocation. Certainly if we' re
going through this trouble, it might be to our
5 advantage to collocate another carrier there as
opposed to having them come with an application
6 for another place . I know the federal government
encourages that, and I guess I'm asking you as
7 proposed what is the capacity of this antenna
beyond your use?
8 MR. TURKEL: Right now that capacity issue
hasn' t been specifically addressed because we' re
9 in an early design phase . That' s an engineering
function. If we say we want to hold a maximum of
10 three carriers does it mean eventual extensions of
another 40 feet or 24 feet, then we would design
11 the bottom of the pole that' s going to be
initially put there as well as the foundation to
12 accommodate that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Would it be any
13 wider if you decided to go higher?
MR. TURKEL: Yes, sir.
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How much?
MR. TURKEL: They get as wide as 42 inches
15 on the bottom.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: At top instead of
16 18 inches, it might be?
MR. TURKEL: 24 inches proportionately, it
17 gets wider, yes ,
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How high would
18 those towers get?
MR. TURKEL: Those type poles I've seen as
19 tall as 190 feet, 200 feet . At that point you' re
getting into an area where a lattice tower like
20 the Eiffel Tower is more structurally. efficient,
it' s more cost efficient to use that type than the
21 monopole .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Basically two feet
22 at the bottom 18 inches at the top and the
antennas are not going to be overhanging the tower
23 itself?
MR. TURKEL: Right now as proposed here,
24 the antennas are mounted closely on the side of
the tower, but they' re not within the silhouette
25 of the pole, they' re applied to the outside of the
pole .
July 15 , 2004
96
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So your reduction
using a flag pole, would be the fact that you' re
3 covering up those antennas?
MR. BALZANO: I would not have the panels
4 on the outside like in this case .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Going up wouldn' t
5 increase your gain?
MR. BALZANO: The coverage is a function
6 of height, and keep in mind, again, 60 feet, we
are really on the tree line and coverage is also
7 function of line of site . So with that height,
we' ll have clear basically out of the trees as an
8 obstruction.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you went up 10
9 foot higher and made it a flag pole --
MR. BALZANO: I would achieve, yes, in
10 order to do so, I need to go higher.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then you would
11 have to increase the base . It really wouldn' t
look like a flag pole, it would look like a big
12 pole . What do you intend to do with the siren,
you' re putting it on top of this?
13 MR. BALZANO: Eventually yes, the siren
will be on top. I'm sorry.
14 MR. TURKEL: Right now the siren is
proposed to go on the side of the pole . You all
15 have this drawing where we' re about seven, eight
feet below the bottom of the antenna. That horn
16 would actually be out on an arm that would come
out so the horn would be where the pen is, the arm
17 would be out about two feet from the pole . So
that would occur right there . Because the horn
18 actually rotates . These panel antennas are six
feet tall, so that' s about six foot below the
19 bottom of that antenna.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You mentioned if
20 you had the flag pole, you would have the problem
with the siren; what would the problem be?
21 MR. TURKEL: The problem would be, the
siren would either have to be mounted, remember I
22 described that the flag pole was a hollow,
cylindrical pole, to a point was just like this
23 pole, at some point we put a cat plate on it and
then put an inner steel core up . You couldn' t
24 mount at that point, so you' re going to have to
mount either a yard arm out below that point on
25 the regular pole so it could rotate, or put it at
the very top of the pole so you could rotate .
July 15, 2004
97
1
2 Those would be your choices .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in
3 the audience that wishes to speak on behalf of
this application, either for or against?
4 MR. MULRAIN: I think you mentioned you
would like to see some aesthetics on the site . I
5 would like to bring forward Donna Marie Stippo,
she' s the project planner from DMS Consulting.
6 MS . STIPPO: As you can see they' re
mounted directly on the outside of the structure .
7 Here' s your siren and then this would be your pole
with the siren on it, and then they sort of
8 cluster around the structure itself . Here' s a
close up so you can see right from the main street
9 where the fire department area is, and you can see
the two sets of antennas . As the structure gets
10 higher of course, it would have a larger breadth
off the horizon as well as this, I know you were
11 talking about the base of the structure, it is
located more towards the rear of the property, so
12 even a 42 foot base, as low as it is would not
necessarily be directly on a minor or major
13 roadway, so it would have a little bit of
shielding but that' s a very large base, that 42
14 inches . And we gave you some pictures . You' ll
see you have whip antennas currently on the
15 firehouse . This is the prettiest of the
monopoles, the numerous racks, and the different
16 types of designs they have can have . This is the
least obtrusive of a monopole in that category, if
17 you will .
What I have seen in the past as services
18 are required, as municipalities grow, you wind up
with whip antennas on these for police, fire and
19 safety, county, you can put that type of service
on these structures, you can put the small arms on
20 there, you can' t do that with the flag poles . You
have limitations with both, but I understand the
21 line of questioning where you were going.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as
22 you' re not putting it on a peninsula, everything
is fine .
23 MR. MULRAIN: Are there any other
questions that either myself or any of the
24 witnesses can answer for the Board?
ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: From a legal
25 perspective, is there anything in particular that
you think we should be focused on or keep in mind
July 15 , 2004
98
1
2 or salient?
MR. MULRAIN: I think from a legal
3 standpoint there are couple of things . This
facility, as Miss Stippo just demonstrated to you,
4 is not a facility that is going to have an adverse
impact on the community or on the surrounding
5 environment . In your own question you asked, how
did we go about selecting this site . And I was
6 able to explain that . I think that' s a question
of significance because it' s actually requirement
7 number two in your area variance requirements .
I think the key thing is no diminution of
8 real estate values, no noise, no odors, no sound,
no gas, no significant or impact to mention
9 whatsoever on traffic, on parking or otherwise . I
think it' s also noteworthy that this particular
10 facility arguably has a lesser impact than other
things that are permitted in the zone by right . I
11 mean there' s no impact on, I don' t know, the
electricity. There' s no impact on the sewer
12 system, there' s no need for water.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don' t have sewers .
13 MR. MULRAIN: Well, then we won' t need
another septic tank, if that' s what' s used here,
14 that' s a positive . So, having said that, I think
it' s consistent with certainly other public
15 utilities . I think we have done what we can do to
minimize the visual impact . We' re not doing
16 anything to create greater impacts . Having said
all those things, I think those are legal
17 considerations when you look at the applicable
standards .
18 ASST TOWN ATTY CORCORAN: You also believe
you' re in compliance with the Telecommunications
19 Act?
MR. MULRAIN: We believe we' re in complete
20 compliance with the Telecommunications Act and
State Environmental Quality Review Act . This
21 particular application has been presented to
SHIPO. SHIPO you have in your package has issued
22 a statement of no impact . I think that' s a
consideration. So I think on the local and state
23 and federal level, we' re in complete compliance .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
24 MR. MULRAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Being no other
25 questions or --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll make the
July 15, 2004
99
1
2 motion.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To close the hearing
3 and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 1/
r AUG 2 6 2o04
25
July 15 , 2004
100
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4 I , Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
5 State of New York, do hereby certify:
6 THAT the within transcript is a true record of
7 the testimony given.
8 I further certify that I am not 'related by
9 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
10 action; and
11 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
12 of this matter.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
14 hand this 15th day of July, 2004 .
15
16
17
18 JFlorence
V. Wiles
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 15, 2004