HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/18/2004 Hearing 1 .
2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
' COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
4 --------------------------------------------X
5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D
6
7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S
8
9 -------------------------------=------------X
Southold Town Hall
10 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
1l
November 18, 2004
12 9 : 30 a.m.
13
14 Board Members Present
15 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
16 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
17 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
18 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
19 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
20 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
21
22
23 -
24
JAN ® 2005
f 25 ur
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) '878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to call our
3 November 1'8th meeting to order. I need a
4 resolution declaring the following have a negative
5 for SEQRA.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved.
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So moved.
8 (See minutes for resolution. )
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing for
10 the day, Mr. Drumm has an as-built pool that is in
11 the front and side yards but not in the rear yard
12 but it' s been there since the ' 60s .
13 MR. ARNOFF : Good morning, Harvey Arnoff,
14 206 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York, on behalf
15 of the applicant .
16 By way of history in 1967 I graduated from
17 law school . In the fall of 1967 I was in the
18 United States Army and served in Korea from 1968
19 to 1969 . During that period of time, this pool
20 went in the ground. I don' t pretend to know what
21 the law was then, but, of course, Mr. Goehringer
22 was probably still in the Zoning Board back then.
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was in basic
24 training.
25 MR. ARNOFF: That' s right, similar time .
November 18 , 2004
3
1
2 In any event, it' s kind of interesting but
3 considering the fact that there' s a road that
4 doesn' t exist alongside this property and if we
5 chose this is a perfect opportunity for an
6 abandonment . I just mentioned to my client that
7 this pool is the only pool I have ever seen that
8 is really in three places -- and I disagree with
9 you, Mrs . Oliva, I think it' s in the rear yard,
10 side yard and front yard.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you count that
12 paper road, yes .
13 MR. ARNOFF: I'm not entirely sure and
14 I 've been unable to get the records from the town
15 clerk as to whether there were any setback
16 requirements for pools at that time . I don' t
17 think there were, I also don' t think there were
18 any permits issued for pools at that time, and I'm
19 somewhat surprised that the Building Department
20 didn' t just give a preexisting nonconforming use
21 to this particular accessory use and be done with
22 it, but we' re here, not by any way of complaint
23 because I always like to come before this board.
24 There is an entry in a property record
25 card which I think you should know about if you do
November 18 , 2004
4
1
2 not already and I' d like to put on the record
3 which shows swimming pool check 1972 , that' s the
4 entry. I asked my client about that entry and
5 quite peculiarly exactly what happened, and he
6 said there were no hydrants in the area back then,
7 the building inspector came down and looked at it
8 and checked it . He didn' t write a check. I
9 thought it meant a check. I spoke to one of the
10 Members and we both thought it meant that he paid
11 something, but he didn' t pay anything. It meant
12 that he checked it . They knew the pool was there
13 and it' s been there since that time, and I 'm just
14 asking for approval from the Board so we can get
15 our COs and these people can get on with their
16 lives .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I met with Mr
19 and Mrs . Drumm, and if anything cries for a yes,
20 this one does .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was at the pool too,
22 it looked like a very nice pool and whole set up
23 there . Vincent?
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No question, just a
25 comment, the dirt road, paper road, I didn' t see
November 18 , 2004
5
1
2 even any inclination of it being open or even a
3 deer path. I don' t think that road will ever be
4 committed, dedicated.
5 MR. ARNOFF: At the side and rear of our
6 property, there' s someone else' s property, so it
7 couldn' t go through in any event, so in reality
8 there could be an abandonment proceeding,
9 something I' ll discuss with my client, I don' t
10 know if they' ll want to do that anyway.
11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where is the dirt
12 road?
13 MR. ARNOFF: There is none .
14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Theoretically where
15 is it?
i
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That was my only
17 comment .
18 MR. ARNOFF: Sound Drive is the paper
19 street .
20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If there was
21 nothing in the code in 1969 and the pool was built
22 regarding this then isn' t it preexisting
23 nonconforming?
24 MR. ARNOFF: One would think so, however,
25 the Building Department did not, and I don' t feel
November 18 , 2004
6
1
2 like being in a tug of war with them.
3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any
4 questions .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t have
7 anything.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in
9 the audience that would like to speak? If not,
10 I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing and
11 reserving decision until later.
12 (See minutes for resolution. )
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to
14 vote on this today, would that be a problem?
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
16 problem with it .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I will make a
18 motion granted as applied.
19 (See minutes for resolution. )
20 --------------------------------------------------
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
22 for Kostas Zachariadis for a high fence around a
23 tennis court on Little Neck Road in Cutchogue .
24 Yes .
25 MR. ZACHARIADIS : Good morning. We have
November 18 , 2004
7
1
2 tennis court we just built, we have a permit for
3 it . Michael Dracko suggests instead of five foot
4 fence to put 10 foot . The reason is for
5 protecting any balls ending up in somebody else' s
6 property. I went to the Building Department to
7 find out if it was fine, they told me I need a
8 variance and here I am.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going to have a
10 nice piece of land down there and beautiful tennis
11 court . Jerry?
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No comment .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I want to verify
15 for the record that you' re merging these two lots,
16 creating one lot .
17 MR. ZACHARIADIS : Yes, creating one lot,
18 yes . -
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don' t have
21 any comment . In fact, more than a year ago we
22 suggested changing the code for tennis courts .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For a tennis court
24 it' s really more advisable to have a 10 foot fence
25 rather than a six foot .
November 18 , 2004
8
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Unless you' re good.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or if you suddenly
4 get neighbors and you don' t have any neighbors
5 right now. Jim?
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It does say here
7 in the legal notice that you' re going to merge
8 them, have you merged them yet?
9 MR. ZACHARIADIS : Yes . Actually the
10 original, the seller did it before we did the
11 closing.
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That was back in
13 May?
14 MR. ZACHARIADIS : Yes .
15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Lot 2 . 5 is the
16 combined lot .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But it says in one
18 of notices --
19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I have it in front
20 of me . It was formerly 2 . 2 and 2 . 3 and now it' s
21 2 . 5 , but the county tax map wasn' t showing the new
22 lot number so that' s why we advertised it that
r
23 way.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s fine .
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You could throw
November 18 , 2004
9
1
2 that in there.
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I just wanted
4 to make sure they were merged.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
6 in the audience that would like to speak on this
7 application? If not, I' ll close the hearing and
8 reserve decision until later.
9 (See minutes for resolution. )
10 -------------------------------------------------
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
12 Gary Rose for a setback less than 40 feet from the
13 front yard line and less than 15 feet on the
14 single side yard less than 35 feet on both sides .
15 New Suffolk Avenue in Mattituck. Yes, sir, you
16 are?
17 MR. ROSE : I'm Gary Rose and my nephew
18 David Sherwood, who is my architect, in case
19 there' s any questions .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I believe you' re going
21 to connect the house and the garage?
22 MR. SHERWOOD: It' s not going to be
23 connected. It' s going to fall short by about 15
24 feet . There will be a deck and breezeway that
25 runs behind the garage .
November 18 , 2004
10
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because you have quite
3 a drop off right behind the house .
4 MR. SHERWOOD: That' s correct .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth and Members
7 of the Board, I've known Gary and I've known this
8 house for 45, almost 50 years I think. And I
9 remember the old couple that lived in it .
10 MR. ROSE : The. Knolls .
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . I have
12 absolutely no objection to this application.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to make
17 one thing clear, we have two drawings from you, if
18 you could for my verification let me know which is
19 which.
20 MR. SHERWOOD: This is the original .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions, I
25 just wanted to verify that too, I saw that
November 18 , 2004
11
1
2 drawing, it was connected by the roof, just
3 open.
4 MR. ROSE : That' s correct . It will be a
5 covered breezeway but not connected.
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They' re not
7 increasing any setback?
8 MR. ROSE : No.
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no
10 questions .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in the
12 audience that would like to speak on this
13 application? If not, I' ll make a motion closing
14 the hearing and reserving decision until later.
15 (See minutes for resolution. )
16 -------------------------------------------------
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
18 Matthew and Alexandra Ninfo, who would like an
19 accessory apartment on Pequash Avenue in
20 Cutchogue . Is there someone here to speak to
21 this?
22 MR. NINFO: Hi, I'm Matthew Ninfo and this
23 is my wife Alexandra. I just note that we did
24 send a letter notifying our connected neighbors .
25 We have not received 'a return receipt from one
November 18 , 2004
12
1
2 family, that would be the Lefereides, that' s Lot
3 137 220 , on the top of the list . I haven' t gotten
4 any response as far as, it not being
5 deliverable . We just haven' t received a return
6 receipt on that yet .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did have one letter
8 stating if you could move the driveway to the side
9 for the parking instead of in front of the house .
10 Do you have any comments on that?
11 MR. NINFO: I think the diagram I sent out
12 with the cover letter is probably misleading. The
13 driveway is already on the side of the house . We
14 were just trying to illustrate that there was
15 enough space there to park an additional car and '
16 also provide space to turn around so that people
17 would not have to turn out onto the road
18 backwards .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think she wanted it
20 more to the rear. Come here, I' ll show you.
21 MR. NINFO: I did receive that letter. I
22 did see her suggestions . Actually, I think that
23 would probably because of the grade of the land
24 there that probably wouldn' t be practical; also,
25 it wouldn' t really facilitate the ability to turn
November 18 , 2004
13
1
2 around. It would end up capitalizing a lot more
3 of the space in the driveway to just move the cars
4 behind the house . So I don' t really think that' s
5 going to accomplish what we' re after.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You feel just with the
7 driveway that you have now will it be sufficient
8 for people to turn around and go out?
9 MR. NINFO: Using the front lawn. I think
10 she thought we were proposing that we were going
11 to put a parking lot in front of the house, that' s
l
12 not my suggestion. My suggestion was to just use
13 that part of the lawn to turn around. As it is,.
14 there' s only two people in the house that drive
15 cars . There' s never more than three cars in the
16 driveway. It' s never really been a problem.
17 As far as the appearance of the outside of
18 the house to other houses in the area, it really
19 doesn' t look any different . It' s been that way
20 since the house was built .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re really
22 proposing more of a studio apartment with a big
23 room and a kitchen and a bathroom?
24 MR. NINFO: Exactly, that' s exactly what
25 it is .
November 18 , 2004
14.
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any
3 questions?
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell
5 you, we usually don' t see applications like this .
6 Usually they' re two story houses or people are
7 putting additions on to accommodate the apartment
8 situation. I think it' s unique . I think it' s
9 workable . There' s no question about it .
- 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just one curiosity
14 question, how did you come before us today? Did
15 you file for a Building Department permit?
16 MR. NINFO: That' s sort of how it
17 happened. It kind of happened backwards . Because
18 we were doing some other things in the house, we
19 were alerted by the Building Department, I 'm not
20 sure exactly how we became aware of it . But what
21 happened was when we became aware that the
22 conversion to living space had never been
23 permitted, even though other parts of that
24 apartment had been. So we went and got an as
25 built building permit to get a proper CO for that
November 18 , 2004
15
1
2 living space . During the course of that, we
3 discovered that that area of the house did
4 constitute an accessory apartment . So rather than
5 inspect the building before we had a proper
6 accessory apartment we decided to go ahead and do
7 the permit first and then have the building
8 department inspect the work.
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the majority of
10 this was preexisting when you purchased the house?
11 MR. NINFO: Yes .
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just your lawyer
13 didn' t pick it up somehow?
14 MR. NINFO: Yes, I don' t think that we
15 knew that constituted an accessory apartment
16 having never owned a building like that before .
17 It was our understanding that everything there was
18 legal and acceptable . So you can imagine our
19 surprise when we found out that it wasn' t .
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, no other
21 questions .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the total
24 square footage of the house without the accessory
25 apartment?
November 18 , 2004
16
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 2, 019 , the house
3 is a 1, 288, accessory apartment' s at 731; is that
4 correct?
5 MR. NINFO: Yes, that sounds right . I
6 think it works out to exactly 40 percent of the
7 square footage .
8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any
9 questions .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in the
13 audience would like to speak to this application?
14 MR. REDA: Hello, my name is Kerri Reda.
15 I am the Ninfos' neighbor to the south. In
16 speaking with them, they had said that making this
17 apartment legalized was not something that would
18 be transferable to new owners, and I was checking
19 to see is that accurate or once it' s a legal
20 apartment, new owners have a legal apartment?
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I would think so.
22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Actually under the
23 code, the new owner must apply for a new CO to
24 insure they' re a resident . One of the
25 requirements is they must be an owner and a
November 18 , 2004
17
1
2 resident of the building. So if the new owner
3 does not reside there, they wouldn' t be eligible
4 for approval .
5 MS . REDA: Would the new owner be able to
6 use it in any way they needed to? I have no
7 objection to how it' s being used right now, I 'm
8 concerned if their situation should change or if
9 they are to move and sell the home to someone
10 else, then what might the apartment be used for?
11 Will we have ten people in and out of the house
12 and many cars because their driveway is right up
13 against two of the bedrooms in our home . I'm
14 wondering about future use and hopefully the
15 Ninfos will stay my neighbors for the long term.
16 I just wasn' t sure if this was something
17 transferable and what happens down the road if the
18 use of the apartment should change .
19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It depends on how
20 it' s being used and how it' s being owned and
21 resided in.
22 MS . REDA: That' s something to deal with
23 down the road?
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Would
November 18, 2004
18
1
2 someone else like to speak on this? If not, I ' ll
3 make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
4 decision until later.
5 (See minutes for resolution. )
6 -------------------------------------------------
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
8 Andrew and Ann Monaco. Would you like to explain
9 to us why you need that fence?
10 MR. MONACO: Yes . My name is Andrew
11 Monaco . My wife apologizes for not being here,
12 she' s taking care of my son, he had a minor
13 operation, so being the good mother that she is,
14 she' s home .
15 It' s been a long process . I 'm 12 years
16 older since we bought the property and although
17 we' re in the middle of building it right now.
18 They call me the "dead end keeper" because for 12
19 years I've been picking up the garbage and the
20 rubble and painting the guardrails down there, and
21 taking pride in the area. What I've noticed since
22 we started building the house about four months
23 ago and there' s always been for ten, 12 years, a
24 lot of beach traffic, and fishermen I've gotten to
25 know a lot of them, they' re not the problem. The
November 18 , 2004
19
1
2 problem is at night . There' s been a vagrant
3 that' s been sleeping in a van at the end of Rocky
4 Point Road, there' s also a woman that' s been
5 sleeping down at the beach. During my clean-ups
6 normally on Monday morning after a weekend, I was
7 noticing these little plastic bags and had no idea
8 what they were until about two weeks ago, my son' s
9 school had a drug awareness program through
10 Suffolk County, and evidently these little bags
11 are used to hold cocaine . So between the
12 vagrants, between the kids parking there at night
13 and drinking beer, and that' s kind of come under
14 control because I've approached them down at the
15 beach at night when they' re parked down there and
16 they' re buildings fires down at the beach, and I
17 don' t have a problem as long as they clean up; so
18 we've kind of gained a respect between the high
19 school children that go down there and park and
20 all .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s nice of you to
22 do that .
23 MR. MONACO: I don' t mind as long as
24 people keep it clean. And the dumping has stopped
25 since I've started picking, and especially since
November 18 , 2004
20
1
2 the house is going up, but the six foot fence --
3 and it' s not an intersection type road where you
4 have cars coming in both directions at 30 , 40 , 50
5 miles per hour. It does dead end about
6 three-quarters of the way down my property and
7 there actually was, about ten years ago when I
8 first purchased it, a chain link fence that the
9 superintendent of highways took out when he put in
10 the drain and moved the guardrail back, and there
11 was an actual six foot chain link fence that came
12 across Rocky Point Road and behind the guardrail
13 then came down about halfway behind my property,
14 it was a six foot chain link. It was ugly and
15 they had to take it down so I'm glad they
16 did. The point I'm getting at was there was a
17 fence there at one time that was owned by the
18 town.
19 But to keep it simple, I would like to
20 have the six foot fence and conform to the 25 or
21 30 foot line of vision that the town calls for. I
22 think I put 25 in the application, but I think
23 it' s 30 . I thought it was 25 . But to go from the
24 four foot that I'm allowed because it' s a corner
25 lot to the six foot back to the bluff, that would
November 18, 2004
21
1
2 prevent anybody from walking around and at least
3 they have to come to the front of the house .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I saw your problem.
5 I'm familiar with that area, I live in Orient, and
6 we have had a lot of trouble where the road ends .
7 I'm glad you say it' s cleaned up a little bit .
8 MR. MONACO: I have for ten years that' s
9 why no one' s here objecting to it .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As long as you keep
11 that corner open. I see 25 foot is going to be
12 open with no fencing; is that correct?
13 MR. MONACO: That' s correct . Then start
14 with two, three feet to six foot then at the end
15 go down again to six to the three to give
16 uniformity to the fence line . Four foot fence,
17 I've got a four foot fence up there now, and it' s
18 okay, we have a lavatory that we keep on site for
19 the men that are working, and they just hop over
20 the fence and use it, which is fine, but six foot
21 I don' t think they would be able to do that and
22 give us some security.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any
24 questions?
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
November 18, 2004
22
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The stretch is
4 going to be 75 feet?
5 MR. MONACO: It' s approximate . I scaled
6 it off the survey. But again, what I'm proposing
7 is from the actual bluff line, which is about 46
8 foot mark, if you have the survey in front of you,
9 which to the top step you got the landing, then
10 the' top step down to about the 25 foot mark. But
11 if you notice, the 25 feet mark from where I
12 ended, that' s from the property line then there' s
13 another 12 , 13 feet to the edge of the pavement,
14 so if you give me the 25, we' re only talking 36 ,
15 37 feet of open visibility.
16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have absolutely
17 no problem.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Likewise I can
20 respect your privacy. Just a question on the
21 duration of the three feet . You have 25 feet of
22 open, how many feet of three feet?
23 MR. MONACO: The transition is three to
24 six on eight .
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : One section from
November 18, 2004
23
1
2 three to six then the rest will be six feet?
3 MR. MONACO: Then the rest will be six,
4 then the last section going north will be six to
5 three, so it doesn' t just end abruptly.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Based upon your
8 samples that you have given us, this is a wood
9 fence?
10 MR. MONACO: Yes, I will put up anything
11 that the Board wishes for me . I would like to put
12 up something nicer than a stockade fence . I was
13 looking at the PVC type fences which are very
14 pretty, white, they offer the security and they
15 offer the safety I'm looking for, but the problem
16 is that especially I'm constantly cleaning rocks
17 on the beach and graffiti, . if they decide to write
18 on the fence, which they did across the street,
19 the six foot fence right on the other side of the
20 street, it has a bark on it so when they write on
21 it' s very easy to peel it off or power wash it
22 off . If I could get that type of stockade fence
23 that if you hit with a power washer or scrape
24 takes some of the bark off you can get rid of the
25 graffiti .
November 18 , 2004
24
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Putting thiis
3 fencing right on the line it looks like?
4 MR. MONACO: Right .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Whatever you put
6 there it just has to be continuously maintained,
7 certainly if you put it on the property line,
8 people may back into it . So there are issues here
9 it really should be offset just a little bit .
10 There should be obstructions in front of it . I 'm
11 not mandating it, I'm instructing this to you, if
12 you offset it 18 inches on your property and put
13 some bushes or scrub or rosa rugosa in front of
14 it, you' re going to be able to keep the life of
15 this fence much more than putting it right on the
16 line .
17 MR. MONACO: I am having a discussion with
18 the highway department on that point . There' s
19 like five to five and a half feet between the
20 fence and edge of pavement, and what I've asked
21 them to do and I haven' t gotten an answer from
22 them, basically we' re talking back and forth is to
23 put small stones and in between it put bushes and
24 probably the beach gravel that' s down there with a
25 type of layment that you put down there so the
November 18 , 2004
25
1
2 weeds don' t come up . I've been maintaining that
3 for years, I have no problem. No matter how far I
4 put it in, they' re going to bash ' it in. If I put
5 small rocks every six or seven feet, they' re not
6 going to be able to jump over it and hit the fence
7 and with the planting and all, but I do plan on
8 making that pretty with planting. And that was
9 the highway' s, who is going to take care of it . I
10 said I will take care of it just like I will take
11 care 'of the eight feet that the town owns on
12 Aquaview Road also.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just think you
14 have to understand that not only are we giving you
15 a variance for you, but we' re giving for any
16 subsequent owners if you were to sell the
17 property. So I'm suggesting to the Board, and
18 it' s only my suggestion, that whatever fence you
19 put up, that it be continuously maintained, and
20 I'm sure you don' t have an objection to that .
21 MR. MONACO: Not at all .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:. Thank you. Is there
23 anybody else that would like to speak on this
24 application? If not I' ll make a motion closing
25 the hearing and reserving decision until later.
November 18 , 2004
26
1
2 (See minutes for resolution. )
3 -------------------------------------------------
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
5 for Olsen and Villanti on the North Road in
6 Greenport for a proposed dwelling less than 75
7 feet from the bulkhead.
8 MR. VILLANTI : Good morning, Board, -, my
9 name is Bryan Villanti .
10 I believe you have the revised survey I
11 had submitted probably a month or two ago .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, we have it .
13 MR. VILLANTI : I'm looking to construct a
14 one-family home within this footprint that' s
15 illustrated on this survey, inclusive of that
16 footprint would be decks, garages not to exceed
17 that footprint . I tried to situate this house at
18 some point where there would be the greatest
19 setback from the water, and it meets the three
20 other setbacks, the front and the two side yards
21 and the backyard, but I show 50 feet from the
22 bulkhead.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re the one that
24 put all those nice plantings along the road .there?
25 MR. VILLANTI : I wasn' t the actual one .
November 18 , 2004
27
1
2 But I plan to improve it, and what I 'm looking to
3 really do is try to not disturb that land as least
4 as possible, and I'm looking into putting a slab
5 foundation, not a basement .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I didn' t realize until
7 I looked at it that that property cut around, I
8 thought it went straight down to the canal .
9 MR. VILLANTI : It' s "L" shaped, it' s an
10 odd lot . But it' s a pretty nice lot .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you the
13 adjacent property owner as well?
14 MR. VILLANTI : No.
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you got free
16 shrubs from them planting them?
17 MR. VILLANTI : You mean to the west?
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes . I'm curious
19 if you were the homeowner or you owned that parcel
20 as well?
21 MR. VILLANTI : No.
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You currently use
23 this now for?
24 MR. VILLANTI : I have my boat there .
25 There' s a cabana shed with bath facilities, and
November 18 , 2004
28
1
2 there is an existing septic system that I think it
3 was back in ' 98 when that was approved and
4 installed, and it' s been used very little . It' s
5 only during boating season, and it has town water
6 to the property, and there' s electric in there .
7 It' s a fully improved lot at this point .
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You stated this
9 footprint 59 by 34 , that' s everything, it' s the
10 deck?
11 MR. VILLANTI : Correct .
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because I thought
13 that was all house .
14 MR. VILLANTI : No. In reality the house
15 is probably under 2 , 400 square feet, a two-story,
16 try to keep the footprint of the house as small as
17 possible and going up a second story to
18 accommodate that .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high will the
20 house be to the ridge?
21 MR. VILLANTI : Probably no greater than 35
22 feet but more probably like 28 or so.'
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a difficult
25 lot . I can appreciate what you've done . I don t
November 18 , 2004
29
1
2 have any objections .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You do have kind of
5 a tough situation with the flood zone and the drop
6 in elevation there and really looking at this
7 piece of property, I don' t see any way that you
8 could situate this house without a variance .
9 MR. VILLANTI : I agree with that . I would
10 actually like to situate it in a different spot .
11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t see any way
12 that you can, physically I don' t think it' s
13 possible . That' s my only comment .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Definitely a
16 hardship, I have no objection to it .
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : One other question,
18 are there right of ways across your property to
19 access those docks?
20 MR. VILLANTI : No, not at all . Actually,
21 the Fordham Inlet there, you actually own the dirt
22 below the canal because those lots were deeded out
23 parcels of the canals to different landowners .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They were done back in
25 the 160s .
November 18 , 2004
30
1
2 MR. VILLANTI : I think the subdivision of
3 ' 62 .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Those several docks
5 are yours then?
6 MR. VILLANTI : Yes . There' s one big
7 floating dock where the boat is tied up, and then
8 the bulkhead is "L" shaped, I think it' s 116 , 117
9 linear feet, I applied to the DEC, I think you
10 have a copy of that letter, and it was a
11 nonjurisdictional because prior to ' 77 when all
12 that was constructed.
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s all yours in
14 there?
15 MR. VILLANTI : Correct .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No other
18 comments .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in the
20 audience would like to speak to this application?
21 If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing,
22 reserve decision until later.
23 (See minutes for resolution. )
24 -------------------------------------------------
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is
November 18 , 2004
31
1
2 for Arthur Torell, who wishes to build a new home
3 on Westward Lane in Greenport .
4 MR. TORELL: Good morning, I'm Arthur
5 Torell . This request for a variance is due to me
6 showing an application and drawings and building
7 plans to the Building Department, at which time
8 they told me that the back area, open area, was
9 not enough based on the footprint of the
10 foundation and the size of the lot . This project
11 I started in ' 98 and had applications from the
12 Board of Appeals and the Building Department and
13 Health Department, the DEC, but I had to stop that
14 project at that time due to some family issues .
15 In 2003 I restarted the project, reapplied
16 to the DEC, the Health Department and at the same
17 time worked with an architect to get my building
18 plans from 198 up to 2003 New York State codes .
19 So everything was happening at the same time . I
20 have a permit from the Health Department dated
21 April 30 , 2004 . I have a permit from the DEC
22 dated September 13th, but I'm here now to request
23 a variance for the back distance . It should be 50
24 feet and at this point, I have 37 and a half
25 feet . I must point out that in 198 , the house was
November 18 , 2004
32
1
2 70 feet -- house and garage were 70 feet long, at
3 this time it' s 67 and a half feet due to some
4 economy and the architect' s ingenuity. But also
5 during this year, working with the DEC to squeeze
6 this house into that parcel, I was asked to push
7 it, move it, do whatever I could to get the
8 footprint furthest from the wetlands . So that' s
9 why the combination of making the house shorter,
10 but that didn' t compensate because the house had
11 to be slid back a little bit and to the north
12 based on what the DEC recommended.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did you have to go to
14 the Trustees too?
15 MR. TORELL: I did and I have the
16 Trustees' permit . In fact they just approved a
17 one-year extension which takes me through I think
18 next July.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes, the backyard
21 neighbor there, your backyard neighbor is Suffolk
22 County wetlands; is that correct?
23 MR. TORELL: Yes, it is . Well, the back
24 neighbor is I think Green Space and it' s a
25 developer, it' s Eastern Shores . To the south or
November 18 , 2004
33
1
2 left of the property, viewing from the street,
3 that is the Town of Southold, then behind that
4 is --
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Inland Pond Park,
6 isn' t it?
7 MR. TORELL: No . Behind that large
8 parcel, which is like two acres I say where the
9 bog is that is Southold' s, behind that is one of
10 those sunken holes with a fence around it .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A sump, a recharge
12 basin?
13 MR. TORELL:, Right .
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So in ' 98 you came
15 before the Zoning Board for a merger of Lot 67 and
16 68?
17 MR. TORELL: An unmerger, which was
18 approved.
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Then you also came
20 before us for a variance?
21 MR. TORELL: Correct, because the building
22 department said I didn' t have enough area on the
23 side yard. I needed 15 feet and only ten, so that
24 ten foot was granted.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What happened to
November 18 , 2004
34
1
2 the other lot, Mr. Torell?
3 MR. TORELL: I still own it .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So you didn' t have
5 a rear yard setback at that time?
6 MR. TORELL: No one flagged it as an issue
7 during that process .
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But the footprint
9 didn' t change?
10 MR. TORELL: The footprint has slid back a
11 little bit to the rear yard.
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Hence the rear yard
13 setback?
14 MR. TORELL: Yes . The house is shorter
15 but it had to slide back a little bit .
16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was still less
17 than 50 feet at that time?
18 MR. TORELL: Yes, but at the time in ' 98 I
19 think I noted to you that there was no measurement
20 on the drawing for some reason, and no one flagged
21 it as an issue . So I didn' t know how far away it
22 was, but I guess the Building Department looked at
23 it and just visually looked at it and said it' s
24 far enough.
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' ll be residing
November 18 , 2004
35
1
2 in this house?
3 MR. TORELL: Yes .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm just
7 wondering if we shouldn' t be amending the prior on
8 this so we can incorporate it, but I guess it
9 doesn' t matter too much. I don' t have any
10 questions . I remember your former application
11 very well .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All my questions
16 were answered.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
18 audience who would like to speak on this
19 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
20 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
21 (See minutes for resolution. )
22 -------------------------------------------------
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
24 Salvatore and Margaret Detrano on Great Peconic
25 Bay Boulevard, in Laurel . Is there anyone who
November 18 , 2004
36
1
2 would like to 'speak for a right of way easement?
3 Yes, sir?
4 MR. LEONARD: Robert Leonard for Salvatore
5 and Margaret Detrano. What we' re basically
6 proposing here, we would like to propose additions
7 and alterations to the first and second floor of
8 the existing house on the lot . What we' re here
9 asking relief for is additions to the first floor
10 of the house, Due to the size of the existing lot
11 and the location of the residence as it currently
12 sits, any additions and alterations to the house
13 would require a variance going out to the front or
14 rear of the property. The additions that we are
15 proposing for the rear of the property, for the
16 rear yard setbacks do not exceed the distance --
17 the existing setback for the existing deck that is
18 there now.
19 The additions at the front of the house,
20 the bedroom that we' re proposing to connect the
21 house to the garage is not proposed to go past the
22 existing front of the house; the other additions
23 and alterations to the front comprise two bay
24 windows in the living spaces and an open portico
25 at the entrance that will shrink the existing
November 18 , 2004
37
1
2 setback at the front of the house .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Leonard, I
5 met with the applicant one Saturday afternoon, and
6 I hadn' t been up there in a little while and I was
7 amazed to see that drop off the way it does drop
8 off .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Big drop off .
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In your
11 particular field, is the construction or the
12 reconstruction of this house going to affect that
13 low land area in any way?
14 MR. LEONARD: Absolutely not . The only
15 foundations we' re proposing to install for the
16 house is a crawl space for the master bedroom
17 we' re proposing, the rest is going to be at the
18 second floor level resting on columns . We' re not
19 going to be going back there doing any massive
20 excavation other than column footings .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did any other
22 agency of this town or state agency require you to
23 put any type of hay bales or anything down?
24 MR. LEONARD: Of course we always put the
25 hay bales down there whenever we see any type of
November 18 , 2004
38
1
2 wetlands, but no, we didn' t need anything from any
3 other agency.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your 25 foot and 21
6 feet are all based on the front yard and using the
7 easement, correct?
8 MR. LEONARD: Yes .
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 14' 1" , would
10 that be your easement then?
11 MR. LEONARD: We' re using the existing
12 property lines, so the 21 foot 21 three-quarters
13 we' re proposing on the front would be to the
14 property line not the easement, same thing in the
15 rear yard, it' s 20 and-a-half feet to the --
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To the deck?
17 MR. LEONARD: Yes, to the deck, which is
18 the existing setback now to the existing deck.
19 We' re proposing that to the enclosed porch we' re
20 looking to put back there .
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the 1411" is
22 your side yard?
23 MR. LEONARD: Yes . And we' re not asking
24 for any relief at the side yard.
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the 2015" is
November 18 , 2004
39
1
2 your rear yard?
3 MR. LEONARD: Yes, the building
4 departments determined the front and rear yards
5 because there really is no road on the site .
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other
7 questions .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, you just
10 answered my question.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, anything
14 further?
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.,
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
17 in the audience that would like to speak on this
18 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
19 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
20 (See minutes for resolution. )
21 -------------------------------------------------
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
23 Kristopher Pilles who wishes to have a waiver of
24 merger on Cedar Drive West, East Marion.
25 MR. PILLES : Good morning.
November 18 , 2004
40
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir, good
3 morning, how are you?
4 MR. PILLES : Pretty good. Going through
5 this process, I guess there' s four questions I
6 have to address in front of you guys . The first
7 being that the variance will not affect the
8 density of the neighborhood. From looking at the
9 tax maps, there' s several other similarly sized
10 lots in the neighborhood. With that said, my
11 plans -- obviously this is a long process going
12 from here, if I gain your approval with the
13- Suffolk County Department of Health and other
14 agencies .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me interrupt you.
16 Do you have Greenport Water there?
17 MR. PILLES : No, I don' t . I would have to
18 get a variance after putting in a test well .
19 So from looking at the other properties in
20 the area, I think that the lot just from my
21 opinion should be room for a variance without
22 affecting the density of the neighborhood.
23 The next question is is it consistent with
24 the size of the lots in the neighborhood. My
25 feeling yes, again, from looking at the tax maps .
November 18 , 2004
41
1
2 Additionally, not on the tax maps is an existence
3 of the private road that runs between Stars Road
4 and Aquaview Drive, which would reduce the size of
5 some of the other lots that are there, making it
6 even smaller than the one I'm proposing to build
7 on.
8 In regards to economic hardships,
9 realistically, to live on the north fork is
10 expensive . I came into this property through my
11 father' s passing, and I'm in the process of
12 renting the other house in order to pay the
13 mortgage . I don' t know, I think that to stay out
14 on the north fork I probably need to keep that
15 house rented, use that positive cash flow to pay
16 down the mortgage on building on this lot, and
17 then I can stay here .
18 To address the fourth issue, the lot, the
19 natural details and characters and contours of the
20 slopes of the lot will not be affected. The lot' s
21 pretty clear. I wish the lot was a little bigger
22 but I kind of have to work with what I have .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What are the
24 dimensions of the lot?
25 MR. PILLES : It' s 50 by 120 .
November 18 , 2004
42
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did some
3 investigation and all of these small lots were,
4 shall we say, merged or unmerged back in the 160s .
5 These are old lots when we didn' t have zoning. It
6 just started and it' s one acre zoning, of course,
7 in that area. And we try to make our lots come up
8 to somewhat near at least R40 in one acre zoning.
9 I understand your plight and what have you, but
10 these lots were merged back in the ' 50s and when
11 you purchased it back in ' 98 , I believe it was .
12 They were still merged; were you aware of it?
13 MR. PILLES : No, I wasn' t . In all honesty
14 my father' s intention was to be standing here
15 himself . Now it' s fallen on my shoulders .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me ask our Board.
17 Mr. Goehringer?
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I kind of mirror
19 .what the Chairwoman is saying. The lot is
20 extremely small, and it doesn' t have any utility
21 such as public water, and I grew up on a block
22 very similar to this one out here, and I
23 understand what a 50 foot lot is, and I understand
24 that there are a couple in the neighborhood. But
25 certainly the elongation of that house would serve
November 18 , 2004
43
1
2 well, if one were so inclined to do so, into
3 building on this property rather than trying to
4 squeeze it on. If you wanted to in the future,
5 even if you agreed, if you felt you had to sell
6 it, I think it' s more valuable leaving that lot in
7 its existing condition, and that' s my opinion.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I'm looking at the
10 Town property card when your dad purchased it in
11 ' 98, I have to ask the assessor, maybe the town-
12 attorney, but it says $80, 00 for two parcels .
13 MR. PILLES : That' s what he paid at the
14 time . Coming into it from an estate, I had to pay
15 fair market value .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I had to ask the
17 assessors what it stands for, it looks like two
18 parcels . Do you concur with that?
19 TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Looks like it' s r
20 parcels . I suspect that means, were there two
21 other tax map parcels?
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . Owners were
23 purchased back in the 150s so they merged and even
24 when Mr. Pilles bought them in 198 they were still
25 merged.
November 18 , 2004
44
1
2 TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Merged by operation
3 of law.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think I can
5 clear that issue up, if you would like me to .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This town has
8 relied an awful lot on those tax maps . If there
9 was a perforation between those two lots, meaning
10 dotted lines, I suspect that the assessors would
11 have said the house parcel/parcels if that was the
12 case, but since it' s a solid line and maybe you' re
13 receiving two tax bills that' s the reason they use
14 the plural notwithstanding the fact that zoning
15 exists and they are merged.
16 MR. PILLES : Can I ask a question? My
17 confusion is when these lots were created, the
18 intention was for two building lots, correct? I
19 mean, when the zoning many, many administrations
20 ago.
21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: One lot was created
22 prior to zoning, Lot 36 was created in 1952 , prior
23 to zoning. Both lots have been merged since Lot
24 36 was purchased in March of 152 and the other was
25 in August ' 56 . What relationship are you to Alice
November 18, 2004
45
1
2 and George Blaze?
3 MR. PILLES : None .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: His father
5 purchased it from them.
6 MR. PILLES : Actually, he purchased it
7 from the estate, I believe it was Alice' s estate .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. I made the
10 comments I'm going to make .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that they
13 were merged in ' 83 , when the merger law came into
14 effect, and, you know, you had been receiving two
15 separate tax bills even after that point .
16 MR. PILLES : Still are .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I knew your
18 father, I worked with him a little while, and it
19 seems to me there was no intention to merge these
20 lots . Gentleman just purchased a lot next door to
21 him and hoping some day to put a house on
22 it . That' s my opinion, of course, as always I
23 think the Town is remiss that they don' t notify
24 people that they do things . Unless you read the
25 Suffolk Times thoroughly every day, every week,
November 18 , 2004
46
1
2 then you may miss out . There' s no law that says
3 you have to buy the Suffolk Times .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Or the Traveler
5 Watchman.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
7 in the audience that would like to speak on this?
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Pat .
9 MS . MOORE : I don' t have any relationship
10 with Mr. Pilles, but I want to put something on
11 the record that I think the Board should keep in
12 mind. We are going right now through several
13 hamlet studies and the stewardship meetings and so
14 on, and the whole emphasis of it is to try to
15 create diversity of neighborhoods and provide for
16 alternative or affordable housing, not to say that
17 this lot is necessarily going to be an affordable
18 lot, but it' s certainly going to be less expensive
19 than a one acre, two acre lot anywhere else in the
20 neighborhood.
21 I know I've had various applications on
22 behalf of clients on Stars Road and I know the
23 Zoning Board has been reluctant to I say
24 "grandfather" the subdivision that got approved
25 with the Stars Road subdivision that created this
r
November 18 , 2004
47
1
2 property, but maybe it' s time to start thinking
3 about the policies and the goals that the Town
4 Board has expressed. We are doing all these
5 studies these moratoriums, a lot of community
6 input is being sought for the purposes of creating
7 some density. Why are we creating density in
8 other areas and creating a whole process when we
9 have these existing preexisting subdivisions that
10 provide that alternative housing types . Stars
11 Road is an example of it, Mattituck has some
12 examples . Where I live we have a diversity size
13 parcels . Where I live on a half acre, my neighbor
14 a nice man lives in a small cottage on a parcel
15 that is about the same size . We can create
16 diversity in this community, and we have the
17 zoning controls through setbacks and variances so
18 that the houses that get built on these
19 substandard lots are in conformity with the
20 neighborhood. But to force the merging of
21 properties where zoning has already through
22 history provided for a neighborhood that is
23 diverse, we should try to keep that in mind or I
24 ask the Board to keep that in mind because we seem
25 to be trying to move forward but going backwards
November 18 , 2004
48
1
2 at the same time .
3 I know you' re constantly considering that
4 balancing, and you do a very good job with that .
5 I know your hearts are in the right place, but
6 also keep in mind that Stars Road somewhat middle
7 income homes are available to the public, and I
8 think you have an applicant right here who is an
9 example of that .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The problem is going
11 to be to get the Board of Health approval?
12 MS . MOORE : That' s always a problem, but
13 even the Health Department recognizes that in
14 subdivisions that are substandard, if you' re the
15 last guy to be developed, there has to be some
16 flexibility, and that' s what the Board of Review
17 is there for. You can' t blame the last guy to be
18 developed to fit the bill for everybody else' s
19 sanitary and well . You don' t have to be the
20 enforcement body for the Health Department .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I realize that, thank
22 you. Yes, sir?
23 MR. SAKELLIS : I'm a neighbor of this
24 particular lot . My name is George Sakellis . I
25 bought the house a few years back with the idea
November 18 , 2004
49
1
2 that I will have some peace and quiet, and of
3 course, it doesn' t look like it' s going to work.
4 This particular lot is very small . It' s close to
5 my property. I can' t imagine that out here we' re
6 going to have similar city buildings, close to
7 each other, 20 footers and 15 footers, and I think
8 this is ridiculous that we going to allow this
9 man, which I don' t know, to build one house on
10 this particular lot . Many people as you see in
11 the areas spend a lot of money for lots for
12 buildings, and they are not squeezing in between
13 driveways to make the house . This man has been
14 renting the house and the new house that he' s
15 going to do, he' s going to have to rent it,
16 there' s no way. So if that' s what we want to do,
17 rent our houses up there, I think it' s very good
18 idea for him to build a nice 20 footer house . I'm
19 very opposed to it and I'm very aggravated. I
20 appreciate your decision.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much,
22 sir. Is there anybody else in the audience who
23 would like to speak on this application?
24 (See minutes for resolution. )
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ma' am, chair,
November 18, 2004
50
1
2 can we take a five minute recess?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to
4 recess .
5 (See minutes for resolution. )
6 (Off the record. )
7 -------------------------------------------------
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
9 for Thomas and Annette Jordan at 1680 Brigantine
10 Drive in Southold.
11 Mr. Hermann, we had this before us last
12 year, go ahead.
13 MR. HERMANN: For the applicant, Rob
14 Hermann, of En-Consultants, 1319 North Sea Road in
15 Southampton.
16 I was wondering if you would recall the
17 application. At the time it was then contract
18 vendee Gary Gurney who had filed an application
19 before the Board for 15 feet of relief for a house
20 situated 25 feet from Brigantine . It was
21 testified to in the record by two of the nearby
22 property owners and also by Member Orlando that
23 the established setback for this area was 35 feet,
24 and the Chairwoman I believe indicated somewhat
25 unambiguously that Mr. Gurnes should go back to
November 18 , 2004
51
1
2 the drawing board and come back with something
3 that was in keeping with the 35 feet . Long story
4 short because of objections that were also raised
5 to the scope of the Gurnes project by DEC,
6 ultimately the Gurnes contract with the Jordans
7 was terminated, the Jordans decided to pursue the
8 permit approval process themselves and retained
9 En-Consultants to represent them.
10 What we did was reconfigure and
11 significantly downsize the scope of the project in
12 a way that would conform to the requirements and
13 recommendations of all of the involved agencies .
14 And so since you last saw this application on
15 behalf of the Jordans we were able to obtain
16 approvals from the New York State DEC, from the
17 Town Trustees and also from the Suffolk County
18 Department of Health Services . So essentially we
19 are back before this Board with a house whose
20 footprint has been reduced by roughly 30 percent
21 saying it' s been a while, but we essentially went
22 back and did what you asked us to do, and could
23 you now look favorably upon the variance
24 application which is now .just for five feet . If
25 you have any questions, I' d be happy to answer
November 18 , 2004
52
1
2 them on behalf of the Jordans .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We do have a copy of a
4 letter in opposition by Mr. Abelli . "I am not a
5 resident in the immediate area of this ,
6 application, but I do own a residence and
7 additional property in Harbor Lights .
8 " In my opinion this proposal is contrary
9 to the best interests of this neighborhood. I ask
10 the Board to reject the request for a variance .
11 The proposed setback of 35 feet is completely out
12 of character of the setbacks of other homes in the
13 immediate area. , The consultants report says that
14 the average established setback in the area is
15 about 35 feet; this is not so. The setbacks of
16 the two adjoining homes are probably 40 to 50
17 feet . Those of the homes across the street are
18 probably close to 100 feet . I estimate the
19 average setback of the seven homes in the
20 immediate area is about 70 feet .
21 " If this request is approved, the
22 resulting house would project well in front of the
23 other two adjoining houses . The front yard would
24 be considerably smaller than those of the other
25 properties in the immediate area. The garage and
November 18 , 2004
53
1
2 driveway would be very close to the road, and the
3 driveway probably would not be able to accommodate
4 more than two vehicles at a time . Anything above
5 that would require vehicles to park in the street
6 which is narrow and curved at that point . That
7 would present safety hazards .
8 "The bottom line unfortunately is that
9 this property is not a useable building lot . It
10 never has been. The wetlands in the back require
11 pushing a building so close to the road that it
12 conflicts with neighboring homes that have been in
13 the place for many years . Respectfully submitted,
14 John Abelli . "
15 I just wanted to read that into the
16 record.
17 MR. HERMANN: Certainly I would not agree
18 with the gentleman' s conclusions . Actually the
19 property immediately adjacent to the subject lot
20 is owned by William Kelly, who was granted a
21 variance by this Board for a 35 foot setback. And
22 again, I would reference the minutes from the
23 Board' s hearing in January of ' 03 , Member Orlando
24 quote, "If this meeting is adjourned, you may want
25 to think about a new house plan because the
November 18 , 2004
54
1
2 average setback in this neighborhood is about 35
3 feet . " I believe Mr. Kelly also testified, his
4 quote is "The code for a lot less than 40 , 000 or
5 20 , 000 square feet is set at 40 . But then there' s
6 a section in the code that also reads that any
7 plot plan subdivision that' s been established
8 after 1957 allows it to go back to what the
9 setback was at the time of that . And when I did
10 mine" -- this is still Mr. Kelly talking -- "I
11 researched and I found that 35 feet was what was
12 allowed at the time that subdivision was done .
13 It' s pretty much without question 35 feet would be
14 allowed. Anything beyond 35 feet I would
15 definitely be opposed to. I have built two houses
16 on that street, and I've lived on it for 17 years,
17 and incidentally, both houses that I built, I had
18 to deal with the wetlands issues and front yard
19 variances, and I've always referred back to the 35
20 foot rule and everyone in that neighborhood has as
21 well . There' s not one house built in that
22 neighborhood after 1968 when the subdivision was
23 done that' s less than 35 feet . "
24 Again, I believe that was the kind of
25 information that this Board relied upon, and,
November 18 , 2004
55
1
2 Chairwoman, you had indicated again that the
3 applicant go back and return with a setback that
4 would meet 35 feet .
5 The wetlands in the back do, of course,
6 create the problem that the owners are confronted
7 with and why a 40 foot setback could not be met .
8 But I would say without question, the site plan
9 that' s before you, if you look at the survey
10 that' s been presented almost the entire parcel
11 between the wetlands themselves and the 42 foot
12 nondisturbance buffer adjacent thereto is
13 preserving almost the entire property. I would
14 also note too, the neighbor Mr. Poliwoda who is
15 located across the street and still is, also
16 objected to the setback ,at that time but said he
17 would also withdraw his opposition to a 35 foot
18 setback. So I would say the record is
19 substantially clear, contrary to the letter you
20 just read, that 35 foot setback is the accepted
21 setback in this neighborhood, and most
22 significantly to the people who are located
23 immediately adjacent to and opposite to the
24 Jordans and, according to you, the person who
25 wrote that letter is not .
November 18 , 2004
56
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
3 question?
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to
6 excuse us, I do so many of these, as this Board
7 does, are there any C and Rs that prohibit a 35
8 foot setback to your knowledge?
9 MR. HERMANN: To my knowledge, no, but I
10 would imagine based on Mr. Kelly' s testimony and
11 this Board' s having granted the same variance to
12 Mr. Kelly I would assume not .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember,
14 every piece of property is unique. I don' t know
15 what the wetlands configuration is on his as
16 opposed to this one . I tend to think this has
17 probably got a smaller envelope than the other one
18 does . But the other question is -- and I 'm not
19 suggesting this Board do it unless the Board
20 contends to want that -- the width of the road is
21 what, actual pavement?
22 MR. HERMANN: The width of the road
23 itself, it' s a 50 foot 'road, is it not?
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a 50 foot
25 road?
November 18 , 2004
57
1
2 MR. HERMANN: You mean in theory or
3 actuality?
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In theory, 50 foot
5 right of way.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The road is
7 definitely not 50 feet, I was down there last
8 Saturday.
9 MR. HERMANN: The house will actually be
10 approximately 47 feet from pavement if that' s what
11 you' re driving at .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that' s what
13 I'm driving at, and I'm also driving at the fact
14 that we do have a neighbor that mentioned that the
15 setbacks are much more extensive, and they are
16 more extensive, I think, on the other of the
17 street than this side of the street, but this
18 Board has in the past -- and again, I'm not
19 suggesting this, I'm only planting it as a seed --
20 that we could ask you to measure the average
21 setbacks on these houses, and I don' t know if this
22 Board still wants to do that . Notwithstanding
23 Mr. Kelly' s application, I'm sure that the houses
24 are setback a little more, there' s no question
25 about it, and that' s that .
November 18 , 2004
58
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Jerry.
3 Vincent?
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO. No other questions,
5 you've heard my concerns . I'm interested in how
6 you made out with the Trustees last night .
7 MR. HERMANN: I wasn' t here on this
8 project . The Trustees had actually issued a
9 permit for the larger scope house in the past . So
10 we had to go back to them and obtain an amended
11 approval again for what I'm calling a much
12 improved and downsized scope, and they had no
13 problem approving that .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Lydia?
15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think you have
16 taken a very difficult lot and come up with a very
17 workable plan. You did take into consideration
18 the Board' s concerns . It is a five foot variance
19 at this stage . That' s what it is . And I don' t
20 see how there' s any way that you could construct a
21 house on this lot without a five foot variance,
22 particularly, if you look at your proposed house
23 now and you look at what was before us, it' s very
24 clear that you have jimmy-rigged the house to
25 conform to environmental constraints and to do the
November 18, 2004
59
1
2 best you can with the front yard. In my opinion
3 that' s what you've done .
4 MR. HERMANN: Thank you.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with Lydia
7 wholeheartedly. The house is modest and the
8 dimensions of the house are the smallest you could
9 get a room that would be comfortable . I think you
10 have done a nice job.
11 MR. HERMANN: Thank you.
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think the 35
13 feet, if you look down that street, is pretty
14 close to the average . I don' t think it goes much
15 more than that . I agree with Jerry that the other
16 lot, especially Mr. Kelly' s, was further away from
17 the wetlands than this one is . Besides that, this
18 is I think the minimum amount of house that you
19 could build on this lot . That' s all I have to
20 say.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would agree
22 too. You met what our requirements were last
23 time, the 35 feet, and you've met that . Is there
24 anybody else in the audience that would like to
25 speak on this application? If not I' ll make a
November 18 , 2004
60
1
2 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
3 until later. (See minutes for
4 resolution. )
5 -------------------------------------------------
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Ellen
7 Schultheis .
8 MS . MOORE : Good morning, this application
9 is taking an existing ranch and doing some
10 renovations to it and putting a second story on
11 for the family. In designing the renovations they
12 actually took great pains to design, renovate this
13 house in such a way that it would create the
14 minimal impact on neighbors . , So you can see that
15 the existing garage is remaining as a one-story
16 portion of the house . The new garage that has to
17 be added, actually has been moved over away from
18 the neighbors so as to not increase the degree of
19 nonconformity with respect to the existing setback
20 that is at the spot where it would be extended at
21 least 7 . 6 feet from the property line .
22 The rear yard or where the brick patio is
23 essentially not changing because a second story is
24 going over the main portion of the house, and this
25 property is also a corner lot, Illinois Avenue is
November 18 , 2004
61
1
2 actually, while it' s a road, designated road, it
3 actually is a right of way, a LIPA right of way.
4 So you can see in some of the photographs that I
5 gave you, some high tension lines that run along
6 Illinois Avenue . So there' s no neighbor on the
7 Illinois Avenue side that would have any impact by
8 this addition.
9 I have the plans . I submitted them to
10 this Board so you could see the height of the
11 structure . The average, the mean roof height is
12 going to be 26, two and-a-half feet which is a
13 normal two-story addition; we' re just converting a
14 ranch into a two-story home .
15 I ' ll try to answer any questions .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your total lot
17 coverage is going to be almost 30 percent and ours
18 is 20 percent, which does present a problem.
19 MS . MOORE : The problem is that we' re
20 taking a ranch with a breezeway and turning that
21 space into living space. We have to have a garage
22 because otherwise the families are going to have
23 nowhere to store their belongings . Essentially
24 the two sisters are going to live together.
25 They' re putting one house and living together as a
November 18, 2004
62
1
2 one family unit, so the space is needed, they' re
3 trying to accommodate the family needs . It' s kind
4 of a sprawling ranch to begin with and their
5 additions are tucked within the existing
6 footprint . The only new square footage is the
7 proposed garage . I' d hate to see a family come
8 together without having a garage space . The
9 husband will have a hard time without being able
10 to do his tinkering without a garage . That' s a
11 needed item. And if we were to cut back the
12 garage in any way, you' re cutting back the living
13 space as well . It' s a difficult situation.
14 The property is a relatively small
15 property, but it' s kind of spacious in that it' s a
16 corner lot . You only have neighbors on two sides,
17 and no one expressed any objection. They liked
18 the idea of having this house renovated and the
19 investment put into the neighborhood.
20 We can cut back a little bit of the porch,
21 if that' s somewhere where we could, the
22 architectural design, I think it was a nice
23 design, but they could always go back and do some
24 cut backs, they have a nice, kind of a country
25 porch on the front, they could change that a bit .
November 18 , 2004
63
1
2 That would take some of the square footage off the
3 house . But I hate to see -- the garage is really
4 necessary, particularly where the one family is
5 coming together. This is going to be their year
6 round home .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any way you
8 could get this down to say 25 percent? I mean,
9 it' s a large house now, it' s a beautiful spot .
10 It' s rather a sprawling house . You' re asking for
11 a massive addition here .
12 MS . MOORE : The problem is that it' s going
13 over top of an existing house . So we have little
14 flexibility where this garage is going to go.
15 Aside from keeping the garage where it is, it
16 means that we would have to put in a much larger
17 addition.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re putting on the
19 one-story addition, you' re putting a second story;
20 then you' re closing it in between the original
21 garage with other another proposed two-story
22 addition; then the one-story garage is another
23 living space; then you' re going to put another
24 garage on?
25 MS . MOORE : Right . We have to have a
November 18 , 2004
64
1
2 garage, that' s the problem, it' s popping the
3 garage somewhere along in the footprint .
4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is there a garage
5 now there, Pat?
6 MS . MOORE : The garage is there now.
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: May I interject?
8 MS . MOORE : Go ahead.
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s an adorable
10 neighborhood, it' s a great place . My reservation
11 is this is putting a benchmark down because I
12 think besides the house across the street, they' re
13 all pretty modest to small . If we give 29 percent
14 here, the next one' s going to be 30, and so on.
15 You understand that, Pat . So we want on put a
16 benchmark down here . That' s why I think 25
17 percent is reasonable . I' d like to do that with
18 you, give you a number and let you tweak it the
19 best way you like to do it .
20 MS . MOORE : Right . The problem is the
21 setbacks . We don' t want to establish certain
22 setbacks .
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t1have a
24 problem with the preexisting setbacks, that' s
25 fine, that' s the way it was, but if we give 30 the
November 18 , 2004
65
1
2 next guy' s going to want 31 .
3 MS . MOORE : I anticipate that the neighbor
4 to the south, there' s been a change in ownership
5 there, and I anticipate they' ll be renovating.
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Hence the reason
7 why we.' re a little conservative there .
8 MS . MOORE : We can try to work with 25
9 percent . The issue is do we have front yard, side
10 yard variances? The family really needs a garage .
11 If we can take some of the house -- in the back
12 there' s a little protrusion in the back, I guess
13 we can cut off a little of the back where you see
14 the 11 by 12 on the rear around the brick, right
15 now it' s an entranceway, that' s an area we could
16 probably cut off, try to reduce some of the
17 covered porch, go back to the drawing board with
18 the architect . We could take out from there, but
19 I don' t know if we can meet the 25 because again,
20 we have the existing structure that' s already,
21 kind of the garage on one end with the breezeway
22 kind of the space in between is the common sense
23 area is where you would expand a two-story house .
24 You have existing living space .
25 Why don' t we leave the hearing open, talk
November 18 , 2004
66
1
2 to your architect about how we can modify this in
3 such a way that we preserve the garage . I know
4 it' s very important to your husband to have a
5 garage .
6 MS . SCHULTHEIS : I think the home right
7 now is 23 percent . I'm already over the lot
8 coverage, but without that room in between the
9 garage and the house .
10 MS . MOORE : I think we' re over the 25
11 already.
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' re not targeting
13 but we know what' s going to happen afterwards, the
14 next neighbor comes in.
15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s a 12 , 000
16 square foot lot . The plans are humongous .
17 MS . MOORE : If you were in the Village of
18 Greenport where you have 12, 000 square foot lots
19 generally you go up to 30 percent because it' s a
20 recognition.
21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There' s no analogy.
22 We' re not there, this is where we are .
23 MS . MOORE : I am giving you an analogy of
24 why 30 percent is quite common when you have
25 undersized lots . Two hundred square feet can
November 18 , 2004
67
1
2 bring you over a lot coverage .
3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s not what our
4 code says .
5 MS . MOORE: We' ll hold the hearing open.
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Massage the house,
7 see what you come up with.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any
9 comments?
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. As I said
11 before, I think you have to begin on these large
12 lot coverage issues -- Miss Moore?
13 MS . MOORE : Yes, I 'm sorry.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No problem. To
15 start putting the garages and I realize this is a
16 relatively flat lot, either under the house or you
17 have to embody the garage within the construction
18 of the house so that you still have the
19 availability of putting the second story over the
20 garage and thereby eliminating some of the lot
21 coverage .
22 MS . MOORE : That would not be a problem,
23 but then we' d have a two-story portion over the
24 garage . That was our original design, was make
25 the whole two story over the existing structure .
November 18 , 2004
68
1
2 We came in trying to address the other concerns
3 you always raise with respect to increasing the
4 nonconformity `on the horizontal plain because
5 we've got a setback of 5 ' 6" and 7' 611 . We have no
6 problem with that alternative, but then you have
7 to be prepared to grant us a variance for going up
8 over a garage . That was the first choice .
9 (Whereupon, Board Member Goehringer left
10 the hearing. )
11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Sometimes you can
12 submit both plans to the Board, they will consider
13 both at the same time .
14 MS . MOORE : . I can give you four plans at
15 once .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Couldn' t the garage
17 be subsurface on this one? The lot' s a little
18 high.
19 MS . MOORE: I don' t know structurally
20 whether the architect was planning to use the
21 existing structure of the existing house in part
22 of the design. If we' re demolishing and starting
23 over that' s one thing, but here you have probably
24 a slab under the existing garage . I don' t know
25 engineering-wise whether that works .
November 18, 2004
69
1
2 MS . SCHULTHEIS : And the expense of it .
3 How about if we backed up the garage -- five feet
4 of the garage backing that up into the house, help
5 the lot coverage?
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As I said, it' s a
7 benchmark in a small neighborhood, the next person
8 is going to want 26, and it snowballs .
9 MS . MOORE : If you would prefer to see us
10 put the full two stories over the existing
11 structure and the contiguous portion, the
12 breezeway area, that' s structurally where the
13 house would be expanded, so that area there is a
14 common sense area, within the existing structure .
15 I 'm trying to always guess what you would prefer,
16 and I 'm sorry, we had that as an initial
17 consideration, and then she got from me and as
18 well as from other sources, the contractor,
19 everybody said we think you' d prefer to have the
20 one-story garage pushed out, so we changed it . If
21 you would rather see us come back with the two
22 story starting within the existing framework of
23 the house, that works for us as well .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia, do you have any
25 other comments?
November 18 , 2004
70
1
2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. I just think
3 the lot coverage is too large .
4 MS . MOORE : That would eliminate the lot
5 coverage issue .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand your
8 confusion, Pat, because I'm going to a meeting
9 today that will essentially outlaw you from doing
10 that because they want to do this pyramid law
11 thing. To raise that roof is probably not going
12 to be legal .
13 MS . MOORE : Without variances .
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe not even
15 with variances .
16 MS . MOORE : You better tell them they
17 better have some method of relief .
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, hold on
19 because this Board in the past has frowned on
20 that . I don' t know how you' re getting from this
21 Board suddenly put a second story addition 5 . 6
22 feet away in light of the Walz decision. I don' t
23 understand how they' re encouraging you to do
24 that .
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No one nodded or
November 18 , 2004
71
1
2 said yes to her suggestion.
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You said come back
4 with the plan. I can see you looking at the Town
5 before you' re doing your application, sitting down
6 with these people going no, no, no you don' t want
7 to put that second story on, let' s ask them to go
8 out . I understand that' s how you came to this
9 particular plan, and to me it' s kind of confusing
10 to an applicant or people up here to say now,
11 well, we would consider you putting a garage
12 underneath. For the life of me I don' t understand
13 that .
14 Second, when I looked at this application,
15 because this is mine, I said you have to move the
16 garage . That was my --
17 MS . MOORE : The proposed garage .
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thirty percent is
19 just too much. We don' t grant 30 percent . That' s
20 my opinion. I gave you two opinions there, I know
21 they kind of conflict, but as soon as I saw the
22 proposed garage and figured out the lot coverage,
23 it' s either that or you start lopping stuff off
24 your house . I don' t know which one you want . But
25 I personally don' t think we should be considering
November 18 , 2004
72
1
2 a two-story addition of 5 . 6 feet away from that
3 lot line . Not in light of the fact of what we've
4 had to do to people for the past three years .
5 MS . MOORE : Another option is maybe
6 stepping back the addition in such a way that even
7 though it' s five feet at its closest point, you
8 can kind of dormer back some -- the second story,
9 start it not right over top the existing footprint
10 of the garage but step it back somewhat so you
11 have kind of somewhat of a pyramid law.
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you went 10
13 feet from there you probably wouldn' t need a
14 variance, Walz would not kick in or 15 feet .
15 MS . MOORE : 15 feet may be too much.
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did you hear my
17 suggestion to Pat, I suggested a subsurface
18 garage . No one was saying yes, go second, that' s
19 why I suggested subsurface .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually, we' re
21 suggesting you go back to the client and the
22 architect .
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Sounds like Jimmy
24 and I are in agreement that the second floor would
25 not be conducive, but subsurface, that house is a
November 18 , 2004
73
1
2 little bit higher, you could get one under there .
3 MS . MOORE: Kind of a split-level garage .
4 We' ll go back to the drawing board and try to
5 design different alternatives and see what we can
6 come up with, we' ll try to keep it straight 25
7 percent .
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: On the grade where
9 the house is higher you can cut into.
10 MS . MOORE : Right, that may be possible
11 because the height of the mean is actually 26
12 here, which gives us a chance to move up a bit .
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You can keep the
14 single story and have the garage underneath it,
15 and have the workshop and all that stuff .
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
18 in the audience that would like to speak to this
19 application? If not, I ' ll make a motion keeping
20 this hearing open until December 16th.
21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It will be in the
22 morning at 9 : 35 .
23 (See minutes for resolution. )
24 -------------------------------------------------
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
November 18 , 2004
74
1
2 Thomas DeWolfe about a simple lot line change .
3 MR. DEWOLFE: Good morning, I think you
4 all have copies of the map that show the little
5 increase to the property, and I think you can
6 easily see why I'm seeking the variance for that,
7 and I'm happy to answer any questions you might
8 have .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, if you could
11 elaborate a little bit, you live in Lot 9?
12 MR. DEWOLFE : Yes, I think so.
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Are we creating
14 Lot 10 now, is that what we' re trying to do?
15 MR. DEWOLFE: No.
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re moving a
17 line, or is it just a backyard fine we' re moving
18 here?
19 MR. DEWOLFE: Yes .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just to kind of square
21 it off?
22 MR. DEWOLFE : Have you seen the property?
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes . You' re the
24 house to the left, that house right there we gave
25 a variance to as well?
November 18 , 2004
75
1
2 MR. DEWOLFE : My property is south of the
3 other property.
4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There are two
5 houses, in Tremont Lane it was the house next to
6 the wall .
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re this house,
8 you don' t own that house?
9 MR. DEWOLFE : I do not .
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So we' re doing a
11 lot line change in the center?
12. MR. DEWOLFE : It' s shaded there .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just a little
14 sliver.
15 MR. DEWOLFE : Yes . As you see the old
16 property line is the north wall of what is my
17 house .
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So your neighbor
19 doesn' t mind you taking some property?
20 MR. DEWOLFE : No.
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s what I'm
22 getting at . The other neighbor doesn' t mind you
23 doing this; he' s aware of this, she' s aware of
24 that?
25 MR. DEWOLFE : Yes, we discussed a
November 18 , 2004
76
1
2 financial arrangement .
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I can see the
4 reason for --
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No problem.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone else wish
10 to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a
11 motion closing the hearing reserving decision
12 until later.
13 (See minutes for resolution.. )
14 -------------------------------------------------
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
16 for John Reventlow on Stillwater Avenue in
17 Cutchogue, less than 50 feet from the rear lot
18 line . You have a beautiful piece of property.
19 MR. REVENTLOW: It' s not used very well .
20 Actually, toward the back of the property I have
21 more front property, close to 90 foot of front .
22 The back is where I'm running into the
23 problem. Basically I'm looking to put an addition
24 of a sun room which will extend out 16 foot from
25 the house, which will leave roughly 25 foot at the
November 18 , 2004
77
1
2 closest point to the back property line . The
3 house is set on an angle to compensate for the
4 property being on an angle itself running .parallel
5 to Stillwater. The house itself is actually only
6 32 foot at the shortest point from the property
7 line .
8 I talked to the neighbor right behind me
9 who would be the most affected by this, and he
10 doesn' t have a problem with it .
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That would be
12 Mr. Smith who we granted a variance to several
13 months ago for an addition.
14 MR. REVENTLOW: For privacy we' re going to
15 put additional plantings back there, possibly a
16 fence at one point, we' re going to try with
17 shrubbery first, see how that goes .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . I
24 visited the site, spoke with the owner in front of
25 us right now. I have no problem. We were
November 18 , 2004
78
1
2 wondering about Mr. Smith and obviously he is a
3 good neighbor. We weren' t sure .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have the green
5 cards?
6 MR. REVENTLOW: Yes, I do. I had to send
7 out 12 . I only received ten of them as of right
8 now. The other two are coming from Southampton
9 and Massapequa.
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Just mail them in
11 when you can.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
13 audience who wishes to comment on this
14 application? If not, I' ll make a motion closing
15 the hearing and reserving decision until later.
16 (See minutes for resolution. )
17 -------------------------------------------------
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application for
19 Risa Arin for the piece of property on Soundview
20 Avenue in Peconic for replacement of a deck that
21 was previously there .
i
22 MS . ARIN: Basically I'm asking for a
23 variance of six and-a-half feet . I replaced an
24 existing deck, the setbacks are the same . It was
25 quite dilapidated and quite an eyesore . I'm just
November 18 , 2004
79
1
2 asking for a variance so we can complete it . It' s
3 been started as you can see from the photo, and we
4 stopped work immediately when we were alerted we
5 needed the variance and we' d like to finish the
6 construction.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t have any
9 questions .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I' ll ask some
14 questions . How much of this deck was existing?
15 MS . ARIN: There was a dilapidated wooden
16 portion, a huge cement slab.
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right, I saw that
18 part .
19 MS . ARIN: I can actually show you, it' s
20 the only photo I have from the original, it' s kind
21 of hard to see, it' s from the realtor when we
22 purchased it back in 2000 .
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I saw the cement
24 portion. But I didn' t see anything under here .
25 This is all, actually this front piece is cement
November 18 , 2004
80
1
2 and this was the dilapidated wooden portion and
3 there was a little piece in here that was broken
4 up slate . So we kept the setback the same but
5 smoothed it out so this is the straight line
6 now.
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So it' s no larger
8 than it was . I saw a sign it could be larger you
9 put some sonic tubes in there . I could see
10 obvious old deck in some parts here .
11 MS . ARIN: There' s no old deck left . This
12 was, pieces of this was crushed up slate .
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It was more patio?
14 MS . ARIN: Yes . The setbacks are the same
15 as they were originally. We just squared it off .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you got a phone
17 call from a neighbor or the neighbor called the
18 Building Department somehow?
19 MS . ARIN: Yes . I come out on the
20 weekends typically, and I had a note from the
21 building inspector, because I was using the
22 existing setbacks because the deck was falling
23 down, it was becoming a hazard, and I finally had
24 enough money to build a new deck, I went forward
25 with it and because I was using the existing
November 18 , 2004
81
1
2 space, I didn' t think it was an issue, only to
3 find out it was .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : And the person who
5 built it didn' t think it needed a variance?
6 MS . ARIN: No, and it was a local
7 contractor.
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s not uncommon
9 and they protrude out more to the beach than
10 you. I was just curious as to how you came to be
11 in front of us today. You received a love note?
12 MS . ARIN: Yes . A nice yellow love note
13 in my door.
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You don' t plan on
15 expanding this deck any further than this?
16 MS . ARIN: No.
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Rails?
18 MS . ARIN: I've actually been told again
19 with the Building Department that I don' t need
20 rails . It meets the height requirements . I' d
21 prefer not to, ' cause you don' t obstruct the view
22 when you' re sitting inside if I don' t have to have
23 the rails .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re not going to
25 enclose it?
November 18 , 2004
82
1
2 MS . ARIN: No, no.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have any
4 further questions . I don' t think there' s anybody
5 else in the audience left . Is there anyone else
6 in the audience who would like to speak? I make a
7 motion closing the hearing reserving decision
8 until later.
9 (See minutes for resolution. )
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
11 adjourn.
12 (See minutes for resolution. )
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I' ll make a motion
14 to reconvene our meeting on November 18th.
15 (See minutes for resolution. )
16 -------------------------------------------------
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing 1 : 00
18 p.m. is for Barry Barth in Mattituck for an
19 approval for a deck. Mr. Barth?
20 MR. BARTH: Hello .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to
22 tell us?
23 MR. BARTH: I submitted an application to
24 the Building Department for a deck on my house at
25 2040 Central Drive in Mattituck. The application
November 18 , 2004
83
1
2 to the Building Department was rejected. And I
3 was told subsequently that I needed a variance
4 because the deck was proposed in front of the 100
5 foot bluff line setback. So I made the
6 application. I have presented the notification of
7 my neighbors, copies of the drawings of the deck,
8 and amended --
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is this going to be a
10 replacement in-kind/in-place or are you expanding
11 a deck?
12 MR. BARTH: There is a preexisting deck
13 there, and it will replace that deck, and it will
14 extend out I believe slightly less than the
15 existing deck and it might be two feet wider than
16 the existing deck.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A bit of a different
18 shape than the existing deck?
19 MR. BARTH: The existing deck was kind of
20 square, this is kind of rectangular.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I visited the site,
23 lovely site . Yes, I would agree that your deck
24 was in need of replacement . There was some
25 hesitance on my part to stand on the deck, and I
November 18 , 2004
84
1
2 see you' re clearing down below, that was the
3 reason for the steps off the deck? I wasn' t quite
4 sure you wanted steps . 11
5 MR. BARTH: We felt that that eventually
6 might turn into a garden area with some plantings
7 like we did in the front of the house .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, they had kind of
9 a slope in the front .
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was wondering why
11 you didn' t want to just replace the deck as is,
12 and have stairs going right down. You' re putting
13 a little interim deck?
14 MR. BARTH: Ante deck or smaller deck
15 about three, four steps and then eventually steps
16 will go down into that garden area.
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions
18 at this time .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The notice of
21 disapproval says the closest point of the deck is
22 going to be 72 feet; your survey is showing
23 actually 83 feet . What is the closest point? In
24 other words, what' s on the survey shows 83 feet .
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On the closest
November 18 , 2004
85
1
2 corner it' s 76 .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the one corner
4 Lydia, 76-5 .
5 1 MR. BARTH: I needed to have that survey
6 amended.
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was received on
8 October 29th, so it was probably with a separate
9 one .
10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So it' s 76?
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : 76-5 .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Where is it 76-5
13 to? The bottom of the steps .
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The bottom of the
15 steps to the bluff .
16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Not the bottom of
17 the steps, the corner.
18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any
19 other questions, I'm very familiar with the
20 property.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I noticed
23 that it said 72, and I kind of didn' t see that
24 either. It' s 76-5, that's what it is without
25 going any closer?
November 18 , 2004
86
1
2 MR. BARTH: No .
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
5 audience that wishes to speak on this?
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes?
7 MS . JAKUNSKI : I'm Judy Jakunski, the
8 other owner of the property. The ante deck, the
9 reason for that is one, the big deck didn' t look
10 like it was suspended into nothing. So that it
11 was a nicer flow with the contour of the natural
12 terrain. So there would be another seating area
13 down there . Right now the deck the way it is
14 looks like it was suspended into nothing.
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Transitional?
16 MS . JAKUNSKI : Yes, so it was an easier
17 transition with the property itself .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone else wish to
19 speak on this? If not, I' ll make a motion to
20 close the hearing and reserve decision until
21 later.
22 (See minutes for resolution. )
23 -------------------------------------------------
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
25 for Frances Kestler on Main Road in Pacific Street
November 18 , 2004
87
1
2 in Mattituck. Hi, Bill .
3 MR. GOGGINS : That' s correct .
4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is that October
5 27th?
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I was looking at
7 an old one .
8 MR. GOGGINS . The original one was June
9 30th.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is October 28th.
11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : 27th.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You wish to have an
13 apartment over the doctor' s office?
14 MR. GOGGINS : We' re going to withdraw the
15 application with the apartment at this time
16 without prejudice for us to renew that
17 application. Dr. Kestler is under a deadline . He
18 needs to be out of his old office in January, and
19 for him to get the apartment finished and have the
20 inspections done, it would probably take too long.
21 So what we would like to do is either adjourn it
22 for a long period of time at least as to the
23 apartment application or withdraw it without
24 prejudice . I'm not sure what the Board would do
25 in this situation. He intends to apply for it
November 18 , 2004
88
1
2 again; however, at this time he just doesn' t have
3 the time to get it done .
4 BOARD SECY. ' KOWALSKI : Procedurally, you
5 would have to submit a new application for the
6 apartment separately, if you want us to rule on
7 the area variance .
8 MR. GOGGINS : Okay, so we' ll sever the
9 application, withdraw the request for an apartment
10 use above the office, and we' ll proceed with the
11 other part of the application.
12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is there a pre CO
13 for the cottage yet, Bill?
14 MR. GOGGINS : No, there isn' t . This was a
15 single-family residence with a cottage for a long
16 time . Initially, when it was built, the main
17 structure was a bar/restaurant in the ' 20s and the
18 cottage was a single-family residence . And as
19 time went by, the bar/restaurant became a
20 single-family residence and the cottage became a
21 rental unit . Right now we' re in a process of
22 getting the affidavits to prove the continuous
23 use . Right now we pretty much have it but we have
24 a small gap. We have a continuum since 1922 but
25 we have a small gap in the 170s which we' re trying
November 18 , 2004
89
1
2 to tighten up, which we don' t have yet .
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The cottage will be
4 the apartment?
5 MR. GOGGINS : No. The cottage is a
6 separate building which we claim is a preexisting
7 nonconforming use .
8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is before us
9 today?
10 MR. GOGGINS : We' re putting a dental
11 office in the main structure . The property was
12 zoned residential office, so when Dr. Kestler
13 bought it, the intent was to put the dental office
14 in, then we thought about putting an apartment on
15 top, because that' s what it' s zoned for. I guess
16 the problem is that the property is less than
17 40 , 000 square foot in bulk area. That' s the
18 reason for the application.
19 We also have a simultaneous application
20 for the Planning Board because we' re putting in a
21 parking lot which will have an entrance and exit
22 off of Pacific Street .
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What would be the
24 intent for the cottage?
25 MR. GOGGINS : The intent now is to make it
November 18 , 2004
90
1
2 a residential unit as it has been. If we' re
3 unable to prove the nonconforming preexisting use
4 of it, then I think his intent is to make it
5 office space to keep the use of the property
6 consistent .
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Potentially in the
8 future there could be two rentals, that cottage
9 and above the office?
10 MR. GOGGINS : Correct, potentially, yes .
11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Because there' s
12 nothing in my notice of disapproval that talks
13 about an area variance .
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : When it first
15 started it was for an apartment and conversion of
16 the building to an office . As we went along, we
17 understood that the Building Department was not
18 able to issue a pre CO because they were waiting
19 for more information, and in order to move it
20 along so the office could be occupied with the
21 other buildings, Mr. Goggins submitted an area
22 variance because there would still be two uses on
23 less than 40 , 000 square feet if a pre CO were
24 issued for the cottage . I'm not sure if the
25 application is complete or not, I would like to
November 18 , 2004
91
1
2 leave that to the Board to decide .
3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm a little
4 confused, Mr. Goggins . Let' s start off with this .
5 I can think of at least five dentist' s offices or
6 similar professional offices that we have
7 permitted on nonconforming lots and there was no
8 area variance required. So that' s one thing that
9 I 'm confused about .
10 MR. GOGGINS : We just took guidance from
11 the Building Department . The Building Department
12 said we couldn' t do it . I said, okay, give us a
13 notice of disapproval and we' ll go to the Zoning
14 Board. I didn' t think I needed anything. We' re
15 not going outside the footprint and initially they
16 actually gave us approval saying that we didn' t
17 need Planning Board approval, we didn' t need ZBA,
18 we could just go forward and have a dental office
19 there . Then something happened, I'm not sure what
20 it was, then six, eight weeks later, we got
21 another document from the Building Department
22 revoking the previous determination saying that
23 they were revoking what they had said that we
24 didn' t need. So then we had to reapply again, and
25 at that time that' s the time they gave us a notice
November 18 , 2004
'92
1 -
2 of disapproval that was dated June 30, 20U4 and
3 that' s what directed us to come to the Zoning
4 Board of Appeals . ' Then most recently, for some
5 reason, the Building Department decided to amend
6 the notice of disapproval on October 27, 2004
7 claiming that we required a special exception from
8 Southold Zoning Board of Appeals . It' s been
9 confusing to me as well .
10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm confused
11 because all we have to do is walk out this door
12 and go 300 feet down Main Street either direction
13 and very few of those lots are 40, 000 square feet
14 and there are a lot of professional offices there
15 so at what stage did the rules change?
16 MR. GOGGINS : Also when they did the
17 rezoning in 1983 they made this residential
18 office, so it' s a permitted use .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t see why you
20 need it either. Conversion to the dental office
21 with an accessory apartment above, which you don' t
22 want now anyway. So it' s really for a dentist' s
23 office, which is allowed.
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I wanted to add one
25 other part . On the disapproval the application
November 18 , 2004
93
1
2 that was addressed by the Building Department was
3 not to address the pre CO for the cottage . They
4 haven' t gone that far yet, so if the Board doesn' t
5 have jurisdiction on this, Mr. Goggins may be back
6 again, if he gets denied for that . I was trying
7 to save him that trouble .
8 MR. GOGGINS : We never made application
9 for the pre CO on the cottage . We merely said we
10 want to put a dental office . I put in an
11 application and said, do I need any approvals from
12 the Building Department or the Planning Board
13 because that' s when they designated the Building
14 Department to be lead agency to determine what
15 requirements you need, whether we need to go to
16 the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals .
17 And initially they said no, Planning Board
18 approval isn' t required. And later they said,
19 gee, you misled us, we didn' t know it was a
20 residence and you' re converting it to a dental
21 office, and we' re revoking what we said before .
22 Then we made the application for the dental
23 office, and it' s been a residence and specifically
24 stating it' s been a residence, and that' s when
25 they gave us the initial notice of disapproval . I
November 18 , 2004
94
1
2 guess in the end we need a decision from the
3 Zoning Board of Appeals approving of the use as a
4 dental office .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t need a
6 special exception for a professional office .
7 MR. GOGGINS : That was my belief also .
8 But you can' t fight the Building Department, you
9 just have to accept what they say and move forward
10 and come here because this is our only redressing.
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The notice of
12 disapproval doesn' t say that he needs it for a
13 dental office, it just says he needs it because he
14 wanted to put an apartment above it . If he no
15 longer wants to put an apartment above it, I see
16 no reason we have to make a decision.
17 MR. GOGGINS : What they stated was that
18 pursuant to 100-71 B3 that because it was less
19 than 40, 000 square foot that we needed approval
20 for the lot area as well as the special exception
21 for the apartment .
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s for two
23 uses, which they' re actually wrong about too, but
24 it certainly doesn' t apply if you go to an RO
25 district, and you' re doing a permitted use, you' re
November 18 , 2004
95
1
2 not putting the apartment, because the apartment
3 does require a special exception. So they
4 interpret it that now you need 80, 000 square feet,
5 which is not correct . If you' re saying to us
6 today that you no longer want to go for that
7 special exception, then I see no reason why --
8 that' s not to say you know what happens between
9 over here and over there -- but I see no reason
10 why you even need to have an application before us
11 to put a dentist' s office in.
12 MR'. GOGGINS : That was our position it was
13 almost embarrassing for me because I represented
14 Dr. Kestler when he bought the property and he
15 said can I put a dentist' s office here, I
16 researched it and go, of course you can. We'
17 bought the property and now we' re having all these
18 problems and he' s looking at me like I 'm an idiot .
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How many uses do
20 you have on the property right now?
21 MR. GOGGINS : Right now, just one the
22 dentist' s office.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is the accessory
24 building being rented?
25 MR. GOGGINS : Not right now.
November 18 , 2004
96
1 .
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the previous
3 owner didn' t either?
4 MR. GOGGINS : I don' t know, Dr. Kestler
5 says yes . ,
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, continuously?
7 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s what you' re
9 trying to prove except for that spot in the ' 70s .
10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So the issue of
11 whether it' s preexisting nonconforming will still
12 have to come back here . Here' s what I think is
13 going to happen: Right now you have one use on
14 there, you shouldn' t be here . The minute you want
15 to have two uses on there, they' re going to slam
16 you with their interpretation of 100-71B, which
17 says you need 40 , 000 square feet or the following
18 uses are permitted by special exception provided
19 not more than one use shall be allowed for each
20 40 , 000 square feet . I don' t know if they' re
21 talking each special exception use .
22 , MR. GOGGINS : At that point we' re going to
23 have to sit down with them and get very clear
24 direction as to which way they want to go or how
25 they' re going to proceed. Even with the Planning
November 18 , 2004
97
1
2 Board, I don' t think we need Planning Board
3 approval but we' re going through that .
4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: For what?
5 MR. GOGGINS : Because we' re putting in a
6 parking lot .
7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where in the code
8 does that say that' s required?
9 MR. GOGGINS : I haven' t found it .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They have a right
11 to require that you go before the Planning Board,
12 just submit a site plan.
13 MR. GOGGINS : Right, which we have done .
14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We' ll see what
15 happens .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The previous owner
17 was Richard Reinhart?
18 MR. GOGGINS : And right prior to that it
19 was the Mileska family for many years .
20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Right now you only
21 have one use . It doesn' t require our approval,
22 it' s permitted in the district .
23 MR. GOGGINS : Can we have decision that
24 states that?
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can we make a
November 18 , 2004
98
1
2 resolution saying we have no jurisdiction as
3 applied for at this time?
4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I' d just say that
5 the use is a permitted use and doesn' t require
6 special exception.
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As to the removal
8 of the accessory apartment .
9 MR. GOGGINS : Can it specifically state
10 that a dental office is permitted at this site?
11 If we don' t have that specific language, they' re
12 going to look at us and say we don' t know what
13 this means .
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We would need .
15 somebody to entertain a motion for that .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I will move it .
17 (See minutes for resolution. )
18 -------------------------------------------------
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
20 Orient Fire District . I think first I would like
21 Mr. Reale to come up, if you don' t mind.
22 Mr. Reale, would you please tell us why you want
23 an adjournment or some time to be allowed to
24 entertain or find out more information than you
25 have now?
November 18 , 2004
99
1
2 MR. REALE : The members of the Orient
3 Association as members of the community wanted to
4 have an opportunity to work with the fire
5 department to determine what the needs are . The
6 need for the tower is the real crux of the issue
7 here . ' The association is not opposed to improving
8 the communication facilities, but the question is
9 the need. And over the past year essentially, the
10 association has attempted to get information, some
11 of which has only come through the Freedom of
12 Information request and the idea that the
13 association has retained one specialist, expert,
14 to work with them and there' s another John Turner
15 Communications expert who is willing to work with
16 them to assess the whole picture . The entire
17 communication need picture not just the monopole,
18 but what are the other needs and how can they be
19 addressed.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean as far as
21 what the fire department needs for their dead
22 spots?
23 MR. REALE : Correct, or whatever their
24 needs are, yes .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Have you received any
November 18 , 2004
100
1
2 information that was relevant?
3 MR. REALE : We received the Werwerter
4 report, which we got through the Freedom of
5 Information request . There has been some
6 informational meetings, but the true information
7 has been limited. In fact, your files on this are
8 extremely limited. Most of what we heard, we all
9 heard all sitting in this room last go round.
10 It' s hard to have an expert analyze that when it' s
11 presented in that way. So what we were hoping to
12 do is have the cooperation of the district with
13 our experts to work together to try to come up
14 with a plan that may, in fact, the conclusion may
15 be you need the tower that big, but no one seems
16 to know the answer right now. There are many,
17 many technical issues that need to be addressed.
18 The association' s willing to commit the time to
19 that and commit the people and do it right away.
20 We' re not trying to delay this . That' s not the
21 intention. On the question of the delay, it came
22 up at the last meeting, the association' s done
23 nothing to delay this, the application was filed
24 almost a year ago. It was changed maybe five or
25 six times, the building inspector had five or six
November 18 , 2004.
101
1
2 denials in the file; none of that had to do with
3 the association. And they were ready to proceed
4 at the last meeting. We' re looking to work
5 together. We' re not looking to fight this . We' re
6 not looking to stop it . We' re looking to work
7 cooperatively with the district to try to do
8 something to get the best coverage .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How long a period of
10 time do you think you would need?
11 MR. REALE : Two months, come back in
12 January. Try to work intently, obviously some of
13 the work has been done, we don' t need to reinvent
14 the wheel, the idea is to come and look at the
15 other issues .
16 Candidly, the association' s view is the
17 approach has been somewhat tainted by the
18 commercial carrier that wanted to do this -- we' re
19 not sure if this is true -- but perhaps the impact
20 has tainted the analysis . Now we' re just dealing
21 with the fire district, everyone' s got the same
22 goal, that could be done cleanly and hopefully
23 quickly. We' d be willing to come back here at
24 your first January meeting.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You would be looking
November 18 , 2004
102
1
2 at just the fire department' s needs or the
3 telecommunications also?
4 MR. REALE: I don' t think the community is
5 concerned with the profitability of the cell phone
6 companies; they' re worried about the emergency
7 services, as is the fire district .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Mr. Boyd?
9 MR. BOYD: Good afternoon, first off, at
10 our last meeting here, I was asked to provide
11 certain cases specifically Nanuet Fire Engine
12 Company Number 1 versus the Chairman of the Zoning
13 Board of Appeals at the Town of Clarkstown;
14 secondly County of Monroe versus City of
15 Rochester. I thought that Mr. Ray had presented
16 those cases . I 'm not sure now that he had. I
17 would like to give you the appropriate number of
18 the copies of each one . I believe he only ,
19 presented one copy to the Board.
20 With regard to the application for an
21 adjournment of this hearing, I think it might be
22 advantageous to take a minute and review the
23 position of the applicant . Orient Fire District
24 is a political subdivision of the State of New
25 York. It does not stand on the same ground as an
November 18 , 2004
103
1
2 individual citizen. It is an entity created by
3 the government of the state . It has its own
4 geographic area. It has its own taxing authority.
5 It is given certain rights and responsibilities .
6 Among those rights are to construct and build
7 edifices and other structures that are necessary
8 to prepare for the public safety in the area.
9 A fire district is governed by a board of
10 commissioners . Board of commissioners come from
11 the community. They must be residents of the
12 district, and they are elected by other residents
13 of the district . That is exactly what has
14 happened in Orient . The five commissioners there
15 have been elected to manage the affairs of the
16 Orient Fire District for the good of all
17 concerned. The commissioners at their regular
18 monthly meetings, which have gone on for the past
19 two plus years, on the subject of communication at
20 each and every meeting have discussed the
21 communication problems within the Orient Fire
22 District and the solutions to those problems .
23 These meetings are open to the public . The public
24 is invited to come, to question what' s going on,
.r 25 to give suggestions to the commissioners . With
November 18, 2004
104
1
2 the exception of one meeting, one meeting, not a
3 member of the public has ever shown up to voice
4 their position on the communication needs of the
5 Orient Fire District . We have now at the 11th
6 hour in this matter and we' re being asked to delay
7 further in the hope -- unspecified -- that there
8 may be some magical solution to provide new
9 communications for the district .
10 This matter has been explored very, very,
11 thoroughly. I hear Mr. Reale mention that there
12 have been several notices of disapproval from the
13 Building Department sort of coming seriatim, but
14 we' re as mystified by that as Mr. Goggins was on
15 his prior application. We can' t explain the
16 series of disapprovals that have been coming out .
17 We've tried to answer them and to respond to them.
18 What has happened over the past two years that' s a
19 very healthy sort of thing, the fire district has
20 refined its communication plans .
21 When they started on this improvement
22 project, a large part of it was rooted in the idea
23 of staying in the 46 megahertz band, which is what
24 we' re all used to in the fire service, but it' s
25 become apparent over the past several years that
November 18 , 2004
105
1
2 the 46 megahertz band is doomed to extinction and
3 failure . The manufacturers are not supporting it,
4 equipment is very, very, hard to find, most fire
5 districts are going either to 450 megahertz or 800
6 megahertz . Orient has decided to join that and to
7 go there as well .
8 I don' t see the point of further delaying
9 this hearing when we have our expert here to
10 explain in copious detail why we must go to 120
11 feet . The simple matter is 120 feet is the
12 minimum that we can get away with for 450
13 megahertz radio system.
14 When the commissioners initially set forth
15 their parameters for this communications, they
16 wanted to reach the furthest east end of Plum
17 Island because Orient Fire Department being the
18 closest fire department to Plum Island is going to
19 be the first mutual aid responder to that island
20 in case of emergency. And not having
21 communications there could be in a word disastrous
22 for the safety of the people on the island as well
23 as the members of the fire district who have to
24 call in to get instructions and to relay what' s
25 going on at a particular time at a fire scene or
November 18 , 2004
106
1
2 in an emergency, and we' re not limiting ourselves
3 to emergencies on Plum Island that may have to do
4 with the biological aspects of it . It' s very
5 possible to have a boating accident out
6 there . It' s possible to have an airplane
7 accident . All those things would be far beyond
8 the capability of the Plum Island Fire Department
9 to deal with and would require mutual aid from the
10 mainland. The Orient Fire District is trying to
11 go one step ahead and to provide that .
12 We' re troubled by the fact that if this
13 were an application that somehow came before the-
14 Zoning Board for the purchase of a new fire engine
15 or a new ambulance, we wouldn' t see the type of
16 questioning that we' re getting on building this
17 tower. It would be agreed that the purchase of a
18 fire engine or ambulance are within the expertise
19 of the fire commissioners of the district . They
20 are doing the job that they have been elected for,
21 doing the job they are mandated to perform. But
22 because in this instance they are creating a tower
23 that is going to be visibly noticeable in the
24 community, we seem to have attracted a great deal
25 of attention that does not appear to be warranted.
November 18 , 2004
107
1
2 We've done our studies on this . We know what' s
3 required in order to give sufficient
4 communications to the fire department and to
5 provide for the safety of the fire fighters and
6 allow them to respond to emergencies the way they
7 should.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Excuse me for
9 interrupting you, but you have given the people in
10 the Orient Association that have some expertise
11 all this information exactly what is needed, what
12 the technical aspects are.?
13 MR. BOYD: Quite frankly, I don' t know
14 what' s asked for. I get copies of letters from
15 time to time which say they' re looking for
16 specific instances of poor communications . I
17 believe those have been supplied. Beyond that, I
18 don' t know what is being sought . There' s this
19 feeling, a strong feeling among certain segments
20 of the community that if we all work together
21 there must be a better solution. Well, gee, we've
22 tried very hard to come to a better solution and I
23 think we have attained that . And I don' t know how
24 we' re going to improve upon that by setting this
25 thing back for another month or two months of
November 18 , 2004
108
1
2 examination on matters that are particularly and
3 peculiarly within the expertise of the fire
4 district within the commissioner' s purview.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd, you have
6 delayed this hearing at least five or six times
7 over the past year, and yet now when it comes to
8 the llth hour, you don' t want someone else to
9 investigate what they would like to know about .
10 MR. BOYD: The hearing was delayed to try
11 and accommodate the coexistence on the tower of
12 commercial uses . It was not delayed as a result
13 of the fire department component application.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I do not believe this
15 Board had that information.
16 MR. BOYD: That certainly is the case . It
17 was delayed because new tenants were coming on to
18 the tower. We went from one tenant to two tenants
19 to three tenants, each time that happened, the
20 idea was to put the hearing off so all of the
21 co-tenants could come in and join in the
22 application at the same time .
23 At the last meeting of this Board you
24 bifurcated the applications and decided to
25 eliminate the commercial aspect . That' s fine, we
November 18 , 2004
109
1
2 have no problem with that whatsoever, but the fire
3 department portion of this thing is going directly
4 ahead. In order for us to have efficient 450
5 megahertz communications, we must get our antenna
6 to a 120 foot level . What happens below that, is
7 merely support for our antenna at 120 feet . We' re
8 trying to produce a tower here that will be as
9 visually pleasing as can possibly be .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd, in all due
11 respect, you say you need the 120 foot tower and
12 I'm not disputing you might, but I don' t think
13 anyone on this Board has the expertise to know if
14 you really need 120 foot tower.
15 MR. BOYD: That' s why we have brought our
16 experts back today to give you that information;
17 that' s exactly why we' re here .
18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Ma' am, Chairman, a
19 point of protocol . We have a request for
20 adjournment and the Board is going to vote on it
21 shortly. I would like to ask, I have heard you, I
22 would like to ask Mr. Reale some questions, Madam
23 Chairman, may I?
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, go ahead.
25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the
November 18, 2004
110
1
2 information that you are specifically missing at
3 this point that you would like time to obtain?
4 MR. REALE : Frankly, we don' t have very
5 much, there was the Werwerter report that came out
6 that was commissioned by the district that reached
7 a different conclusion about needs and height that
8 was presented at the last meeting. What the
9 specific problems are with communications, they
10 have already acknowledged that the equipment needs
11 to be upgraded, that doesn' t necessarily translate
12 into needing more height . The question was
13 whether the equipment upgrades, the repeaters, the
14 new types of equipment would necessarily require
15 that you go to 120 feet . No one has analyzed
16 that .
17 Mr. Boyd just acknowledged a couple
18 minutes ago that the delays had to do with the
19 tenants coming on board. This whole thing has
20 been confused by the commercial aspect . Clearly
21 everyone seems to acknowledge that the system
22 needs to be acknowledged entirely, the hand-helds,
23 whatever else is employed. Whether that goes
24 together with needing to go up this high has not
25 been established, and that' s really the issue, and
November 18 , 2004
111
1
2 what the specific problems are, and what the new
3 system will do at any height is something that has
4 not been disclosed.
5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So that' s what you
6 would like the adjournment to do, to do an
7 individual assessment of your own?
8 MR. REALE: Well, to have experts being
9 paid for or retained by the association to look at
10 the work already done and see if there are any
11 other solutions . We' re not looking to reinvent
12 the wheel, we' re not looking to start over again,
13 or come in with something contrary. The members
14 of the association are part of the same community
15 that the fire commissioners serve . They want the
16 best safety as well . They are concerned about the
17 impact . Mr. Boyd mentioned he' s mystified why
18 this is not like an ambulance . That' s why we' re
19 in front of this Board. We wouldn' t be in front
20 of this Board if it were an ambulance . This tower
21 has an impact on the community. That' s why you
22 have jurisdiction over it . Those questions are
23 what needs to be answered.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess I can
25 speak. I'm kind of looking at this . I don' t
November 18 , 2004
112
1
2 believe the fire department even needs to be
3 before this Board for a tower. Let me just point
4 to you at Greenport School put up lights on the
5 football fields, and not a single permit was
6 issued, not a single notice of disapproval was
7 given or a stop work order by this town, and I
8 believe that was because that Greenport School
9 District is a voting entity unto itself, - a taxing
10 district that makes decisions . I understand that
11 you have questions concerning this, as I do
12 myself .
13 MR. REALE : Can I address the Greenport
14 School District? New York State Education Law
15 specifically provides that all school districts in
16 New York State are special cases . All
17 applications for all construction is exempt from
18 local zoning, it' s all approved by the State
19 Education Department, whether you' re putting up
20 lights, a gym, a field, anything, the town has
21 nothing to say to any school district in any town
22 in New York State, that' s a special exception.
23 That doesn' t apply to the fire department .
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was unaware of
25 that . In any case, even if that were the case,
November 18 , 2004
113
1
2 I'm wondering why the Zoning Board is being asked
3 to make this decision between people who are in
4 the same district . In other words, why hasn' t
5 this been discussed by the people you elect or to
6 the people that you elect that made this decision?
7 In other words, they' re representing you, now
8 we' re being asked to mediate between the people
9 you elect and you. To me that' s a little bit
10 confusing. This would be better brought to the
11 commissioners . And certainly, if people in that
12 district didn' t like the decision that the
13 commissioners made after much, I'm sure due
14 diligence and all the work that they have done,
15 then they have their remedy for that, of course
16 you know that, and I read the papers a few years
17 ago and a good friend of mine was elected on those
18 issues .
19 I read that report and I'm concerned that
20 two months is a long time. Anything can happen
21 between then. I mentioned the fact that I lost
22 two of my brothers 25 , 30 years ago, and I am
23 concerned that you have volunteers here that seem
24 to have made a decision based to the best of their
25 ability to service the community that they were
November 18 , 2004
114
1
2 elected to serve and to delay that any longer to
3 me, my mind, if I were part of that delay and
4 something happened, I ' d be feeling pretty guilty.
5 So I'm wondering specifically what you have in
6 mind, what you feel you can discover between now
7 and two months from now that' s so important?
8 MR. REALE : If I can address one other
9 thing first . I have been involved with this for
10 about a year. I know that members of the
11 association have tried very hard to get
12 information from the commissioners . We' re trying
13 to work with them, and we' re not trying to be
14 adversarial here, but the answers we have gotten
15 have been akin to what you heard from Mr. Boyd,
16 which is it' s peculiarly within our own knowledge,
17 we know what we' re doing, we' re in charge here .
18 We haven' t gotten a sharing of what the problems
19 are .
20 There was a meeting of the Orient
21 Association, there must have been 350 people at
22 this thing a year ago this September that the
23 commissioners were invited to, and it ended up in
24 a speech from Mr. Canuscio that went on for about
25 an hour that provided no information. I was
November 18 , 2004
115
1
2 personally present at that . There hasn' t been
3 a sharing of technical information, we get
4 information, this is what we need to do .
5 The question on the delay, again, the
6 delay here is occasioned by waiting for the
7 telecommunications company, these private
8 individuals to decide what they' re doing, that' s
9 just been admitted. We' re not trying to delay
10 that . We have been trying to get information all
11 that time . So if it was that urgent all along,
12 then they shouldn' t be waiting for Mr. Canuscio' s
13 team to figure out who' s going to be the tenants
14 and how much money they' re going to make on this
15 thing. The effort has always been to try to get
16 the information.
17 We still don' t know all the technical
18 stuff . It' s not something I know anything about .
19 Again, the question has to do with, they' re going
20 to have to upgrade the equipment, everyone agrees
21 with that . Will the upgrade require you to go up
22 120 feet . Assuming that the upgrade will be done
23, and it' s necessary, no one' s disputing that, the
24 further question is will that address the
25 problems, do we have to go that high. Werwerter
November 18 , 2004
116
1
2 said you could go 90 in his report . Maybe you do
3 have to go 120 feet . We don' t know that . The
4 information has not been shared. All we' re asking
5 for is time to get that information.
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If I may request,
7 my opinion on the Board, I would like you to put
8 your questions, your requests in a hard copy,
9 forward it to Mr. Boyd, a hard copy to us . So
10 next time we get together there' s no he said/she
11 said. We know what the questions are .
12 MS . WAXBURGER: Freddie Waxburger: The
13 meeting at which Mr. Canuscio spoke he said
14 specifically that it had to be 120 feet to enable
15 him to make back all his money, because if he were
16 building only to 90 feet he wouldn' t be able to
17 fit on all the carriers . So his point in going up
18 that high whatever now they' re saying about the
19 frequency, he said specifically at that meeting
20 that he needed the height. in order to be able
21 regain his investment in building the tower.
22 What I wanted to say is all this seems to
23 be -- all this discussion, and Mr. Boyd' s quite
24 disingenuous wondering why there should be all
25 this fuss, is there is a specific law, and it' s
November 18, 2004
117
1
2 not as if the law were written capriciously that
3 60 foot limit in a residential neighborhood,
4 according to my reading of the law specifically
5 says the ZBA isn' t even empowered to give the
6 right to go above was based on a lot of research,
7 a lot of other municipal entities in New York
8 State and the preservation and protection of
9 people' s property values, in the impact on an
10 historic district and as I mentioned last time, a
11 tower that was only four-fifths of this proposed
12 tower in height and virtually the same spot
13 almost, was declared a Type 1 action by the
14 Planning Board on the basis of your consultant' s
15 advice . And that was characteristic of these
16 kinds of towers all over New York State . So I
17 don' t like the disingenuousness about, oh, I can' t
18 imagine . I think the main thing here is that
19 there is no transparency that we have only
20 one-sided analysis, and that one-sided analysis is
21 based clearly on commercial enterprize that came
22 in and actually solicited the fire department .
23 MR. BOYD: That' s not true .
24 MS . WAXBURGER: It is . Therefore, what
' 25 we' re asking for is an independent analysis so we
November 18, 2004
118
1
2 actually have two sides presented not just one
3 side .
4 MR. BOYD: May I please respond to some of
5 that? We' re not dealing with a commercial
6 application here . We' re dealing with the fire
7 district alone . The 60 foot limit we' re talking
8 about has to do with the telecommunications
9 towers . It doesn' t have to do with the tower that
10 the fire district may put up for its own
11 communications use . That' s all we' re here for.
12 And in that regard I have to agree with
13 Mr. Dinizio completely.
14 We have come before this Board because we
15 were trying to put the two matters together. We
16 were trying to have the telecommunications tower
17 as well as the fire department tower for its
18 antennae . I submit to you that we have absolutely
19 every right to build a tower to 120 feet tomorrow
20 without any input from this Board or any other
21 Board in the Town of Southold. I point to you
22 what' s been done by other fire districts in this
23 community and other fire districts in Suffolk
24 County. There are large towers and numbers of
25 them and they never get the blessing of the Zoning
November 18 , 2004
119
1
2 Board or Planning Board or anything else so in
3 that regard Mr. Dinizio is 100 percent accurate .
4 TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So is it your view,
5 Mr. Boyd, that the Zoning Board does not have
6 jurisdiction over what we' re talking about here
7 today?
8 MR. BOYD: We are here in an attempt at
9 comity. We are here to try and do this through
10 the normal process . I believe we can go ahead and
11 do it on our own without further --
12 TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Do you have support
13 for that?
14 MR. BOYD: Yes, I do .
15 TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Would you like to
16 supply it? '
17 MR. BOYD: Yes, I will .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to
19 comment . Usually this Board has always tried to
20 accommodate one of the opposing people of the
21 application for an adjournment for some time to
22 let them do it . And it seems that I hope we have
23 support of the Board to adjourn it until they have
24 such time until they feel they' re comfortable with
25 their information. It just makes for a better
November 18 , 2004
120
1
2 community when both sides agree to it, and being
3 that, Mr. Boyd, it has been postponed so many
4 times . It' s not as if it' s a life or death matter
5 tomorrow.
6 MR. BOYD: We don' t know that .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: None of us know that .
8 They have asked for an adjournment, at first you
9 said yes then you sent a letter saying no.
10 MR. BOYD: When did I say yes?
11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Well, he didn' t
12 speak with the client yet . When we had a
13 conversation in the office the day that I notified
14 you that there was a postponement being requested.
15 MR. BOYD: Yes .
16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And you said you
17 had no problem but you had to discuss it with your
18 client because you understood that the Board might
19 make a decision at that next month meeting anyway,
20 and even if there were written testimony
21 submitted, there would be a two-week back and
22 forth.
23 MR. BOYD: I think my written submission
24 to the Board stands for position on that .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to make a
November 18 , 2004
121
1
2 motion adjourning the hearing until January until
3 such time that the Orient Association with their
4 expert can at least look into what is really
5 needed, there' s an accommodation between the
6 commissioners, the firemen and the community at
7 large of what is really needed in Orient for
8 better communications for the fire district .
9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Mr. Orlando had
10 asked for written information to be given to the
11 fire district and back and forth; does that still
12 stand?
13 MR. REALE : If we had the adjournment we
14 could do that tomorrow. I would represent to you
15 that we would do that..
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It eliminates they
17 never told me, he never asked.
18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But the Board
19 doesn' t have the information until January, will
20 the Board get copies of everything?
21 MR. REALE: If you would like .
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How about one
23 month?
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think with the
25 holidays -- it' s you' re asking too much.
November 18 , 2004
122
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think you' re
3 asking the fire department too much because you
4 want to enjoy your holidays . I think you' re
5 asking them to postpone it for too long. Listen,
6 if you have to work on Thanksgiving because you
7 want to accomplish something, well then, work on
8 Thanksgiving. That' s all I can say. I think this
9 has been carried on long enough. We' re basically
10 mediating a fight between two people who have
11 their own recourse, which is their district and
12 anybody can find out how far a radio frequency is
13 going to go at what footage in about a day. It
14 doesn' t take that long. I can' t speak -- and this
15 gentleman has not brought anything up, not a thing
16 up about anything else except that 120 foot . Now,
17 anybody can take a radio at that frequency and
18 ride the entire street system of Orient in a day
19 and find out where the dead spots area This
20 doesn' t take that long. It doesn' t take an expert
21 to do that .
22 So, I think if you want to accommodate
23 these people, a month is enough, holidays
24 notwithstanding.
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree, 30 days .
November 18 , 2004
123
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : December 16th at
3 1 : 15 in the afternoon.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: December 16th, I ' ll
5 make the motion. Do I have a second?
6 (See minutes for resolution. )
7 MR. BOYD: I would like to second the
8 request that we do receive specific questions that
9 we can answer.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Absolutely.
11 MR. BOYD: We can' t answer amorphous-type
12 things like what are your problems .
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think those
14 requests should be within two weeks of the
15 hearing.
16 rMR. BOYD: I think Mr. Reale can get them
17 to me more quickly than that .
18 MR. REALE : Can we clarify all this while
19 we' re here?
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Mr. Reale .
21 MR. REALE : I think that the suggestion of
22 written questions is correct and appropriate and
23 we' re not trying to slow this down and we' ll do
24 that, but we need some give-and-take . We need
25 some understanding from the commissioners and the
November 18 , 2004
124
1
2 commissioner' s experts that they will communicate
3 with our people during this month period. That' s
4 really what we' re looking for.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: With the technical
6 information that you request?
7 MS . MCNEELEY: My name is Ellen McNeeley,
8 I'm a member of the Orient Association and have
9 been very involved in this whole issue for some
10 time .
11 Without knowing the power of the proposed
12 equipment, which they haven' t told us, it' s not
13 possible to plot coverages and function of
14 antennae height . Antennae height is really one of
15 20 or more factors affecting communications and it
16 can' t be taken out of context . It must be studied
17 in more and open detail and any study of this
18 nature is driven by the operational procedures of
19 the entity in a careful identification of what
20 communication does not work, and it needs to be
21 careful because often communications problems are
22 caused by situational factors, poorly charged or
23 low batteries, damaged antennae, improper
24 orientation of the hand unit, et cetera and this
25 can only be uncovered by a qualified person who
November 18 , 2004
125
1
2 understands the best communications practice .
3 And whatever Mr. Scheibel has done or is doing is
4 not in the public domain, no cost have been
5 associated with it, no competitive bidding has
6 been done and there' s an unknown impact on the
7 community. We offered to do such a study for the
8 fire department, and John Turner, who is military
9 command and control communications expert as well
10 has offered to lead that . We have gotten Richard
11 Seuss, who I believe you know, Mr. Dinizio, who is
12 a radio fellow in Greenport who is doing something
13 very similar from the Greenport Fire Department at
14 this point at 460 megahertz to agree to work with
15 us on this study, and what we would like to do is
16 to approach the fire department first to study the
17 communications problems in detail in terms of
18 operational issues which impact on it as well as
19 technical issues and to develop a series of
20 specific recommendations to improve
21 communications, to develop an RFP to put out for
22 competitive bidding for the upgrade and John is
23 very experienced in writing grant proposals to see
24 if we can get come federal and state money to
25 assist in doing this .
November 18 , 2004
126
1
2 This is not something that necessarily a
3 one month proposition, although, it could be; the
4 technical part of it certainly could be . But the
5 technical part is basically easy in a sense, you
6 either use this equipment from this manufacturer
7 or whatever. The measurements of signal
8 propagation may not take that long Mr. Scheibel
9 and Mr. Dinizio may be correct about that . It' s
10 operational and impact and operation issues and
11 terrain issues, et cetera and the measurement of
12 them which take longer. This we are willing to
13 hire someone to do, and we have contracted someone
14 who I think Mr. Scheibel also knows, and you know,
15 Mr. Dinizio, in order to assist us in doing that
16 and we' ll go as far as we have to do in order to
17 get whatever kind of best situation that meets the
18 needs of the fire department . We really want to
19 meet the needs of the fire department . We don' t
20 necessarily feel we have to fly in the face of
21 zoning in order to do it .
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You better call him
23 because the clock is ticking.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Everything you
25 just said it may be correct, ma' am, but the
November 18 , 2004
127
1
2 problem is most of what you said is better
3 addressed to the people that you elect, not to the
4 Zoning Board.
5 MS . MCNEELEY: We have attempted to do
6 that over and over.
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re not here to
8 mediate that . That' s not what we' re here to do.
9 We take a look at the zoning and we deal with
10 that . How you finance this tower, what equipment
11 you choose to pick, what' s best for you in that
12 community is all up to you folks because you' re
13 all one entity as far as we' re concerned, and
14 honestly, I worked in radio frequency for 20 years
15 and I know one thing, if it doesn' t work at 90
16 feet you go to 95 ; if it doesn' t work at 95 , you
17 go to 120 .
18 MS . MCNEELEY: Or increase your
19 transmitter power.
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It' s that simple
21 to me and is honestly what this gentleman
22 represented to me today, and why I say a month is
23 because all he seems to be concerned with is the
24 technical aspect of it, is where those radio waves
25 will go at what height, and honestly that can be
November 18 , 2004
128
1
2 answered in a very short amount of time, and I
3 read the report from the gentleman you' re speaking
4 about . His credentials are impeccable, certainly
5 knows more about it than I ever will . But it
6 still comes down to you key the mike, you get
7 reception, you key your mike you don' t get
8 reception, and trees and buildings, contours,
9 they' re all along the roads, you just drive and
10 key your mike . Where there' s a dead spot, you try
11 to determine whether or not you can get reception
12 there . More times or not you' re probably not
13 going to be able to.
14 MS . MCNEELEY: There may be other
15 alternatives .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just this one lady and
17 then close this down. We've made our decision.
18 MS . SPERRY: Glena Sperry, I'm actually a
19 neighbor that has to look at the tower. There' s
20 one issue that nobody has addressed and --
21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Ma' am, we have
22 adjourned. So that' s the issue that when you come
23 back you can bring them.
24 (Time ended: 2 : 05 p .m. )
25
November 18 , 2004
129
1
2
3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
4
5 I , Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
6 State of New York, do hereby certify:
7 THAT the within transcript is a true record of
8 the testimony given.
9 I further certify that I am not related by
10 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
11 action; and
12 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
13 of this matter.
14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
15 hand this 18th day of November, 2004 .
16
17
18
19
Florence V. Wiles
20
21
22
23
24
25
November 18 , 2004