HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/21/2004 Hearing i. 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
i 3
y
4 --------------------------------------------X
5 T O W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D
6.
7 . Z 0 N I N G B O A R D O F A P P E A L S
8
9 --------------------------------------------X
Southold Town Ha11
10 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
11 -
October 21, 2004
12 9 : 30 a.m.
13 Board Members Present
14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
16 GERARD P . GOEHRINGER, Board Member
17 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
18 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
19 KIERAN CORCORAN: Assistant Town Attorney
20
21
22
23
24
� 25
FED 2005
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN, OLIVA: The first public
hearing next one is Tyrer on Oriole Drive,
3 Southold.
MR. RICHTER: Good morning, Craig Richter,
4 builder for the Tyrer project . We' re requesting a
variance for the garage in the side yard along
5 side a deck that was built . When we first started
the project, I had a survey that did not show the
6 deck on the survey. We were told that with the
Building Department we would have no problems,
7 then we realized at the end of the project that
the survey did not have a deck on there, and it
8 made it habitable space . So we' re requesting a
variance for the garage .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
audience that would like to speak on this
10 application? Any members of the Board have any
questions?
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, we see these
occasions occur occasionally. There' s no doubt it
12 is where it is . That' s it .
MR. RICHTER: Thank you.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to close the
hearing and reserve decision until later. Is
14 there any problem?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We reviewed the file .
(See minutes for resolution. )
16 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do I have a motion to
17 approve that hearing?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That it have the
18 normal conditions that we place on any deck. No
habitable area in the garage, contain the utility
19 of the electricity and maybe an outside water
spigot, that' s all .
20 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is a
carryover from 9/14 for Kevin Miller concerning
22 the garage on Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue . Tom
McCarthy, are you here?
23 MR. MCCARTHY: Good morning.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We received your
24 letter.
MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, I believe we responded
25 to the points we brought up in the previous
meeting. Just reading from the letter dated
October 21, 2004
3
1
2 October 18th, we' re proposing landscaping by means
of evergreen plantings to the southerly neighbor
3 -- they will be either spruce or pine eight to 10
feet tall planted at eight to 10 feet on center
4 for screening on his side .
The Board also brought up what the
5 question was, what utilities will be brought into
the garage . He will definitely have power in
6 there for whatever normal purposes in the garage
on the first floor and the rest of the space
7 upstairs . He does not have a plan for today, but
will be operating under whatever the code is and
8 whatever the code allows him to do.
The third issue is complying with 280A or
9 at least 280A, and we have agreed to remove the
ruts in irregular surfaces on the road, grade it
10 out in front of his property, put out a recycled
agate stone blend and pave the roadway in front of
11 his home, and we believe that those three things
address the concerns that the Board had at the
12 previous hearing.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have
13 any questions of Mr. McCarthy?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you have that in
14 writing, what you just said?
MR. MCCARTHY: Yes . We submitted that
15 last week to the Board, and we have spoken to
Xavier and Basil, the two neighbors and we
16 obviously have a difference of opinion of what
Mr. Miller is willing to do, and we understand and
17 appreciate their opinion, it' s not what they' re in .
favor of but Mr. Miller for his purposes and
'18 because of the topography on the site, wishes to
proceed with this and acknowledges and respects
19 their position, but wishes to proceed with his
application as it is with the letter we submitted
20 to augment the file .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Tom. Does
21 anybody else want to comment?
MR. FLEMING: Good morning, Ladies and
22 Gentlemen of the Board. My name is Xavier
Flemming, 555 Wunneweta Road. I have two packages
23 of pictures that I would like to give to you. I
want to thank you for adjourning the meeting last
24 time because it gave me an opportunity to look
further into a couple of things that Mr. McCarthy
25 represented at the last meeting, and I don' t agree
with a number of things he represented, and I 'm
October 21, 2004
4
i
1 '
2 prepared to explain that to you now.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine .
3 MR. FLEMING: If you could hand out one of
each of these to everyone . They' re two separate
4 packages . One is photographs of homes that
Mr. McCarthy took previously and submitted to the
5 Board; the second is photographs of existing homes
on Nassau Point that are built on hills .
6 For the record, I would just like to give
yourself a little background on me . I 'm a 45 year
7 seasonal resident of Nassau Point . I'm in my
ninth year as a board member on the Nassau Point
8 Property Owners Association. I 've served two
years as president` of the Nassau Point Property
9 Owners Association and worked with the Suffolk
County Water Authority on the water main
10 installation, and I' d like to consider myself
rather knowledgeable of the area.
11 I' d like to direct your attention to the
photograph on the first page, it says 1800 on the
12 pillar, in that package . These are photographs of
houses that Mr. McCarthy took and presented as
13 characteristic of the neighborhood. This is 1800
Little Peconic Road. The second picture is the
14 house on Old Mahaden Lane, Dorothea Hours
house . The third house is 2325 Rathgerber on
15 Nassau Point Road. The fourth house is 6675
Nassau Point Road. In the envelope. there' s a
16 letter from Mr. Scott Russell, the assessor,
indicating that Rathgerber, 2325 Nassau Point
17 Road, Winchester 6625 Nassau Point Road and
Concostco, 1800 •Little Peconic Road are waterfront
18 properties and thereby they' re exempt from no
garage in the front yard rule .
19 Dorothy Hours house, if you look at my
photo versus Mr. McCarthy' s photo, shows a garage
20 that' s attached, not detached, as the applicant' s
is . The second group of photos is photographs of
21 either attached or detached garages on Nassau
Point . The first three are Mr. Asciutto, the
22 Estate of Joseph Flemming, my brother; the third
is Joseph Decker. The photo of Mr. Asciutto is
23 not very good because his garage area is well
concealed, his house is well concealed. The point
24 is that three houses on that hill on that
Wunneweta dirt road extension are built in
25 conformance of the code .
I drove up and down all the public roads
October 21, 2004
5
1
2 on Nassau Point, and I think I can state with
substantial confidence that there are no existing
3 garages in front yards that are not waterfront
properties and exempt as per Section 100-33C.
4 There was a comment last week on the
application of the Broadwaters Cove project, I
5 believe it was 1845, where you approved a garage
in the front yard with significant screening. In
6 my mind there' s a significant difference between
that application and this application in that
7 there' s an existing house there that prohibited
the owner of that house from building in his
8 backyard and the hardship was not self-created.
In this case, the hardship was admittedly
9 self-created in the application.
The house could be changed, the garage
10 could be changed to accommodate the garage . In
Mr. McCarthy' s argument he emphasized the
11 percentage over the minimum setback of his
building. I have no problem with the setback.
12 It' s not the issue that' s being addressed here .
My objection is the detached garage in the front
13 yard, which I will be forced to look at . I ' ll
have to look at two buildings instead of one . I
14 would have no objection with moving the house to
the side of the proposed garage . The house plan
15 is very attractive .
I believe this code was written to
16 establish a standard for the community with
consideration to aesthetics from the street and
17 from neighboring properties . This garage will be
the first garage on Nassau Point built in the
18 front yard and I think it sets a bad precedent .
I would like to, if you could follow along
19 with the topography, I think it would be helpful
because I would like to bring forward some points
20 on the alleged practical difficulty
hardship. There are three topo lines that go
21 through the garage, one is 122 elevation one is
124 and one' s 126 for an average of 123 . 33 .
22 There are four topo lines that go through the
house, 132 feet, 130 feet, 128 feet and 126 feet
23 for an average of 129 feet . The difference
between the elevation of the average in the garage
24 and the average of the house is 5 . 5 feet and
that' s over a 76 foot difference . I'm suggesting
25 that this is not a hill, this is a slope . Once
you climb that hill, and there is a hill certainly
October 21, 2004
6
1
2 where the driveway is that' s very steep, once you
get up the elevation of the garage the hardship is
3 behind you. In front of you is a reasonably
gentle sloped land. The topo lines on the right
4 side of the house are 122 feet and 124 feet, which
is the exact same elevation as the proposed site
5 of the garage, and it' s about 80 feet away. The
elevation' s the same on the right side of the
6 house as it is on the center of the garage .
A driveway on the right side of the house
7 is a possibility that should be considered. A
garage could be put in the back with the driveway
8 that goes up the right side of the garage, and the
topo lines again, all the way back by the pool are
9 124 feet and 122 feet on the right-hand side of
the property.
10 I contend that the applicant is not
building on a hill but he' s building on a grade at
11 the top of a hill, and the low point of the garage
is 122 feet; to the far left corner of the
12 property, the highest point on this land, which is
136 feet, over a 228 foot distance there' s a
13 change of 14 feet of elevation -- this is from the
garage to the back left portion of the property,
14 which is a 5 . 52 percent grade . The grade change,
from the low point of the lot, which is the bottom
15 right corner, is 90 feet . Now, if you were to
take that and compare it to the center point of
16 the garage, which is 122 feet, there' s a 32 foot
grade change there over 118 foot distance, there' s
17 a 24 percent grade change there, which is
significant, I don' t deny that . I'm trying to
18 drive home the point that the hardship is between
the road and the garage . Once you get above the
19 garage, you' re looking at a slope, you' re not
looking at this intimidating hill that you climbed
20 up to look at the property.
In the application the applicant has
21 stated that he is going to grade and excavate the
land. Certainly he' s not going to increase the
22 grade, he' s going to reduce it and with any kind
of grading work he' s going to be less than this
23 five percent grade change that I'm representing
here . And it' s my position that if he can
24 accommodate a 20 by 40 pool in his backyard
excavate and grade for that, he can certainly
25 excavate and grade to construct a garage in his
backyard based on the topography representation I
October 21, 2004
7
1
2 just gave you.
I have two final points with reference to
3 the screening. The screening does not do anything
for me . Six months, a year I ' ll be looking at
4 this garage . The second point is it does nothing
for visibility from the street, which I will admit
5 it' s not a well-traveled street . The screening on
Asciutto' s side with small evergreen trees will
6 not, in my opinion, conceal the garage in our
lifetime, because they grow so slowly unless
7 they' re out in the sunshine all the time, and we
have a tremendous oak growth back there . And the
8 final thing is I scaled the garage at the Building
Department and it appears to me to have a 21 foot
9 elevation, not the 18 foot maximum.
I thank you for your time and again, I
10 request you review the information I have given to
you and reject this application. Do you have any
11 questions for me?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Members of the Board?
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
degree -- I think you mentioned it -- between the
13 start of the lot and the actual edge of the
garage?
14 MR. FLEMING: Ninety feet is the low point
of the lot on the bottom right . This is the low
15 point of the garage, not the average, is 122
feet . So you have a 32 foot grade change over
16 approximately 118 feet, and it' s a 24 degree
change, according to my calculations, which is
17 quite steep, of course .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If we looked at
18 33 degree, which we' re used to looking at, that
which is the norm, it' s less than that .
19 MR. FLEMING: I don' t know what you mean
by norm, sir.
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Evidently in
your presentation you have dealt with in your
21 business, and you' re very good at it, I have to
tell you.
22 MR. FLEMING: I'm a zoning board member in
the Village of Williston Park, so I know what
23 you' re up against, and I've been on both sides of
the table .
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s difficult
for us to visualize what 24 degrees is . If we
25 took a trapezoid and we looked at 33 , we looked at
45 and we looked at 90 , it' s difficult for me to
October 21, 2004
8
1
2 visualize what 24 is . Holding that pen in front
of you is that approximately what 24 is, I don' t
3 know. So if you could give us some indication on
what 24 is on a sheet of paper.
4 MR. FLEMING: I think maybe for practical
purposes, and I don' t have a protractor with me,
5 but I think if you were to draw a 90 degree angle
and bisect it, you have 45 degrees then, it' s a
6 little more than half of that; is that fair
enough?
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
MR. FLEMING: That' s an average grade
8 change, it' s based on Mr. Miller' s topographical
survey. Any other questions?
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No, sir.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
10 anyone else that would like to speak about this
application?
11 MR. ASCIUTTO: My name is Basil Asciutto,
I live at 620 Wunneweta Road, I'm the neighbor
12 directly adjacent to the parcel . And Mr. Fleming
and I consulted with each other, and he did a very
13 good job of representing our case .
My biggest objection also is that I ' d be
14 looking at the side of a garage, and if there were
screening, if you were to approve this, if there
15 were screening six or eight feet high, it' s
grossly inadequate because my first living level
16 is at least 10 feet off the ground, so I' d be
looking over these trees . Everything else we
17 pretty much covered in Mr. Fleming' s argument .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. Any of
18 the Board Members have anything else to say?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
19 ask Mr. McCarthy a question. Mr. McCarthy, I
realize the applicant is with you, but is there a
20 specific reason why the ridge on this garage has
to be 21 feet? Can that be lessened a little bit?
21 MR. MCCARTHY: I' d have to let him speak.
I noticed that in Xavier' s comments he mentioned
22 that the ridge was 21 feet, and his perception
being an 18 foot max, the way the code is written,
23 it' s 18 feet, and that' s used as an average from
the 18 feet from the ridge to the rake . It is
24 permitted. It' s not penetrating that maximum
level .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s right .
If we take it in reality the garage has to be on
October 21, 2004
9
1
2 level land. It' s eight or 10 feet to the ceiling
then I assume the entire upstairs . Can that
3 upstairs be lessened in height so as to create
less impact on the neighbors?
4 MR. MCCARTHY: It could very well be, but
I guess that would be an aesthetic concern of how
5 flat that roof gets and the pitch together with
the architecture of the building. I'm sure that
6 could be done, you can bring it up to 18 feet and
give it a flat roof, but I think what Mr. Miller
7 has proposed is something that is architecturally
appealing.
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
that, but there sometimes has to be a little bit
9 of agreement in between on the weighing of these
aspects, and since Mr. Flemming has ,come up with
10 some very interesting data in reference to the
height of that garage, if we could lessen the
11 impact of the height of that garage -- again these
are all issues that this Board is going to be
12 dealing with. I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm
speaking for myself .
13 MR. MCCARTHY: We can certainly take a
look at that .
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In reference to
the issue of screening, as you know, in our past
15 decisions having been before this Board many, many
times not only on your own projects, but
16 representing other people, the Board does have the
right to enhance and de-enhance screening. I have
17 to tell you, I have never seen a deenhanced, it' s
always been enhanced. So an example of the
18 application that Mr. Fleming is referring to on
Broadwaters Road, that was probably the most ,
19 intense screening that we have ever required on an
application, mainly because of its position in the
20 front yard area. And that applicant did
voluntarily reduce the height of that particular
21 building.
MR. MCCARTHY: I' d be happy to take a look
22 at that and follow back up with the Board. In
addition, Xavier brings out -- just a point of
23 clarification on the photos we submitted to the
Board was to give the Board an idea of other
24 properties that were on Nassau Point . It wasn' t
to say that everything is exactly the same . Those
25 properties that he mentions, and he' s given
addresses of where the garages are closer to the
October 21, 2004
10
1
2 street, they happen to be waterfront properties,
but I believe that they have the same impact to
3 the traveling public than any other garage that
may be in that particular yard, even though they
4 may be exempt because they' re waterfront
properties . So you can see those garages as
5 you' re traveling down the street . You may not be
able to see the water, but you still have the
6 impact of a garage closer to the road.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the
7 distance between the garage and the house?
MR. MCCARTHY: Approximately 60 feet
8 between the front stairs and the garage .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you could just
9 repeat for me again why it is that you can' t
comply with the code?
10 MR. MCCARTHY: We feel that the house
could be -- there are other options here, and I
11 believe we spoke about that last time, but we
believe it' s a practical difficulty with the slope
12 and walking up to the house . If the house is
located somewhere different, there' s a grading
13 issue here . Mr. Miller perhaps could connect the
two structures and that' s something we have talked
14 about . He has located this garage 20 feet off the
side yard line to Mr. Asciutto' s side, that' s not
15 what the code says, the code allows him to go to
at least 10 feet on this particular structure . He
16 could connect the two structures, he could also
make this structure 35 feet tall if he wanted to
17 because he' s meeting the principal setback on the
side yard.
18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You mean if he
attached it?
19 MR. MCCARTHY: If he attached the two of
them, I believe there would be a larger impact on
20 Mr. Asciutto than if they are unattached because
it is 18 feet average versus his home being 35
21 feet tall, which the code allows if he were to
bring the two of them together.
22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Correct me, then,
actually, this is a plan that you feel is better
23 for your neighbor?
MR. MCCARTHY:. Yes .
24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But you could
comply with the code, but you feel that if you
25 complied with the code that you would have more
negative impacts to the neighbor, is that so?
October 21, 2004
11
1
2 MR. MCCARTHY: I believe so . We could
move this garage closer to Mr. Asciutto' s side if
3 it was a detached structure and we've brought it
further away to try to be a good neighbor and try
4 to lessen the impact . We could bring the house
and the garage together at this 20 foot setback,
5 but this could also be 30, 35 feet tall . It could
have two and-a-half stories in that same location
6 where he' s proposing an 18 foot average structure,
he could have a 35 foot average structure if he
7 closed the gap between the house and the existing
garage, which, in my opinion, I don' t know how
8 well Mr. Asciutto feels about that, I think that
would have a much greater impact on him than this
9 smaller structure separated from the home .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Have you talked to
10 Mr. Asciutto about this?
MR. MCCARTHY: We spoke briefly this
11 morning about this and we spoke last meeting as
well about some of the options, but this is
12 something that we feel will have the lesser
impact . Mr. Asciutto said can' t you put the
13 garage underneath the house, that' s where I have
mine . That' s something Mr. Miller is not willing
14 to give up, his basement space . He' s got
children, he' s going to be using his basement
15 space for recreation for his children. He doesn' t
feel the topography will work well with that . We
16 feel it' s a compromise . We don' t see it going all
the way in Mr. Miller' s favor. We see it' s a
17 compromise with the neighbors . As far as Xavier' s
comments go, we could bring the house closer to
18 the garage; he would still have to look at it . It
would be taller, and he could do that . We would
19 not be standing here today if we closed the gap
between the house and the garage . Mr. Fleming
20 would have the same vista that he has now, if
there was a breezeway attaching them or more of a
21 house or more square footage, it would have the
same impact to Mr. Flemming as it does as we look
22 at it and it could have more of an impact because
it could be a larger structure in the same
23 location.
MR. ASCIUTTO: May I make a comment?
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
MR. ASCIUTTO: I don' t think the purpose
25 of putting the garage in the front is to help the
neighbors . I have no objection to following the
October 21, 2004
12
1
2 code, attaching the garage and the house could be
as tall as the zone permits, that would disturb me
3 less than the proposed plan because all the houses
are lined up in the a row and therefore the house
4 would not be set back another hundred feet . I ' d
rather have the houses lined up, follow the code,
5 whatever the setbacks are, whatever the heights
are that meet the code is fine with me . I have an
6 objection to the garage being where it is, and the
house being where it is proposed because it' s
7 directly in my line of sight when I look in the
back. So I have no objection to following the
8 code .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir.
9 Anybody else have anything?
MR. MILLER: Hi, my name is Kevin Miller,
10 I'm the owner. I want to thank the Board for
hearing this case, thank my neighbors for coming.
11 I look forward to a long, pleasant relationship,
no matter what the outcome is here .
12 When we initially proposed the plan here,
I was not only thinking about myself, of course we
13 were thinking about our needs, but I was also
thinking about my neighbor Basil as well because I
14 felt that having a garage in the back of my house
would mean I would have to take my driveway up
15 along his property line and basically the cars
would be parked not only in my back yard, but also
16 visible . If they were out" enjoying the backyard
they would be out looking at my cars as well . I
17 see that' s not his opinion, but that was the
original intent . I thought it was a good
18 compromise . I believe everybody' s presented their
cases very well, and the alternative of connecting
19 the garage with a breezeway would be another that
would probably be our alternative because I do not
20 want to give up the basement space of having a
garage underneath my house, and I do believe that
21 this is a pretty good compromise . It would be
impossible to move the house forward. It would be
22 a practical difficulty with the grade there . So I
do want to keep the house where it is which is the
23 flatter portion of the property, and I want to
thank everybody for hearing the case .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. Any
other Board Members have any questions?
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I just want
Mr. McCarthy to come back with a plan that may
October 21, 2004
13
1
2 lessen the height of the garage . I hate to ask
anybody right at the moment to do that, but if we
3 close this hearing, I would like to close it
pending some additional information from
4 Mr. McCarthy.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are the Board Members
5 agreeable to closing the hearing and reserving
decision for later pending the outcome of Mr.
6 McCarthy' s proposal?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Someone make the
motion?
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll make the
motion.
9 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
the Connells for making alterations to existing
11 dwelling less than 50 feet from the rear lot line
at Krause Road, Mattituck.
12 MS . CONNELL: Hi, my name is Suzanne Connell
and my husband and I purchased this home at 550
13 Krause Road about three years ago with the intent
of moving back to this area. I grew up actually
14 right around the corner from this house, and I
have four children and we. had had the intention of
15 moving back here permanently and now we' re here .
We have four children and the house we' re living
16 in right now is small, so we need to put an
addition on. So we have spoken with builders and
17 architects and things of that sort to try to
figure out what' s the best thing for our family
18 and making the house bigger and more practical for
living there permanently.
19 When we got involved in this process we
talked to Linda from the Zoning Board on the
20 proper way to handle this and she explained the
process to us and we feel like we followed it to
21 the best of our ability. Linda gave us the list
of people, our neighbors with their addresses that
22 we needed to contact them, and she asked us to
notify them and send them the information about
23 the addition that we were doing. We sent
certified letters out with return receipts and a
24 package to all the neighbors, and I believe you
have a copy of the people that we sent this
25 package out to.
We received the green slips back from the
October 21, 2004
14
1
2 post office, all but two of the neighbors had
returned their slips . So I contacted Linda from
3 the Zoning Board because I was concerned about the
two neighbors that had not returned their slips .
4 So she let me know that one of our neighbors, the
Kenneys, had been in to inquire about the
5 addition, and they were concerned because they had
not received the package and Linda looked up the
6 information and realized that the address that
they had was an address in Port Washington, which
7 was not where they were living; however, the
address that she gave us to send out the
8 information was Port Washington. So I guess the
neighbors had never changed the address with the
9 Town. And the other neighbors live in Syosset and
have not responded to a number of phone calls that
10 we have tried to get in touch with them on.
Regarding our neighbors the Kenneys, Linda
11 from the Zoning Board suggested that I leave the
package, which I did, in their mail box on this
12 past Monday evening, because Monday morning is
when I spoke to Linda regarding the concern I had
13 over the two neighbors that had not complied or
not responded to what we were doing. In any case,
14 my husband is more involved with the planning of
this process, so I' d like to turn this over to
15 him, if that' s okay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine
16 MR. CONNELL: I don' t have too much to say
other than what' s on the plan. We have a house at
17 550 Krause Road, and it' s a corner house with a
right of way behind it so we are kind of stuck
18 with three front yards, and the fourth yard has
been deemed a back yard, that' s the direction we
19 want to go out .
The house with the current zoning law is
20 already about 11 feet and not complying with a 50
foot back yard setback. What we would like to do
21 is go expand that, move the garage over and put a
family room in the middle, a garage with a bonus
22 room on top . We' re asking for an additional 24
foot, which would put our property, building 15
23 feet from the property line . On the other side of
the property line there' s about 10 feet and the
24 neighbor' s garage . Like Sue said, when we started
talking about the architects, this was deemed the
25 best way to expand the house other than go out in
other directions .
October 21, 2004
15
1
2 Other than that, we spoke with the only two
neighbors that have property that touches our
3 property, Vance Crawford and Brian Murphy, and
they' re both actually excited that we' re
4 renovating the house . So that' s what we' re asking
for, an addition to go out 24 foot west towards
5 the neighbor' s yard.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So the 15 feet that you
6 want in the backyard then on the other side it' s
just 10 feet to your neighbor' s garage not living
7 quarters there; is that correct?
MR. CONNELL: There' s a breezeway, just
8 attaching, a couple feet that touches, but no,
there isn' t any living space, it' s a garage .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, Mr. Connell,
10 looking at the second page of your detailed plan,
if you could just turn to that, one second. Which
11 basically shows you the present house and then the
new addition aspect of it, if we were standing
12 over the top of it .
MR. CONNELL: Okay.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Was there any
intent at any time to detach the garage and place
14 it in the area which is over in the corner, which
I guess you could refer to as the south corner,
15 basically looking at the original plan, it' s the
area where it says 40 foot rear yard? Let me show
16 you, was there ever any intent taking this and
putting it over here, over in this area
17 (indicating) ?
MR. CONNELL: No, there was another
18 attachment up further in the front, but never to
go back.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only reason I
say that is because a reduction from the code
20 requirements to 15 feet is rather an ambiguous
reduction. I'm saying that that' s just my
21 opinion. I really have no tremendous objection to
the project, that' s just an opinion. I realize
22 you' re forced with that setback of 15 feet from
Camp Mineola Road.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He also has the paper
route there too.
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think it' s a nice
design, I know you' re in a tight spot in that
25 situation. I was just wonder, I see you have a
nice boat and you park it on the side, and you
October 21, 2004
16
1
2 plan on still putting it on the side, I think the
15 foot might be a tight squeeze, you probably
3 have about a 10 foot beam on that boat now. I
don' t have a particular problem but I would be
4 more likely in favor of this application if you
had a 20 foot side yard, because I think you
5 really want to store that boat on the side as
well .
6 MR. CONNELL: The boat' s going away. The
boat will not be there .
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Can we still do 20 on
that rear yard then, is there a possibility of a
8 reduction, as Mr. Goehringer said, it' s a
significant reduction in the code?
9 MR. CONNELL: Okay.
MRS . CONNELL: But why, though?
10 MR. CONNELL: I look at five feet --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s a substantial
11 reduction in the code . And the neighbor on this
side, is that the Kenney' s?
12 MRS . CONNELL: No. It' s Brian Murphy.
MR. CONNELL: Kenney' s property doesn' t touch
13 our property.
MRS —CONNELL: Brian Murphy is very happy
14 we' re putting this addition on. We have spoken
with him and we have a very good relationship with
15 him, and he and his wife are very excited about
this addition. The boat will be moved. Right now
16 we still are in the process of moving. We' re not
settled. We have some cars that we need to get
17 rid of . Our lives are a little bit out of sort
because I'm moving my four children down. And we
18 don' t have enough room to put our stuff, we have a
storage place where we' re going to put our things
19 until we finish the addition of this home . Brian
Murphy is the one that would be most affected by
20 the changes and additions that we' re putting and
he has no problem whatsoever and he gives us the
21 blessing to go forward.
MR. CONNELL: Nor does Vance Crawford on the
22 opposite side . The only thing is we do have a
number of architectural plans, one design does
23 move the garage a little further south so that the
front of the garage is even with the front of the
24 house, so it doesn' t protrude into the front yard
like on this drawing.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But it still keeps 15
foot setback?
October 21, 2004
17
1
2 MR. CONNELL: Yes . there' s a line of trees
that separate --
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Could you submit a
copy of that as well?
4 MR. CONNELL: Yes, absolutely.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just a flat plan would
5 be fine .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I know you have a
7 tight spot there, but I do feel that you can get a
little larger setback than 15 feet, that you have
8 adequate space to do that, and the required
setback is 50 feet, you' re asking for 15, and I
9 think you have some options here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: More than 50 percent .
10 BOARD -MEMBER TORTORA: That' s what I' d like
to see .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, when I first
12 looked at this application and read it, I said,
well, if this were a house on any lot other than
13 this particular lot, you wouldn' t even be before
us, and you know, I'm prone to, and I honestly,
14 this is the way I always think, that the hardship
is created not by you wanting to add this, but by
15 the fact that the Town interprets that you have
three front yards and it' s more a mathematics
16 geometry problem than it is a practical
problem. And for reasons unknown to me, 15 feet
17 is a normal setback for a side yard to another
house and I can' t for the life of me figure out
18 why this Board wouldn' t grant it as it is, simply
because it serves the Town no purpose whatsoever
19 to deny this . The Town gains nothing by allowing
you to have that 50 foot setback. I just wanted
20 to make that comment for the record..
MR. CONNELL: I appreciate that . We did
21 explore alternatives, but with budgetary
constraints to do it any way other than this and
22 to make the house livable for six people
comfortably, it isn' t going to be that big a
23 house, but it' s a lot more money to go out in
other directions . In fact, we' re kind of nixing
24 even going out in the back part of it as well,
with the main part of the house .
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
October 21, 2004
18
1
2 anyone else in the audience that would like to
comment? Yes, ma' am?
3 MS . KENNEY: Good morning, my name is Phyllis
Kenney. I am the neighbor that the Connells
4 discussed. I never did get that package, which
it' s not really their fault . So I don' t have
5 anything before me to show you, but I went to the
Town and I looked at the plans, it' s a beautiful
6 home . My problem is that I am the flag lot behind
them, and I'm at the mouth of James Creek and
7 their 15 feet from the border is going to be right
in my backyard. There is an easement on my flag
8 lot that lets me in and also allows three small
lots on the south side of James Creek for access
9 to boats . So our house is on Ole Jule, the actual
address but I am between Ole Jule and Camp
10 Mineola. If they were allowed to build the house,
I feel I would lose the privacy of my backyard
11 because my house is situated so it faces James
Creek and the south. So when I look out I would
12 see their cathedral ceiling bedroom. It' s 15 feet
from my backyard, not the garage and the Murphys .
13 My interpretation is couldn' t they move the house
out more towards Camp Mineola and not so close to
14 me, and I apologize, I have nothing in front of me
to show you what I'm talking about, but I am the
15 flag lot behind them, and they are going to be in
my backyard.
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You drive down the
right of way then?
17 MS . KENNEY: Yes . And if you notice in the
file, there are no pictures of my house showing
18 where I am in proximity to that house, and it' s a
factor. I am the one of all the houses that will
19 be affected the most . I don' t have anything else
to say.
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you just come
over and show us where you live, ma' am?
21 MS . KENNEY: I'm Lot 41 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You live there on
22 41?
MS . KENNEY: Yes .
23 MR. CONNELL: Our addition doesn' t border 15
feet on their property. It' s 15 feet on the
24 Murphy' s property and to the right of way, you are
the owners of that right of way. Actually, I 'm on
25 the right of way, and it' s a 25 foot right of way
at the back of my -- it' s my third front yard.
October 21, 2004
19
1
2 You have the 25 feet, and then their property
starts, but this addition is an addition from the
3 25 feet, I think it' s about 45 to 50 feet away
from the right of way, which we put it 65 feet
4 from their useable property.
MS . KENNEY: According from the pictures I
5 saw your backyard is 15 feet off the right of way.
MRS . CONNELL: Can I also make a comment?
6 She neglected to say that her house is on the
market .
7 MS . KENNEY: So was yours .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re only here to
8 address this, please .
MR. CONNELL: I just want to clear that up
9 that the closest, with the proposed addition for
the first floor on the main part of the house,
10 would still be 40 feet from the right of way.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you come up and
11 show me that? You' re 15 feet here (indicating) .
MR. CONNELL: That' s the Murphy' s, their
12 property is down here (indicating) . So we have an
additional maybe `50 feet to the right of way, an
13 additional 25 for the right of way, and that' s
somewhere between 65 and 75 feet away from their
14 actual backyard. Here' s the right of way?
MR. CONNELL: The right of way is right
15 there . You can see even the addition is 40 feet
from the right of way over on this end, and this,
16 the 40 feet plus when the house is 20 , 25 feet .
And on the other side of their property there' s a
17 big new home, there' s a big second story with a
huge third story window, that' s all wooded area in
18 there as well .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Connell' s property
19 bisects their property on that boundary.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a couple
20 questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Might as well clear
this up. You are on the tax map Lot 38?
22 MR. CONNELL: On the corner?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, right?
23 MR. CONNELL: Correct .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And Brian Murphy is
24 Lot 37?
MR. CONNELL: Correct .
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And this lady is to
the south of you, Number 41 . I don' t know, where
October 21, 2004
20
1
2 is James Creek?
MR. CONNELL: It' s at the south end of Lot
3 40 , very south.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: James Creek is south
4 of your house?
MR. CONNELL: No. It' s south of the edge of
5 Lot 40 .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Comes up to Lot 40?
6 How do you obstruct her view?
MR. CONNELL: We don' t . In fact, it' s very
7 hard to see our house from that area, it' s a
wooded area, and even if there isn' t you have to
8 really look. We' re in the opposite direction of
James Creek.
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So she doesn' t look
towards your house to see James Creek?
10 MR. CONNELL: No, in the opposite direction,
correct .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She looks the other
way?
12 MR. CONNELL: Right ..
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then you' re going to
13 be 15 feet from the property line of Mr. Murphy,
37, not 41, looks like you' re 70 feet from there
14 or whatever. Okay, I 'm confused as to what --
maybe you ought to look at the application, ma' am,
15 get an idea.
MS . KENNEY: I did look at the application,
16 unfortunately, not through any fault of theirs, I
didn' t get it .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe you ought to
look at the application because it seems you' re
18 worried about something that --
MS . KENNEY: The way I read it, it was 15
19 feet from the right of way.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you' re wrong. If
20 you look at the application --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s 15 feet from Brian
21 Murphy' s garage .
MS . KOWALSKI : Mrs . Kenney, did you want to
22 look at the map in the file? You' re here, this
shows what the addition is going to look like
23 after.
MS . KENNEY: How many feet is this from the
24 property line?
MS . KOWALSKI : From Krause Road it' s 40 feet .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the right of way.
MS . KOWALSKI : From Krause Road?
October 21, 2004
21
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. This is not Krause
Road, this would be the right of way.
3 MS . KOWALSKI : So the map would be
misleading, it didn' t show the right of way with
4 this other sketch.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We' ll give you time to
5 take a look at it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have
6 any comments on this application? Yes, sir?
MR. KENNEY: Good morning, my name is Peter
7 Kenney, that' s my significant other, in case no
one has figured that out .. Yesterday was our 37th
8 anniversary, and the reason for saying that is if
I didn' t stand up at the appropriate time I
9 probably would have never made 38 . In any event,
I think that testimony that has been given so far
10 for the Board to review is based either on hearsay
or he said/she said it was okay. I would request
11 that the Board reserve decision either until we
get something from Mr. Murphy in writing because
12 it seems that he has a tremendous amount of weight
on this decision regarding his offset or setback
13 whatever, and in light of the fact that we did not
receive any of the information, my wife and I , we
14 would be willing to have it and review it . And if
there' s not a conflict, we don' t have a problem
15 with them expanding their home and making it a
nicer home .
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a
suggestion? Why not just go over and see
17 Mr. Murphy? It' s very difficult, in my opinion,
to get a letter from him. We certainly can
18 request it or Mr. Connell can request it . Why
don' t you go over and see him?
19 MR. KENNEY: I personally don' t have a
.problem with that . But if the Board is weighing a
20 decision on "Mr. Murphy said it was okay, " without
Mr. Murphy' s presence, I would request additional
21 information or verification.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just comment on
22 that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not a question of
what Mr. Murphy or who would live next door to
24 this neighbor as far as I'm concerned, it' s more a
question of the practical difficulty of the lot
25 and how the Town determines here' s the front yard
and what your side yards are. This person' s
October 21, 2004
22
1
2 living on a peninsula surrounded by front yards,
with a much more restrictive setback than a front
3 yard brings . As I look at it, anybody could live
next door and I would consider that side a side
4 yard, just simply because the rest of the lot is
front yard. So he' s being asked to comply with a
5 much stricter setback because of the position of
his lot or the location of his lot to these three,
6 what we call, roads . So he has a problem. He
definitely has a problem with if he wants to
7 expand that house . And Mr. Murphy doesn' t dictate
whether or not we get it, it' s his proximity to
8 that piece of property that in my mind says to me,
hey, look, he has a practical difficulty, this
9 gentleman does, and if he wants to utilize that as
a side yard, that' s fine . The health, the safety
10 and welfare of the town is not going to be upset
by the fact that this is a 15 foot setback on this
11 line because almost every other lot in the town is
allowed to do that, actually 10 feet . So
12 Mr. Murphy --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 10?
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Whatever it is . Some
houses are 10 feet . This one is 15, he complies
14 as far as the side yard, as far as I'm concerned.
So Mr. Murphy is not neither here or there as far
15 as I'm concerned. The point is I think the
gentleman deserves some relief and my personal
16 thing is I think he' s not requesting anything
that' s out of the ordinary, and he does have a
17 practical difficulty. But there' s four other
members on this Board that could feel differently
18 and more times than not they do feel differently
than I do . I felt it was important to have the
19 discussion, and not based on what Mr. Murphy wants
or doesn' t want, but what is practical for this
20 particular lot, and that' s how I look at it . If
you have an objection to that, certainly voice it,
21 and I wouldn' t object to holding this off, if you
need to really take a look at that file, in all
22 honesty. If you want to come back next month, I
don' t object to that, if you want to look at the
23 file, get your facts together, please, feel free
to do so. I wouldn' t object to that . Thank
24 you.
MR. KENNEY: Thank you for your comments . I
25 do agree with you, a couple things come to mind,
you go out and buy a car and you ride down the
October 21, 2004
23
1
2 road with it and after you ride down the road, you
say, oh, hell, I can fit seven kids in here, I
3 wanted to put 15 . So I. think what I'm going to do
is put a double axle on the back and expand it -and
4 take the pipes off so I can go faster, go where I
want to go, well, that' s against why that car was
5 built . So what I'm saying, if you buy a house and
that is too small, when you look at a house, you
6 say I've got four kids, oh, my four kids won' t
fit, hell, I'm going to expand it, I' ll do this,
7 I ' ll do that . I'm going to go before the ZBA, and
I 'm going to say, I want to expand my house, let' s
8 change some of the rules .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . He' s not asking
9 for change --
MR. KENNEY: We' re asking for a change in
10 variance, are we not changing the rules?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . He' s asking for
11 relief from a practical difficulty in that his lot
is unusual for most of the lots of the town.
12 MR. KENNEY: It' s a corner lot .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it' s a lot with three
13 front yards, sir, not just two front yards but
three front yards, which limits his ability to
14 expand in any direction.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He' s just asking for a
15 house the size of anybody' s house in town. He' s
not asking for any more than that . And the
16 practical difficulty is that the Town interprets
that he has three side -- three front yards, and
17 the Town says you have a front yard, you have to
set it back further. So he has a practical
18 difficulty here and this is not the car, you see a
car you count the seats, that' s fine . This is a
19 lot, and the Zoning Board is here because of
that . Because they recognize, the Town recognizes
20 that not every lot is the same . When you create
lots, they have practical difficulties . My mind,
21 this is not that car, think of it that way.
MR. KENNEY: I'm not here to cause friction
22 with a neighbor, and I don' t want this to be
interpreted that way. With that, I would
23 appreciate it if we had the opportunity to reserve
the information submitted to the Board and we' d be
24 more than happy to reappear.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. What is the
25 Board' s pleasure; do you want to close the
hearing?
October 21, 2004
24
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should
close the hearing.
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Didn' t the gentleman
want to adjourn it?
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Give him a two-week
comment period, that' s all .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion closing
the hearing but leaving it open for two weeks for
6 written comments on this application, reserve
decision until later.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say,
Ma' am Chairperson? Whatever comments they make to
8 the .Board, the gentleman that just spoke prior to
the applicant here, would just have to submit
9 those comments also to --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, yes, to give a copy
10 to the Connells .
MRS . CONNELL: I appreciate what you' re
11 saying. It really is true . We have three front
yards, and there are limits that we have to deal
12 with because of these laws that are in place, and
I appreciate your taking the time to sort of
13 explain that because not everybody knows that .
And I really feel that if Mr. Murphy had an issue
14 with anything we were doing, I know that he would
be here right now speaking his mind in a nice way
15 to let us know that . So, our timing is important
to us, and we are living in that house and bought
16 that house because I grew up on Ole Jule Lane, and
we would like to live in that neighborhood and
17 that' s why we are not selling that house and
moving to another location, which might be easier
18 in the long run on us, but we' d like to stay in
that neighborhood because my parents are still
19 living there .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I have a second on
20 the motion?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
21 (See resolution for details . )
-------------------------------------------------
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
Zuhoski for a degree of nonconformance of less
23 than 35 feet from the front line on Freeman Avenue
in Mattituck.
24 MR. ZUHOSKI : Good morning, my name' s
Jerry. My wife and I, Debbie, we' re planning an
25 addition, and in order for us to do that, we got
to get a variance because the addition is falling
October 21, 2004
25
1
2 too close to the road. It' s not 35 foot, what the
zoning calls for, so that' s about it, we' re just
3 requesting a variance for that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually, your existing
4 house is about 19, 20 feet from the road and your
proposed addition would be 21 feet four inches,
5 correct? Do the Board Members have any questions,
Mr. Dinizio?
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I guess it' s a nice
little addition, but I guess you just don' t want
9 that garage, do you?
MR. ZUHOSKI : When you raise two kids and
10 the two kids get married and have kids, it gets a
little tight at the holidays . Garage is probably
11 not even a future for me .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm sorry. No
12 other questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The porch on the
front of the house facing Freeman Avenue will be
14 an open porch, it' s just going to have a roof?
MR. ZUHOSKI : Just roof, an overhang, to
15 stay out of the weather.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s it . No
16 other questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the
17 audience have any comment about this application?
If not, I' ll make a motion to close the
18 application and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
19 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is
20 the Ferrells on Lloyds Lane in Mattituck. Cathy
Mesiano.
21 MS . MESIANO: We' re back again. I
submitted revised plans to you. I' ll make that
22 brief because I don' t know how much voice I have
left . I did submit plans to you, does the Board
23 have questions? Let' s start at that point .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want me
24 to comment?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I see
before us, Mrs . Mesiano, is a less than a fill in
October 21, 2004
26
1
2 deck on the rear portion of the house, with a
portion of that deck cut away and the silhouette
3 of a gunite swimming pool at somewhat ground
level . How much elevated with that gunite pool
4 be?
MS . MESIANO: Most likely no more than two
5 feet .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Basically you' re
6 straightening your grade out and placing this pool
in the same location that the questionable
7 above-ground pool was there before?
MS . MESIANO: Basically. It required a
8 little more elbow room around the pool because
going from the steel wall pool to the gunite pool
9 requires a greater excavation area and some
retaining wall area, which is why the area is
10 somewhat expanded. We have held the side yard but
I just should note that we did increase -- excuse
11 me, decrease the distance from the top of the
bluff to the seaward most point of our proposed
12 activity to 80 feet to allow us to have room to
install a low retaining wall in conjunction with
13 the construction of the gunite pool .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Mesiano,
14 will that retaining wall go across the entire
front of the reconstruction of the wood deck on
15 the house, or will it mainly be on the north
easterly side?
16 MS . MESIANO: It should only be around the
new pool and deck area. There' s no reason to
17 extend it to the existing deck. We only want to
rebuild that existing deck.
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The elevation of
that wall above grade will only be to the degree I
19 mentioned to you before you came back and said
approximately 24 inches?
20 MS . MESIANO: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This pool is an
21 in-ground pool but because of the topography on
one side you' re raising the grade on one side to
22 make it an in-ground pool, correct?
MS . MESIANO: Yes .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . I
25 guess all in the end here it' s a question of
whether you call this an in-ground pool or an
October 21, 2004
27
1
2 above-ground pool? This is an in-ground pool, I
don' t think you can make a gunite --
3 MS . MESIANO: And again, I think we should
reiterate that we' re here for a variance for a
4 setback from the bluff .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : My concern was the
5 homeowner' s association.
MS . MESIANO: That I think is a matter
6 for --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree, that' s a
7 matter for somebody else, but it' s too bad that we
can' t honor that .
8 MS . MESIANO: I think we've come as close
as possible to conformity with that in that the
9 proposed pool is a gunite structure that will be
beneath the existing grade and because of the
10 topography there will have to be some fill brought
in but essentially the structure is subgrade . The
11 entire structure will be lower than the existing
deck. So for all intents and purposes it' s being
12 a gunite pool subgrade .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
13 audience that wishes to comment on this
application? Jerry, do you have more?
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
MS . MESIANO: I would like to submit a
15 letter to the Board from Mrs . Ferrell . She has a
family medical emergency that she' s dealing with
16 (handing) .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in
17 the audience wish to comment on this application?
If not, I' d like to close the hearing and reserve
18 decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
19 --------=----------------------------------------
(Brief recess . )
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
James and Eileen Buglion for a front yard setback
21 at less than 40 feet at Clearview Avenue and
Gegan' s Landing. Is there someone here to speak
22 to this?
MR. BULLION: I'm James Buglion, the
23 applicant . Basically the house, we want to
increase the front porch by three and-a-half feet
24 and the front of that house, according to the
diagrams and photos, faces the wooded section of
25 Mr. Johnson' s house . I should preface this by
saying that all the packets were sent out and
October 21, 2004
28
1
2 Mr. Shoenbacher was here, and he did not have a
card, I explained it to Linda and she understands .
3 All the neighbors did receive their packets . I
also listed on my posting a picture of the house
4 and laminated it, and everything there is
documented.
5 Basically that' s what I'm trying to do,
increase the front porch by three and-a-half feet
6 both aesthetically, because it' s a small house,
it' s 30 by 40 , I'm trying to dress it up a little,
7 give it some dimension, and my wife had the issue
of the kids running around, it would be too small
8 for them. That' s it, I'm sure you have questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the distance
9 from the steps to the Gegan' s Landing from the end
of your property?
10 MR. BUGLION: I didn' t compute that . I
didn' t think the steps came into the equation.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would just like to
have it for the record. I know the steps are
12 exempt .
MS . KOWALSKI : Are the steps 8 by 10 or 8
13 by 8?
MR. BUGLION: The steps are 8 by 10 .
14 MS . KOWALSKI : That' s why they need the
setback to the bottom step because it' s larger
15 than average .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We can address
16 that in the decision if he so chooses to say that
and state that the steps are and the part that
17 he' s requesting is 36 feet .
MR. BUGLION: Right . That would be
18 agreeable and the stipulation would be fine .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If we just decreased it
19 to what, 5 by 6?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s 8 by 8 .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s 8 by 10 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying
21 it does not affect the variance aspect, if he
tends to go with that and the Board wants to grant
22 him the steps, we can write the decision in the
duplicate manner.
23 MS . KOWALSKI : That' s why the question was
asked for the size and for the record, the setback
24 is 10 feet out, Mr. Buglion, it would be a 26 foot
setback.
25 MR. BULLION: Correct . The other problem
is it' s a high house because we put the garage
October 21, 2004
29
1 1
2 underneath the house, we have such a small
footprint, so the steps are going to be steep .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They are . And you had
to build up because of FEMA, it really looks like,
4 but it' s not your fault .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the steps are
5 80 square feet . They' re 10 feet wide and 8 feet
deep?
6 MR. BUGLION: Yes . I could check with the
builder, I could probably make them eight . I
7 don' t know what the rise is going to be, I'm not a
framer.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, anything else?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 36 feet as
9 depicted on the survey on the extension of Gegan' s
Landing Road as it exists right now; is that
i0 correct? In other words, we' re looking at those
porches as they exist on the house right now; are
11 they there already?
MR. BUGLION: The porch is up.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I
thought . So there' s no change in that side of the
13 house other than the finishing aspects of what we
see today?
14 MR. BULLION: That' s correct .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Meaning.
15 railings, decking.
MR. BUGLION: Right . I didn' t put the
16 footings in yet . We have temporary bracing until
we get this approval but there are no railings,
17 nothing else, and a good pair of temporary
steps .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I thought they were
temporary steps .
1.9 MR. BUGLION: Yes .
, BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And those
20 porches will remain open?.
MR. BULLION: They' re covered with
21 required railings .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in
25 the audience have any discussion on this
application?
October 21, 2004
30
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a series
of two porches, a lower porch and an upper porch?
3, MR. BUGLION: Yes, both the same
dimensions .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Both the same
dimensions, the first is on the first floor; the
5 second is on the second. And they' re running the
entire length of Gegan' s Landing Extension,
6 meaning the house?
MR. BULLION: It' s 40 foot .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve decision until
8 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
9 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
10 Jeanne LaPorta on Private Road in Orient .
MR. LAPORTA: Good morning, I am the
11 father of the owner/applicant and we' re here this
morning regarding 1995 Deitrich Road, it' s a
12 private road. I'm Alfred LaPorta.
The existing deck is in very bad condition
13 and we' re taking that existing deck down and
replacing that existing deck. The existing deck
14 is approximately 18 feet from the front property
line, and the deck towards the front property line
15 is the new deck will be over 20 feet . So we' re
actually asking for a reduction in the original
16 variance, and that' s basically what we' re here
for.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. LaPorta, I
18 was to the house, I don' t have any objection to
the application. The only objection that I have,
19 and it' s not going to be favorable to either you
or your daughter, is the fact that I find the
20 right of way extremely narrow, and I have to tell
you, I was almost run over by somebody there .
21 MR. LAPORTA: You mean the private road?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Somebody' s got
22 to widen that right of way. I don' t know how you
would get a fire truck down there .
23 MR. LAPORTA: We only have the right to
use that right of way. We' re not in charge of
24 that, and we don' t own that right of way, that
right of way is actually owned by Ms . Abbot .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Dorothea Abbot?
MR. LAPORTA: Yes .
October 21, 2004
31
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you only have the
right to use that right of way, you have no
3 jurisdiction over it?
MR. LAPORTA: Right, we have no
4 jurisdiction over it .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Somebody' s got
5 to cut that right of way back.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It goes back to
the 280A aspects . I'm not asking to go into that
7 to any degree at this point, but I think within
the decision it should be stated that the property
8 has got to be 15 feet wide for clearance .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s supposed to be .
9 It' s got to be 15 by 15 . That' s not your problem.
MR. LAPORTA: That' s correct, but I think
10 the road is approximately 15 . I don' t have it on
my survey, but it' s approximately 15 feet .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s pretty narrow,
rutty.
12 MR. LAPORTA: The thing that makes it
appear narrow is the brush on either side .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s what has to be
cleared because of fire and ambulance access, two
14 properties, I think it is in the code, it should
be cleared 15 feet wide and --
15 MR. LAPORTA: I know Miss Abbot does have
someone come occasionally there clipping the
16 branches .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Vincent?
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia.
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, if I put in the
decision the right of way must be widened to meet
19 the code; would that be acceptable to you?
MR. LAPORTA: It wouldn' t be acceptable to
20 me because I have no authority or control over
that road. It' s a separate issue completely from
21 our application.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have the sinking
22 feeling that it' s going to probably be a condition
in this decision.
23 MR. LAPORTA: It is not relevant to this
decision.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I disagree .
MS . KOWALSKI : You might have to contact
25 the owner of the right of way.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
October 21, 2004
32
1
2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I would not agree
to put that as a condition into this because the
3 man has no control of the right of way. He does
not have fee title or ownership to it . Kieran?
4 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: He doesn' t
have control over it, but I query whether the
5 Building Department will require the right of way
to be expanded.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To the owner, which is
Miss Abbot .
7 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: My question is
is the Building Department going to grant permit
8 on this application if the right of way doesn' t
meet code . So the applicant may be put in a
9 difficult condition, where you may get your
variance, but I don' t know whether the Building
10 Department will grant that permit until the right
of way is increased.
11 MR. LAPORTA: Actually, we don' t have any
factual information which establishes that that
12 right of way is not proper. Right now it' s just
your feeling that the dimensions of it are not
13 proper. But we don' t have any factual information
before you on which you can make that decision.
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s why I said
the right of way must be widened to meet the code .
15 Because the person that makes that decision is
going to be the person that gives you the building
16 permit .
MR. LAPORTA: To say it has to be widened
17 has an assumption that it' s not wide enough, and
you don' t have enough factual information before
18 you now to make that assumption.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we' re going
19 down a real slippery path because what we need to
do is to hold this hearing until you present us
20 with that evidence or just let the Building
Department make the decision, or we can leave it
21 out . My preference is to leave it out . The Board
Member did say what he wanted, when we make our
22 decisions, you' re not present --
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: He can be .
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He can' t testify.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it would be
24 better when we decide to grant or not to grant, to
leave that open and for us as a Board to write a
25 note to the code enforcement officers to contact
that owner of the right of way stating that it is
October 21, 2004
33
1
2 stated in the code that it should be inspected and
brought up to the code standards . That is not
3 your problem.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm going to leave
4 that out of the decision.
MS . KOWALSKI : Are you going to extend the
5 hearing or ,close the hearing?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
6 audience that would like to speak on this
application? If not, then I' ll make a motion
7 closing the hearing and reserving decision until
later.
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
(See minutes for resolution. )
9 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Jimmy
10 Falbo to reconstruct a house on Sound Avenue in
Mattituck on a very narrow lot . Is there anyone
11 here who would like to -- hi, how are you?
MR. FALBO: Hi, I'm Jim Falbo from 10120
12 Sound Avenue, Mattituck.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir.
13 MR. FALBO: It' s not actually a house
that' s there now. It' s a mobile home that was put
14 there in the 160s, very narrow, very old,
basically falling down. It' s on a full cinder
15 block foundation, which is basically
disintegrating and falling apart, and my proposal.
16 is to get some side yard setbacks so I can
demolish the mobile home that' s there completely
17 including the foundation, the old septic system
and construct a new dwelling on there .at the
18 dimensions of the survey plans that I gave you. .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
19 MR. FALBO: It' s a one and-a-half bedroom
mobile home that I purchased a couple years ago,
20 and it' s only myself and my one son right now, my
other son is presently serving in Iraq in the Army
21 Reserve, he' ll be home in a year I hope, and I
want to make sure we have a bedroom for him when
22 he gets home .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no .
questions .
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions . I
25 think it will be an improvement .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
October 21, 2004
34
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The proposed
building is a one-story?
3 MR. FALBO: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No questions, good
4 luck.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to be
the person that' s a little different . I know the
6 person that built the building, I went to school
with him, not that it makes any difference . I
7 don' t understand why one of the side yards can' t
be conforming, Mr. Falbo.
8 MR. FALBO: It' s an inline ranch. It
shows a small, open wraparound porch in the front,
9 which I figure would make the house look a little
more aesthetic to the area rather than have a
10 perfectly rectangular house, like a shoe box. It
would add a little character to the house and the
11 property itself . I believe it' s only about eight
foot long on that one side .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to be
the opposed person because I fight the fires in
13 Mattituck. I represent myself as being a fireman
for 35 years, and I assure you that 10 feet is not
14 without question on one of those side yards, and
that 10 feet has to remain open and unobstructed
15 and that' s the story.
MR. FALBO: So can it be shifted to one
16 side to give you 10 feet?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Five feet is
17 very narrow also. I'm telling you that the
building has to be reduced. That' s my opinion,
18 I'm not speaking for the Board. That is going to
be my proposal before the Board when we go to
19 deliberate on this application. That is 10 and
five, which is a total of 15, and that' s not
20 unreasonable, you've got jogs in the house, which
I do appreciate the fact that you want to not
21 create a box-type of situation, but it is a small
piece of property, and I'm just telling you that
22 it' s going to be a nay if it' s this one from me,
unless you have 10 feet minimum, and that' s it .
23 You have a long narrow lot but you can go back
farther so that' s the story.
24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Jerry, you want six
inches on the east side?
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s 9' 1" on the
other side, it should be 10 feet . If it' s going
October 21, 2004
35
1
2 to be 10 feet and we' re looking at it on the east
side, it should be 10 feet .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ten feet instead of
9' 1" .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Instead of
911" . It' s got to be 10 feet . You have to have
5 at least one conforming side yard. I don' t have
any particular objection with the size of the
6 property next door that he goes for 5 . 1 on the
west side .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be reduced
if he moves the other nine inches or so .
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re looking at
41111 , 1011" . Just slide it over a foot .
9 MS . KOWALSKI : Are you saying reduce the
five foot to four foot?
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just make the
house longer. He' s got a lot 350 feet long here .
11 This is not a 100 by 50 lot .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The proposed
12 dwelling is 28 by 62 . You can' t build 27, which
would give you 10 feet .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Whatever he has
to do, he has to do. I have to tell you on a
14 normal 50 foot lot a 24 by 36 foot house, which
could be 24 by 40 , it could be 24 by 50 , whatever
15 you want to make it, conforms to the 10 and 15
side yard. I' ll go along with the one side yard
16 reduced to 5' 111 , but I can' t go along with the
other.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What do we gain with 11
inches?
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The ability to
get vehicles in and out .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Emergency vehicles .
MS . KOWALSKI : There a fence there now?
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s all overgrown.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment on
21 that?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can comment
22 on anything.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Talking about . 9 ,
23 whatever that happens to be?� 10 inches that' s not
going to make a difference to any fireman or fire
24 vehicles .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The fire trucks
25 are 11 feet wide .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Did you read the
October 21, 2004
36
1
2 paper last week? There was a fire on Sterling
Street in Greenport . I happened to attend that
3 fire because I lived in that house . That house
was built right on the property line, you know
4 what? We fought the fire . We' re talking about
the guy' s made plans, he' s probably already got
5 his plans for the house . He knows what he wants .
We' re talking about, because you' re going to get a
6 fire truck to go into the side to the back of this
house, which I don' t believe anybody would in
7 their right mind would drive a fire truck on any
kind of ground.
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn' t say
we' re driving a fire truck.
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What are we talking
about here, maybe some fire hoses going around the
10 back. Go on the other person' s property. I don' t
think that should be a reason why, and I just
11 think that that' s a red herring. I think he made
his plans . I think it' s disingenuous . I think
12 it' s almost arrogant to say, make the house
smaller.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He didn' t say that,
Jim, he didn' t .
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn' t say
make the house smaller, I said make it longer.
15 You don' t listen.
MR. FALBO: That' s going to deviate from
16 my house plans . I also was a fireman, an ex-chief
of a fire department for 25 years and we fought
17 fires where we could barely fit between the house
and fence to get a hose around to the rear of the
18 house, and stuff like that . We really never had a
problem. Like the gentleman said, already the
19 plans have been submitted. I would have to get an
architect, new set of plans and start from scratch
20 all over again for 10 inches or whatever it comes
out to be .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I already spoke . I
22 didn' t have a problem with the house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? I make a motion
23 closing the hearing and reserving decision until
later.
24 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: . Our next hearing is for
Gotbetter and Ramis at Diamond Lane on Sound
October 21, 2004
37
1
2 Avenue in Peconic .
MS . GOTBETTER: Good morning, my name is
3 Marion Gotbetter and this is Carmen Ramis . We
co-own the home at 425 Diamond Lane in Peconic .
4 We don' t have a lot to say. We have lived in the
house for about nine years . We now live here half
5 time . We' re planning eventually to live here full
time . The house is pretty small . We want to keep
6 with the aesthetics of the house and keep it
fairly modest . We' re going to finish the upstairs
7 attic, put a master bedroom and bath, and we would
like to add a garage, which I think is most at
8 issue here. Our restrictions are that we have two
front yards where our rear yard is a steep, steep
9 slope down to the sound, we can' t put the garage
there, and the access to the house and where the
10 garage would be there' s only really one way to get
there . So we' re asking for a modest garage . Our
11 car keeps getting pelted and pounded, and we' ve
lost several windshields . We don' t have a
12 basement we' d like more storage and that' s
basically it . The only thing within the house
13 that would be expanding, the garage would be
attached and we want to expand a foyer area
14 because right now we walk right into the kitchen
so we thought it would be a good opportunity to
15 give us an entry way.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because you don' t have
16 enough room to get in. Jerry, do you have any
comments?
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You were the
ladies we met two years ago?
18 MS . GOTBETTER: Yes, we spent a lot of
time and effort preserving the area and we' re
19 committed to being there and keeping it the way it
is . You saw us with the Trustees .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One thing' s for
sure that because of the nature of this property,
21 it really doesn' t have a specific impact on
anything. Because of your setback away from the
22 water and because of the fact that it' s a private
road that really services a couple of houses .
23 MS . GOTBETTER: This really has no impact
on any of our neighbors . It' s just really our
24 property.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My one question, it
October 21, 2004
38
1
2 looks like just a portion of your garage needs a
variance, correct, as I read it? Probably 75
3 percent of it has a 40 foot setback; is that
correct?
4 MS . GOTBETTER: There' s two front yards .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The private road is
5 also your front yard?
MR. RAMIS : Yes, we do have two front
6 yards even though Diamond Lane doesn' t exist,
that' s why probably 75 percent of the garage would
7 be sitting in the front yard. But we are trying
to maintain a 20 foot setback from this private
8 road,
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:. Which has never been
9 cut through anyway. It goes down that slope .
MS . GOTBETTER: It' s just a foot path and
10 the other side is our driveway.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And if you extended
11 that road, you' d end up in the wetlands . So I
don' t see any reason why that' s going to happen.
12 MS . GOTBETTER: No, please . Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nice area down there .
15 I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
16 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is James
and Maura O'Malley on Mill Road in Peconic .
18 MR. MCGANN: Good morning, my name is Doug
McGann. I've been working on the O'Malleys for
19 the last year on a project to build a log cabin on
their lot on the corner of Mill Avenue and Miami
20 Lane in Peconic . We applied for a building permit
after getting the plans together, and then applied
21 for a county board of health permit . And we
needed to do a test hole to get that permit . We
22 did a test hole and the test hole revealed a large
clay layer and the county required us to do an
23 excavation inspection. We did an excavation
inspection, which took a long time, in order to
24 get a building permit, and this excavation
inspection got rather involved, had to dig a hole
25 56 feet deep through the clay layer, several large
pieces of equipment, two excavators and a crane
/ October 21, 2004
39
1
2 all positioned on this lot . And we finally got
the approval after doing this and filling it with
3 sand.
Then we went to file a permit and found
4 that we needed a waiver of merger because the lots
that have been in the family since the beginning
5 of time as far as I know, were merged by the Town.
The O'Malleys are going to speak more
6 about the property. They own four lots that are
actually two lots with two parcels on each lot,
7 _all with separate tax bills, and they were unaware
that they were merged until we applied for this
8 permit . That' s why we' re here, to apply for a
waiver of merger.
9 Since that time I know there' s been quite
a bit of opposition to the waiver of merger, and
10 I'm not sure the opposition is for the waiver of
merger. I think it' s more an opposition of what
11 we've done to the property there, which is created
quite a mighty mess .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, we saw it .
MR. MCGANN: The rain, it' s been a very
13 wet summer, it hasn' t helped us out . Their
intention is to build a log home there, and
14 landscape it with plenty of trees and restore that
road to its condition. I went down and looked at
15 the road yesterday, first time I've been there for
I, a month. I see some of the silt from the lot has
16 gone over the stone, Miami Avenue, and I will
restore that road this week with gravel and hay
17 bails to prevent any further rain damage to Miami
Avenue . We are here to request a variance for a
18 waiver of merger.
I' d like to have Mrs . O'Malley speak about
19 the chain of deed for that piece of property.
Before I do, I just want to give the Board a
20 picture of what the excavation was and how deep
the hole had to be .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
MRS . O'MALLEY: I 'm Maura McGuire
22 O' Malley, this is my 'husband Jim and my parents,
Eileen and Ed McGuire .
23 My mother actually bought the lots on
Miami Avenue corner.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 13 and 14?
MRS . O'MALLEY: Exactly. About 50 years
25 ago, it will be 50 years ago April, with the
intention of building on those lots . Twice in the
October 21, 2004
40
1
2 first couple of years my father had those lots
cleared to build on. But in the interim, a couple
3 of years after they bought the lots, the house,
the white cottage that they' re in now on 10 and
4 11, was up for sale and my father' s mother, who
lived in Mastic Beach, bought that cottage with
5 the expectation of living there to be close to
US . Before we had a chance to build, both times
6 when my father had the lots cleared, his company
actually went on strike . It' s a whole thing, we
7 all know about this, and they didn' t have the
money to put the house up on the Miami Avenue
8 lots . Then shortly after, a couple years after my
grandmother bought the house on Mill Lane, she
9 died, and we started using that as a summer house .
But my mother was the one who actually bought the
10 lots on Miami Avenue, and though they saw the lot
with the cottage, those were two lots .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 10 And 11?
MRS . O'MALLEY: 10 and 11 . There' s two 50
12 foot lots, and we always saw that as one parcel of
land that was my grandmother' s property and the
13 other two lots face on Miami Avenue, 12 and 13 ,
were considered other lots . That was an
14 undeveloped lot, the other was cleared and the
house lot . So, when my husband and I have been
15 planning to move here, my husband is retired, I 'm
a nurse . I'm in the process of getting nurse my
16 practitioner, I' ll be graduating in a year and my
kids are graduating from college . So we had
17 planned for a while to move to Peconic, and my
mother suggested, why don' t you build on the Miami
18 Avenue lots . Especially now that my father' s not
driving and they both need people around .to just
19 be available for them, and everyone in the family
thought that that would be the perfect solution
20 meeting everyone' s needs really. So that' s what
happened.
2-1 She transferred the deeds over to us, and
when we went to Riverhead to post those deeds, we
22 thought that was the process of whatever had to be
done so we proceeded with getting the septic
23 system set up, and that was started back in June,
and we thought that would be a couple week
24 process, and it ended up going on for 10 weeks .
We had to get more and more equipment in then we
25 had that all set and had to go for the building
permit and that' s when we found out that, in fact,
October 21, 2004
41
1
2 the four lots were being seen as one rather than
the two and the two. So what we' re here today for
3 is to ask if those lots could be separated back
into the original two parcels .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do understand that
back in 1983 that any lots that were not in
5 different ownership were automatically merged. So
really all four lots have been merged since
6 1983 .
MRS . O'MALLEY: We understand that now,
7 but my parents because there were actually four
lots, two parcels in one part -- two lots to one
8 parcel and two lots to the other parcel .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They were in the same
9 name .
MRS . O'MALLEY: They didn' t come into the `
10 family in the same name . It was under Grace
McGuire bought the cottage and Eileen and Ed
11 bought the other one. They were bought in
different years.,, and we always just thought of
12 them as separate parcels . One is cleared land
with a house on it, the other was always my
13 mother' s lots, and that we didn' t understand that,
until even after we went to Riverhead we thought
14 that that was cleared then. Then it was in the
process of going for the building permit that we
15 realized that, in fact, it was being seen as one
parcel . So do you have any questions?
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, not now.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No.
18 MR. MCGANN: I just wanted to say a couple
of things . I have read all the letters from the
19 neighbors, and it' s disheartening to want to move
into a neighborhood where everyone' s against what
20 you want to do, but back when they built their
homes, their lots were also cleared, and it' s been
21 forgotten. I'm a builder in the area, and I clear
lots on a regular basis, and I have never, ever
22 cleared a lot and had the people come over happy
about it . When you get used to having a wooded
23 lot next to you for a long period of time, no
matter what you do to that lot is going to create
24 some bad feelings . This one certainly has done
that, and I agree with the people, it is a mess .
25 I 'm sorry about it, but it is only a temporary
problem. When it' s done the place will be
October 21, 2004
42
1
2 landscaped. It will be much nicer than it was .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For the record, you had
3 to clear that land for the Board of Health.
MR. MCGANN: Exactly. You can see from
4 the pictures . They had to build a ramp 30 feet
long to get the excavator 18 feet down to dig to
5 the 56 foot line . You can' t do that in a tight
area.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand.
MR. MCGANN: I totally agree with the
7 neighbors, all the problems, the dirt and
everything, I completely plan on rectifying
8 everything that' s there .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just need to
9 ask who Grace was?
MRS . O'MALLEY: Grace was my father' s
10 mother, and this is my mother. Grace owned the
cottage lots, where is house is now, and my mother
11 bought the wooded lots before Grace . Grace only
bought the cottage in order to be near us because
12 we were building, and then she died a few years
later. In fact, my father cleared the lots twice
13 to build, but couldn' t get the house built at that
time . Then my grandmother died, and we started
14 using that house . It wasn' t exactly what they
planned on using, but we never got to build on the
15 other one . Everyone in the family knew that that
was my mother' s lot and it would be built on. If
16 grandmother had bought two lots down, she would
have, whatever came up she bought on. But to us
17 it was always separate . Then it wouldn' t have
been an issue of being attached because we never
18 thought of them as being attached.
MR. MCGANN: There' s no issue as far as
19 setbacks go. The proposed house is well within
the guidelines of all the setbacks on the lot, not
20 undersized.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you have copies
22 of the tax bills?
MRS . O'MALLEY: With us?
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. You could send
them.
24 MRS . O'MALLEY: They' re here . We could
provide those . The tax bills came in four
25 separate lots .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Each year?
October 21, 2004
43
1
2 MR. MCGUIRE : For the last 50 years .
MRS . O'MALLEY: Mom, as far as the tax
3 bills, they' re asking if you have copies and if
they come in separate .
4 MRS . MCGUIRE : No, they don' t come in
separate .
5 MRS . O'MALLEY: Do they come in for one
lot?
6 MRS . MCGUIRE : One, two, three, four lots .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Four separate
7 pieces of paper?
MR. MCGUIRE : Right, exactly.
8 MRS . MCGUIRE: My hearing' s impaired.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I want to see if
9 anybody else in the audience has any comments on
this application?
10 MR. HIGGINS : Good morning, my name is
Bill Higgins . I received a letter from the Zoning
11 Board of Appeals regarding this situation. I live
at 25 Miami Avenue. I have lived there since
12 1993 . My property is south of the property in
question along Miami Avenue .
13 When I purchased my home in 1993 , I had
been told by several people that the property in
14 question could not be built on, it was one of the
reasons I bought my home . I'm testifying on
15 behalf of my neighbors on Miami Avenue, which
there are only five neighbors on Miami, Molly Kurz
16 is here on her own time, Seymour Brooks, Bob
Messimo, all neighbors, all concerned about what' s
17 happening on Miami Avenue . I' d like to relay a
series of events which will substantiate my
18 position on the matter and the position of my
neighbors .
19 I do find it kind of uncomfortable to
align myself against a neighbor, Ed and Eileen
20 McGuire who I've known and I 've got along with
very well for all these years, but I feel what' s
21 been going on there has pushed us into a corner,
and we have no other position but to oppose
22 this . I' ll relay some of the facts of the case .
Sometime in June an entry was made into
23 the property in question, and construction
vehicles and equipment went into the property to
24 do some type of work. Nobody on Miami Avenue
objected to that, that entry, to do whatever they
25 had to do. Later on, around June 11, I arrived at
my home, and I discovered that the entire lot then
October 21, 2004
44
1
2 had been cleared. Beyond that, beyond the
property line of that lot, the entire north side
3 of Miami Avenue had been mowed down, every tree,
every bush, every blade of grass . Miami Avenue is
4 50 feet wide, there' s a 10 foot road bed and 20
feet, I would call a buffer zone north and south
5 of the road. It was this buffer zone on the north
side, which is 20 feet wide and about 200 feet
6 long, was completely obliterated. When the
property was cleared, I discovered there was a
7 large pit, at 'least 10 by 10 feet wide, which Mr.
McGann now seems to indicate it was 56 feet deep .
8 It was unsecured. I have eight grandchildren that
run around the property. I know Pat Sitler has a
9 daughter who runs around the area. I felt it was
a dangerous condition, very dangerous . I then
10 called the police, the police arrived, they
examined the hole, and they felt too it was a
11 dangerous condition. They then contacted the
Building Department, and Mr. McGann who
12 subsequently had ,to come down and secure this pit .
Now, I would just like to show you some
13 photos of before and after, on Miami Avenue, with
your permission?
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
MR. HIGGINS : Before and after this 20
15 foot zone, 20 foot by 200 zone, which was a
private road. We consulted with the highway
16 department and town attorney and we were led to
believe that all that roadway was shared with
17 residents on the avenue . Here' s the before, you
can see the trees, and on this, this is the after
18 where you can see everything.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Can we keep that
19 for the record?
MR. HIGGINS : Yes, you can keep it . This
20 is the pit in question.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: These excavation pits
21 can be nasty, we've had experience with those,
sir, but they are legal .
22 MR. HIGGINS : So, when the police arrived
they instructed Mr. McGann to secure the pit . At
23 that time Mr. McGann told me that I was out of
line -for calling the police . I then showed him
24 the survey markers where the property, the
McGuire' s property ended, and showed him 20 feet
25 wide, 200 , what was the purpose in removing all of
the trees and the shrubbery that had been
October 21, 2004
45
1
2 there . It was beyond their property line . His
reply was I' ll do any damn thing I want to build
3 this house . I asked him what would he do if
somebody did something like this on his block.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would just like to
remind you that the hearing is not on the
5 excavation or what happened with that lot . It is
strictly on the waiver of merger.
6 MR. HIGGINS : These are some of the
reasons we' re opposing this, the unsafe conditions
7 is one of them. The destruction of the property
on Miami Avenue that' s shared by us . The way the
8 property' s been maintained Mr. McGann mentions
about the runoff of the property, that' s been
9 since June and recently we had to contact the
highway department to come down and sweep Miami
10 Avenue and Mill Lane because so much sand had
accumulated in the roadway it became a dangerous
11 situation, cars were skidding on it . Mr. King
from the highway department came down, examined
12 the area and felt it had to be swept . And he in
turn mentioned that he thought there should have
13 been bales of hay along the property line to
prevent the runoff . As a result of the runoff mud
14 and sand went down Miami Avenue and into
Goldsmith' s Inlet contributing to pollution of the
15 inlet . If you don' t mind, I' ll show you some more
exhibits which shows the mud hole, going down
16 Miami Avenue and you can see the clear brown line
that extends of silt from one end of Goldsmith' s
17 Inlet to the other end of goldsmith' s Inlet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I appreciate your
18 concern, but again, our hearing is on the waiver
of merger. Do you object to the waiver of merger
19 in order for them to build a house or not build a
house? I sympathize with you on this occurrence,
20 but that is not the matter of our hearing today.
MR. HIGGINS : At this time based on this
21 and other things that have been done to the
environment, I would object and on behalf of my
22 neighbors that are here, and it' s not just a
question of Mr. McGann says of restoring the road
23 or grading the road out . There were large trees
that have been there maybe 100 years that are
24 gone . Aside from that, there' s the application to
the permit we had some questions about . On the
25 application it says, does proposed construction
violate any zoning or ordinance regulation; it
October 21, 2004
46
1
2 says no'. It appears that was a deceptive answer.
Another question is, is this property within 100
3 feet of a tidal wetland, that was answered no, and
I think it is probably about five feet beyond 100 ,
4 but the other part of the question is, is this
property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland, that
5 question was not answered and it' s only within
about 105 feet of Goldsmith' s Inlet, which I
6 believe is a tidal wetlands . Again, it seems to
be deceptive .
7 And I would say in closing, we feel that
because of the way the environment has been
8 altered and the unmerging of the lots and
possibly -- well, building a new house and
9 rebuilding the adjacent cottage would have an
impact on the environment and the scenic aura of
10 the neighborhood which brought us to live
there . And the unmerging and building is in
11 opposition to the Town of Southold' s philosophy to
preserve open space, and I think that' s about it
12 for me .
Pat is here . I know she received a letter
13 from you folks . Thanks for giving me some time to
address you.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. Yes,
ma' am.
15 MRS . SITLER: My name is Pat Sitler. I
live at 2460 Mill Lane, which is directly across
16 the street from the property in question. I live
on Goldsmith' s Inlet and I have sent a
17 correspondence detailing all of my objections . I
hope everyone has had the chance to review it . I
18 also am very concerned and I feel very badly to
have to oppose this to my neighbors . I feel very
19 sad about this situation.
When I bought this property many, many
20 years ago, I got to see their tiny little cottage
and they came to see my tiny little cottage .
21 That' s the character of the land that I thought
was going to be preserved. And I won' t go through
22 all of the details of why this is so emotional to
me because you have that information before you.
23 However, when I saw a surveyor come out to my
house and ask me where my well was and where my
24 cesspool was, and I told that person I did not
know what was going on; and he told me that people
25 were intending to build a house across the street .
Now, I was in shock because as far as I knew it
October 21, 2004
47
1
2 was one large property. He said don' t get too
upset because ,they can' t just do this . They' re
3 going to have a problem building this well . The
way I look at it, they' re going to have to go way
4 down and they' re going to have to merge the
properties to do it . When I heard today that it
5 was a total shock that these were not four
separate lots, that' s very difficult for me to
6 understand. And I'm not looking to get the person
who did the survey in trouble, but they knew that
7 day, the surveyor told me it' s going to be a heck
of a time to try to build any kind of well here,
8 you' re going to have to go way, way down; the lots
are not in very good shape for it, and they' re
9 going to have to do some property merging.
When I saw this hole in the ground, I
10 immediately called the police because while I
supervise my daughter very closely when I'm out
11 there, and I happen to work for the county police
department, while I supervise my daughter very
12 closely, that' s not always the case . It was
completely unsecured. I called the Building
13 Department to find out why there was no permit,
and he told me that they were going to have to do
14 a test well, and that rarely is it a very large
period of time or a large area. Well, I knew it
15 was going to be a large area because the man who
had done the survey for them told ,me that it
16 wasn' t going to go well . So why there' s all this
shock that huge amounts of equipment were going to
17 have to be brought in. This is to me -- I don' t
want to call my neighbors liars because I don' t do
18 that, but to say that all this is happening after
the fact and everybody was shocked that you have
19 to bring in this equipment, I don' t see how that
can be . I can' t cut a phragmites on my property
20 without getting a permit . I've let everything
grow up. I've let nature take its course . I
21 respect what the Town Trustees have done to try to
preserve Goldsmith' s Inlet . I have Peconic Trust
22 parkland on one side of me . I have Peconic Trust
parkland on the other side of me, and now I have
23 half of Miami Avenue, which has strewn down the
road because of what was done . Nothing can make
24 up for the fact that the private property that was
owned beside Miami Avenue has been devastated.
25 When I bought my house, my broker, Lange,
told me that property does not belong to you, that
October 21, 2004
48
l
2 property belongs to Miami Avenue, and the minute I
came in those people asked me, did I know that,
3 and I said yes, and I respected that . Instead,
what we have here, and sad as it is -- I thought
4 when you came out and saw the devastation that was
done that you would be shocked --
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Please address the
Board not the parties .
6 MRS . SITLER: Excuse me, but they' re very
rarely there now, and I understand that, I'm very
7 rarely there, but instead more and more got done
to the property. So I'm saying, what is the
8 situation here . They did know -- in my opinion
from what I was told by the surveyor -- that this
9 is going to be a tremendous job. The surveyor
told me he didn' t think they would ever be able to
10 get it done, and now because they've invested all
of this money into it, they' re asking for the
11 variance to me after the fact, and I think that
they' re doing that and again, sad to say, because
12 had they asked for it up front, it wouldn' t have
happened. And I' d like to hear how did they find
13 out where my cesspool is when I don' t know it .
It' s not on my survey. Has that been verified?
14 Can I ask?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don' t know that .
15 That' s not in our jurisdiction, that' s with the
County Board of Health.
16 MRS . SITLER: Basically the information
that' s provided says that was either done by
17 surveys or information from others .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Again, this hearing is
18 for a waiver of merger. It' s not for the
devastation on Miami Avenue, which I 'm sympathetic
19 to, or the trouble it' s caused you, or what the
surveyor said, that is not in our jurisdiction
20 that' s immaterial to us . Our only concern is a
waiver of merger.
21 MRS . SITLER: Except haven' t they said
they didn' t know that they needed a merger?
22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Maybe I can shed
some light on this . This is not a variance . It' s
23 a provision that the Town Board created called a
"waiver of merger. " All of the lots in question
24 have been merged since, if the title search is
correct, which I'm sure it is, since 1955 and 163
25 through two separate purchases . So they have been
merged for a long time, at least since 1983 , when
October 21, 2004
49
1
2 the Town code changed. What does that mean? That
means it' s all one lot . What they' re here for is
3 to separate those lots and create a new building
lot, and the Town fathers instruct us to look at
4 five factors, and the five factors we' re supposed
to look at is if in granting the waiver of merger
5 it will create an increase in the density in the
neighborhood, and have a negative impact on the
6 neighborhood, that' s one . The second one is
whether it will avoid an economic hardship to the
7 applicants, of course, that' s another one .
Another of the criteria is that in creating this
8 lot there will not be any substantial filling or
change in contours or any negative impacts to the
9 environment, that is to the lot . So that' s kind
of a brief synopsis of why this is different from
10 a variance . Those are the criteria that we are
instructed to look at . That' s why the Chairwoman
11 keeps saying, yes, the Board is sympathetic to
what has happened to the road, but that is not
12 something that we can consider in our
deliberations .
13 MRS . SITLER: May I ask this : ' I 'm not
talking only about Miami Avenue, I'm talking about
14 you are increasing the density, you' re putting a
house where a house doesn' t need to be, where
15 unless you agree to do this, there shall be no
house . In addition, it isn' t just this house,
16 they' re planning on making the other house larger,
which, if they wanted to put on a little extra
17 room, I would have no problem with that, but
you' re talking about doubling the density there in
18 an extremely environmentally difficult area. We
are talking about now instead of the trees being
19 able to hold up all the dirt comes down there and
goes into Goldsmith' s Inlet that' s going to go
20 into my house and through to Goldsmith' s Inlet .
In addition to that, the only area that
21 they haven' t mowed down yet and you' re talking
about changing the contour to completely vegetated
22 to where you couldn' t see through, to nothing, is
the one strip on Mill Lane and that' s where
23 they' re actually proposing to do their driveway.
So now you' re talking about the one small piece
24 that' s left that goes exactly into the hundred
foot area, that is going to be mowed down too.
25 It' s hard for me to understand how this is
not changing the character of the neighborhood,
October 21, 2004
50
1
2 it' s completely changing it . You have Goldsmith' s
Inlet, Peconi.c Land Trust is on this side of me .
3 And there were phragmites on that property that' s
gone now. How can that not be endangering the
4 neighborhood? So it' s hard for me to understand
how what we' re proposing to you and saying is
5 there anyone here from the neighborhood to even
speak in favor of it? I don' t think so .
6 and you' re rewarding, in my opinion, if you let
them unmerge and then remerge, you are rewarding
7 them for doing it the opposite way instead of
coming before you and asking this and raising this
8 question before they did all this damage .
Thank you very much.
9 MRS . O'MALLEY: What I told you before is
really the truth, you don' t go about and get a
10 second piece of equipment until you find that you
go down as far as you can. I learned this as it
11 was being done . We went down as far as we could
with the equipment they used initially. Then they
12, had to wait and find somebody else with another
piece of equipment, then,. from what I understand,
13 the piece that finally got down -- and what the
purpose is to provide a septic system that won' t
14 have an environmental impact . It' s a better
septic system than anybody in that area' s going to
15 have . But it took a while to find the piece of
equipment to go down there . And that' s what we
16 were sitting around -- not sitting around -- I
live three hours away. My parents were there for
17 part of the time, but it is absolutely the truth
that it just took as long as it did, and the fact
18 is that when we took the deeds in to post it in
Riverhead, and they accepted the separate, there
19 was talk about that, but when they accepted it , we
said this is okay, what do we have to do, and
20 there was some question back and forth about the
31 feet on this, and then they said, okay,
21 separated is separated, and that' s what we
thought . It wasn' t any us going behind anyone' s
22 back. It does look like a mess, but I will tell
you that my parents and I saw the house that
23 Mr. Higgins owns now and lives in was built 20
years ago, that' s on Miami Avenue on Mill Lane
24 right opposite us . It was Chicakowski that built
it, I 'm not sure of the exact name, he does
25 landscape work here, and he built that house, and
my father and I said, you know, that house it' s
October 21, 2004
51
1
2 just sitting there on a barren lot it looked ugly;
within a year it was all landscaped beautiful .
3 It' s going to look beautiful and it' s going to
look natural . We' re not putting up a log home on
4 a barren lot .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, we' re so
5 behind. Is there anyone that would like comment
who hasn' t done so before? I'm sorry, yes, sir,
6 if it' s something that hasn' t been said before .
MR. O'MALLEY: I'm Jim O'Malley, my wife
7 spoke before, and basically I have feeling for my
neighbors, and when we visited the property after
8 it was cleared, we had asked that there were four
dogwoods that they try to avoid and they came down
9 too. Anyone driving into the area, it looked like
a bomb hit it .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. O'Malley, we' re
very sympathetic to all your problems and about
11 your neighbors problems, but our main concern, as
Mrs . Tortora said, is the waiver of merger, that' s
12 it . The other things while we' re sympathetic, we
have no jurisdiction there . I' d like to see if
13 any of the Board Members have any comments, but we .
really have to start moving along. Jerry?
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
17 close the hearing and reserve decision until
later. Thank you for coming.
18 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
Peter and Mary Jacobs on Gillette Drive in East
20 Marion.
MRS . JACOBS : Good afternoon, I 'm Mary
21 Jacobs and this is my husband Peter. I 'm still a
little confused about if I do need an additional
22 variance today regarding the setbacks . I know I'm
here today because of the lot coverage .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s one thing and
the other thing is when we scaled it out with the
24 ruler, it is 31 feet from the property line to
your house, which is not what your notice of
25 disapproval says .
MRS . JACOBS : Right .
October 21, 2004
52
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s four feet
for front yard or rear yard and you have to decide
3 whether you want to go ahead with it on a front
yard reduction or --
4 MRS . JACOBS : Is there any way we can
incorporate that into this hearing?
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . We will have to
readvertize it because it' s a different setback.
6 MRS . JACOBS : I just wanted to double
check, my builder, Stacy Bishop, said maybe I
7 could ask you.
MS . KOWALSKI : I don' t know 'how the Board
8 feels about it .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Setback wasn' t
9 advertised with the hearing. The setback was
discovered at a later time . The hearing was
10 advertised for lot coverage .
MS . KOWALSKI : Four foot closer to the
11 road.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They have the
12 option of moving the house back to a conforming
location; is that correct?
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. Because then they
wouldn' t meet the 35 feet in the back. They' re
14 going to need a variance no matter which way they
do it .
15 MS . KOWALSKI : Should they apply for a
front yard or rear yard setback?
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s their
option.
17 MS . KOWALSKI : You have to make that
decision, the Board won' t make that decision for
18 you, and 31 feet, I don' t know if the Board has
granted any at 31 feet from the road.
19 MRS . JACOBS : I appreciate that . So most
likely we' ll move back and try again. The porch
20 is the issue for both the setback and the lot
coverage . If we got rid of the porch there would
21 be no issue .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You could cut the
22 porch, then it wouldn' t leave you with much of a
porch. You' re talking essentially five feet,
23 unless you wanted to apply for a variance, maybe
you could redesign a little bit, it' s up to you,
24 really.
MRS . JACOBS : As far as this variance --
25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s why it' s
tough for us, because this is a brand new house
October 21, 2004
53
1
2 and the lot coverage is based on the footprint of
this house, and if you' re going to change the
3 house, the square footage may change, I can
certainly see that we can hold this .
4 MRS . JACOBS : I would appreciate that .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Maybe on the
5 calendar for next month at least take a look at it
at the same time .
6 MS . KOWALSKI : It would have to be
December, there' s no time .
7 MRS . JACOBS : We would be hoping to keep
it -- all our final plans we paid for, and we
8 would probably be coming back because Linda had
told
9 me -- I know you can' t say anything now, but it
would be more likely that we would get both
10 variances if we set the house back and shortened
our back yard.
11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Leave the existing
house like it is, then? It' s up to you. If you
12 want us to consider this that' s fine; if you want
us to wait, that' s fine too.
13 MS . KOWALSKI : We need to have the map
showing the new setback on the rear yard, so you
14 can have your surveyor show that . We can help you
with the next step so we can get you on the
15 calendar -- I don' t know how fast you can get it
from the surveyor, so that' s why I would recommend
16 a December 16th adjournment .
MRS . JACOBS : So we' re holding this
17 variance for then?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, we will still have
18 to address the 22 percent lot coverage instead of
the 20 percent .
19 MRS . JACOBS : We' ll on do that December
16th?
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
MRS . JACOBS : Thank you very much.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I need a motion to
postpone this hearing until December 16th.
22 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next one is for Yarosh
and Furlong on East Gillette Drive in East Marion.
24 MS . FURLONG: I am Sheila Furlong and this
is my husband Fred Yarosh and our daughter Kim who
25 is our architect for our proposed house . We own
the property at 1945 East Gillette Drive in East
October 21, 2004
54
1
2 Marion. We have owned it for about nine years .
Our intent when we bought it was to use it as a
3 summer house, weekend house until we retired. My
husband has since retired, and I plan to be
4 retiring in the next year or two, and we were
planning to move out to it and have it as a
5 permanent home .
Since we have lived there in the last nine
6 years, we've come to realize that it was not a
house that was built in a quality way. The design
7 was not the greatest, so we tried to determine
what we could do, whether we could make some
8 alterations, renovations, whatever. And we
consulted a couple of architects and found that it
9 would probably be just as economical or feasible
to take it down to its foundation and have it the
10 way that we would really want to have it designed.
It would work out economically about the same . So
11 we had a house designed that is basically the same
size . It' s all on the same footprint, same
12 foundation. The increase in side is minimal, so
we submitted these plans and Building Department,
13 as you know, turned it down and here we are this
morning. We sent out our letters . Out of the
14 five we sent out, we received four back, and I
called the one neighbor last night and they' re in
15 the midst of moving -- and we've spoken with them
several times -- they received it, looked at it,
16 they know all about it and they' re fine with it,
but they couldn' t find the green card for some
17 strange reason, that was all taken care of . And I
do have to say thank you to Linda in really,
18 really helping us getting all this organized.
It' s been unbelievable . We understand the problem
19 with our property is that we have those three
front yards again, and actually, one of the front
20 yards is on one of those wonderful private roads
that' s closed and you don' t know it' s a road. And
21 one of the other front yards is only a half of a
front yard is exposed to Cleave' s Point Road and
22 the rest is closed and is not used as a road.
Then we also had a proposal as a shed in what we
23 considered a rear yard or a side yard -- I'm so
confused as to what yard it is . Anyway, so we did
24 all of that and we're hoping it would go through,
and then we did receive a letter from our neighbor
25 behind us, Mr. George Siterakis, which I think you
have a copy of that letter, and Linda was kind
October 21, 2004
55
1
2 enough to fax it to us, to see that he did have
concerns about his ability to be able to see the
3 water, which we were unaware of, we did not know
that he' s had a water view in that sense . So my
4 husband tried to contact him over the weekend I
think three or four times, leaving a message with
5 him both at this house and .his home in Queens, and
never received a response from him because our
6 concern was in his letter he said something that
it would diminish his property value because he
7 would not have the view of the bay, and that he
wanted our application to be denied or disapproved
8 in its entirety. Anyway, as I said, we didn' t
receive a response from him. So we got a letter
9 off to let you know what we had done . And we've
included that here you can see there are several
10 different drawings as far as what we have
done . We' re thinking, we don' t know for sure but
11 that he was concerned that he didn' t have a water
view. He was concerned that he didn' t have a water
12 view.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
13 question? Does he have a scenic easement over
your property?
14 (Whereupon, Board Member Orlando left the
hearing. )
15 MS . FURLONG: Not that I'm aware of .
Would we have a copy of that?
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It would be in
your deed. I can tell you, they' re very rarely
17 granted.
MS . FURLONG: This is a letter we got off
18 the other day. I'm just going to read it briefly
for you. In response to George Siterakis' letter
19 to the Board dated October 14th, we would like to
share with you our concerns and suggestions for a
20 remedy. After reviewing Mr. Siterakis' letter, we
tried to reach him by phone in hopes of clarifying
21 his objections to our application for multiple
variances . We called him twice at his East Marion
22 address and twice at his Sunnyside, Queens
address . We left messages explaining that we were
23 calling to clarify and perhaps to meet in person.
As of today, which was October 18th, we have not
24 heard from him. In an attempt to identify what or
which parts of our construction he felt was
25 blocking his view of the bay, we visited the
property on Sunday, October 17th. We realized for
October 21, 2004
56
1 -
2 the first time that he does have a small view of
the water from the southeastern portion of his
3 property. Until this time, we did not know that
he had any view of the water. And as you look at
4 the pictures you can see that we didn' t realize
this because Cedar Lane, which is the road that' s
5 closed, is all overgrown and quite high,
especially in the summer. In an effort to
6 understand his request for disapproval in its
entirety, we staked out our property line, house
7 boundaries and the new shed location with the
assistance of our architect . It was determined
8 that the shed in its proposed location would block
his view. We did not see that any other part of
9 the construction that this variance application
pertains to would block his view. We have
10 attached photographs that you have that illustrate
this view through our property to the bay. It is
11 not our intention to block Mr. Siterakis' view of
the bay. We would therefore like to retract the
12 proposed shed from this variance application.
Since Mr. Siterakis did not specify what part of
13 our variance application he objected to, our
architect has prepared a drawing describing the
14 site lines, as you can see, to the bay from his
property across our property. The architect' s
15 drawing is included here for your review.
That' s what we' re here for. We' re here to
16 address those awful three front yards and the shed
and Mr. Siterakis' concern.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, any questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, not at the
18 moment, but since I have to write this --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are withdrawing the
19 application for the. shed?
MR. YAROSH: If that' s what his problem
20 is .
MS . KOWALSKI : 99 square feet for the
21 shed?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a
22 question? Are you normally out on the weekends?
MS . FURLONG: In the summer, yes . Fall,
23 some of it, and ,some of it in the spring time but
usually not in the winter, but we will be because
24 we' re going to be moving there in another year.
MR. YAROSH: We will be retiring, that' s
25 why we' re building.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to go
October 21, 2004
57
1
2 back there this weekend and see if I can
understand the entire application, so I can reduce
3 it to writing because that' s the problem that I
have . We do the findings and determinations for
4 the Board, and it' s done on an alphabetical
determination, I just happen to be lucky on this
5 one, and it has nothing to do with you, okay, but
if I have any questions, I might have to call your
6 daughter and ask her some specific questions,
could I possibly have your office number, ma' am?
7 MS . YAROSH: 631-871-2156 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia, any questions?
8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I just wanted
to -- I was looking over the prior on this one and
9 it appears that the Board granted a rear yard
setback on this in 1981 of 15 feet . So the rear
10 yard setback that they' re requesting is 14-6 is
what we' re talking about, six inches from what
11 was requested before, that' s all .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir, then?
13 MR. SITERAKIS : I'm George Siterakis, his
next door neighbor. So I just got here, I feel
14 very uncomfortable to say, but as they cover
everything, my problem is they block completely my
15 view to the bay. I don' t have any problem if the
extension they' re asking for to do on Cleave' s
16 Point Road is on the right side of the bay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your problem then is
17 the shed that will block the view?
MR. SITERAKIS : The shed, the fence they
18 propose to put over there, they' re all on my side,
so that' s all the really space I have to see the
19 bay. So they close it completely one hundred
percent . Any other place, I have no problem.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have no objections
to the rest of the house, just to the shed?
21 MR. SITERAKIS : The shed plus the house it
takes my view plus the fence . If they would be
22 the other side, I have no problem.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, ma' am.
23 MS . YAROSH: I'm Kim. I don' t have
anything to say except that we do suggest after
24 visiting the site, and recognizing what his view
was, which we took photographs of and drew the
25 diagram, we felt that taking the shed out would
completely open your view back up.
October 21, 2004
58
1
2 MR. SITERAKIS : Not exactly, but it helps
extending the house 11 feet .
3 MS . YAROSH: No, we' re not extending the
house at all, in fact, the house is completely on
4 the existing foundation.
MR. SITERAKIS : Then I have no problem, I
5 have the fence and the shed.
MS . YAROSH: The fence, as I understand
6 it, we don' t need a variance for, but we would be
perfectly willing to negotiate that with
7 Mr. Siterakis .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine . You can have
8 discussions with him then. So you will withdraw
the application for the shed?
9 MS . YAROSH: The shed, right . That' s what
we felt was the fair thing to do .
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s what your
i
letter says .
11 MS . YAROSH: An X through the shed. I
don' t know where we' re going to put all our junk.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have
anything to say? If not, I' ll close the hearing
13 and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution.)
14 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Christopher Mohr.
15 MR. MOHR: Good afternoon, my name is
Christopher Mohr. I 'm here just to request a
16 variance for an accessory building for my
commercial property up in Cutchogue .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, and that will
be just five foot from the rear yard line instead
18 of the required 70, but you are rather limited by
the size of your lot .
19 MR. MOHR: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm a little
confused. Is this the lot that the new
21 construction is being done on now?
MR. MOHR: Yes .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we' re
building an additional building to the rear?
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . How big is that
shed exactly?
24 MR. MOHR: 40 by 60 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It ' s a big shed.
25 MR. MOHR: I have a lot of equipment .
MS . KOWALSKI : It says 40 by 52 on the
October 21, 2004
59
1
2 plans . It' s 52?
MR. MOHR: Yes .
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s. a big
difference .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: . Is there any
reason it has to be so close to the rear property
5 line?
MR. MOHR: Where else?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It should be
pulled away at least -- it' s five and five now, it
7 should be 10 and 10 in my opinion. So it' s a one
story?
8 MR. MOHR: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And he still has room
9 to get his trucks in to bring his open bins for
the landscaping materials?
10 MR. MOHR: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even if you moved it
11 10 behind 10?
MR. MOHR: It should be . I have to go
12 remeasure, but I don' t think five feet' s going to
make that big a difference . I was just trying to
13 keep it as close as possible because I have a big
tractor trailer that I use to bring the mulch in
14 and out with.
MS . KOWALSKI : There' s the landfill
15 property behind it .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand it
16 but by the same token, it' s very tight back there .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no
questions .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You don' t think you
19 will have any problems throwing that extra five?
MR. MOHR: I don' t think so.
20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you can it would
be good.
21 MR. MOHR: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would anybody else like
22 to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll close
the hearing and reserve decision until later,
23 probably make it 10 and 10 .
(See minutes for resolution. )
24 -------------------------------------------------
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would like to
25 propose to the Board to do Goeller, Goggins and
Mullens, then leave Orient Fire District for
October 21, 2004
60
1
2 last . If we could take 20 minutes .
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken. )
3 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
4 Jane Goeller, at Fisherman' s Beach. I believe
Mr. Anderson here has all the information.
5 MR. ANDERSON: We' re here for an
application on behalf of Jane Goeller to build an
6 addition to her home . That addition consists of
an expansion of an existing bedroom to make it
7 large, it' s quite cramped, and the construction of
a family room, above . The expansion will take
8 place over an existing footprint, which is 11 feet
from the property line, will create no new
9 non-conformity but does run afoul of the Walz
interpretation, which is why I 'm here . I have
10 laid out all the arguments that are relevant, I
believe, in this case .
11 The essential facts are you' re at Fisherman' s
Beach Road in Nassau Point in an area where all
12 lots are non-conforming both with respect to area
and road .frontage, which makes them narrow. We
13 ,/ have a neighbor by the name of Channing who lives
next door, who is objecting on the basis upon loss
14 of light, loss of view and creation of a crowded
alley effect . What I need to draw your attention
15 to is that the construction proposed here is
further landward of the most seaward based wall of
16 the house, so we' re not pushing this thing out
closer to the water than the house is, not even
17 equal to the house . Second thing to understand is
we run the gable parallel with the property line
18 so that it slopes toward the property line, which
lessens the .impacts with respect to light and
19 breezes and so forth. Both properties have
unobstructed views of Cutchogue Harbor. They face
20 southwest because they face southwest . They run
parallel with the direction of winds so no one' s
21 going to lose air. Because they face southwest,
no one' s going to be shaded. In my opinion, the
22 objections raised are unwarranted.
The other interesting thing, and it' s all ,
23 laid out here, and I doubt the Channings even
realize this but the Channing lot was created by a
24 variance granted by this Board. What happened is
they got a permit to subdivide the lot to create
25 two non-conforming lots, one .of which is now
Channing, this was his predecessor in title . The
October 21, 2004
61
1
2 second interesting thing is about a year, year and
a half after receiving that variance to create
3 this non-conforming lot of Channing, a second
variance was granted to permit the house at seven
4 and-a-half feet from what would be the common
property line here .
5 When the day is done, we' re talking about a
house here where we would be setback 11 feet from
6 the property line . Channing is showing to be
setback 10 feet, but our information that it is
7 probably more like seven and-a-half pursuant to
that variance, and that it is my feeling that
8 these types of variances should be granted because
it' s a lot easier. If the space needs can' t be
9 met here, we should work with the houses we have
because clients are put in a position -- you don' t
10 want to encourage them to knock down houses and
rebuild, the imposition on the neighborhood in
11 that sort of approach would be much greater. The
fact is that the house could be knocked down, it
12 could be built in a conforming location, and that
conforming location could put it as much as 100
13 feet in front, towards the water, of all the
houses up and down that street .
14 We FOIA' d every single property survey
available to us to the Building Department for
15 every zoning variance ever granted, goes all the
way back to 157 for this neighborhood. We find no
16 variance has ever been denied. We find every lot
nonconforming and find most lots, almost every lot
17 to be created by some sort of lot line
modification, partial combinations of lots so that
18 the existing development pattern here no longer
agrees with the underlying filed map, which was
19 filed in 1931 . So there has always been this sort
of movement of property lines back and forth. The
20 Board understands this . Generally the Boards have
been granting variances seven and-a-half feet
21 seems to be a magic number up and down in this
particular neighborhood. As I say, we' re not
22 going to create any new nonconformity with respect
to a side lot boundary.
23 But I think the memo lays out pretty clearly
what this is about, and why these practical
24 hardships exist due to a narrowness of the lots,
which neither I nor you can control, and that what
25 we' re talking about here is the enlargement of a
small bedroom and creation of a family room. Mrs .
October 21, 2004
62
1
2 Goeller is elderly, she has kids and grand kids,
they use it seasonally, and they simply need the
3 space, that' s what' s driving the application.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have
4 comments?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason
5 why the applicant didn' t propose this application
to increase the size of the house right down the
6 center of the house, I understand there' s a gable
end facing the water, which is probably a
7 cathedral ceiling or vaulted ceiling?
MR. ANDERSON: That' s correct .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But we are faced
with these types of applications in all waterfront
9 settings, it appears, that are very low in
elevation to the water, an example of which is
10 Sound Beach Road in Mattituck. This new idea of
building a second story addition on one side of
11 the house, almost mirrors what is happening down
in that area, which has a similar type of
12 elevation except it is on the sound, not on the
bay. I'm just curious to know why you wouldn' t
13 take a swath right out of the middle of the house,
actually make the upstairs wider than it' s
14 proposed and having less effect upon either side
line .
15 MR. ANDERSON: The architect, Mark Schwartz,
who also lives in the area tells me that to put a
16 second floor addition in the center of the house
is problematic from a structural standpoint . He
17 also says it' s a heck of a lot more expensive to
do it that way. We' re trying to provide the
18 living space in a manner that is really
unobtrusive which I truly believe it is, and I
19 think you will after going through the memo, and
to do it in a way that' s affordable because not
20 everyone that lives on the water has a gazillion
dollars . This is a general statement .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can buy that
idea, this is a general statement, if we can only
22 deal with steel, but today we have the microlans
and all the other things that are in place of
23 steel and I can' t buy that from an architectural
point of view because of the use of that . I think
24 it can be done very easily. I'm saying that in
general . And again, I'm not necessarily
25 criticizing this application, because I 'm telling
you it' s the same situation we' re experiencing
October 21, 2004
63
1
2 down on the sound side, Mattituck. I do
understand what he' s saying it' s easier, but from
3 an architectural point of view, it would look a
lot better, it would offer much more room; and
4 from an aesthetic point of view of the house, it
would take away that cottage effect of the house
5 and really make it look like a really neat story
and-a-half house, being down the center.
6 MR. ANDERSON: I can take that under
advisement, but again, I checked up on that
7 because that was something that Channing was
suggesting. I said what about doing that and
8 their floor plan considerations, structural
considerations -- I'm not prepared, that' s not
9 what I do.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is something
10 that we' re getting all the time now.
MR. ANDERSON: What I take away from that is
11 in the earlier stages, is that folks should be
well-advised to put that concept to the test is
12 what I ' m getting from you.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the existing
14 length of the addition now?
MR. ANDERSON: The existing is 26 feet 4
15 inches, and with the proposal that would increase
that length by 10 foot 2 inches .
16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t think I made
my question clear. The existing right now, not
17 with the addition of the second floor decks, just
as-is, what is the total length of the addition,
18 is it 26 feet?
MR. ANDERSON: 26 feet 4 inches .
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And with the second
story decks that you are proposing, what would the
20 total length be?
MR. ANDERSON: Including also the forward
21 addition?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Correct, everything.
22 MR. ANDERSON: The forward addition is 10
foot 2 inches and the deck is 8 by 10 .
23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: On the survey it shows
36 , is that 36 total to that 10 foot?
24 MR. ANDERSON: No . The 36 would refer to the
enclosed space, then the survey also shows the
25 deck.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The second floor deck?
October 21, 2004
64
1
2 MR. ANDERSON: Right .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So the total length
3 then after the additions would be?
MR. ANDERSON: Including the deck?
4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Everything.
MR. ANDERSON: Including the deck the total
5 would be approximately 44 feet .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The deck extends --
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 42 feet .
MR. ANDERSON: 42 feet . Then understand
7 when you look at that survey that the seaward wall
of this house would be 12 feet, the most seaward
8 wall of the house would be 12 feet closer to the
water than the most seaward wall of the proposed
9 addition. That is to say, you' re not building
towards the water.
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just a little
unclear exactly what we were doing here until just
11 now. The gray part on your survey that exists on
the footprint?
12 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, but it' s extended to 10
feet toward the water yet still behind the forward
13 wall of the house .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay, the 26 . 4 is a
14 building lot? If I went there and looked at it,
it' s there?
15 MR. ANDERSON: It' s probably easier if you
just refer to the architectural drawing.
16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You have 26 now,
you' re going to 36, then you' re adding on which
17 would be a total of 42?
MR. ANDERSON: That' s correct .
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then you' re going up?
MR. ANDERSON: That' s correct . And we' re
19 running the gables parallel to the lot lines so it
slopes .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the distance
between the height from the grade to that -- say
21 where the gutters will be?
MR. ANDERSON: That will be approximately 14
22 feet high.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is it now?
23 MR. ANDERSON: I don' t know, I would have to
get back to you on that . I' d be happy to come by
24 with that information. -
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What will it be to the
25 ridge?
MR. ANDERSON: 25 feet to the very top of
October 21, 2004
65
1
2 the ridge, which is measured at 22 and-a-half feet
for purposes of zoning and building and that sort
3 of thing.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In any case, it' s well
4 within the 35 . height?
MR. ANDERSON: Substantially and lower than
5 the house next door, substantially. We
photographed both houses from both directions, we
6 have provided you with mapping data to see how
they set up relative to the land. We've taken
7 that mapping and actually placed the footprint on,
and I think it will become very clear how it
8 setback up . I don' t think this is a problem
application.
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have to write it . I
just want the proper information.
10 MR. ANDERSON: Plus, it' s fun reading.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bruce, let me see if
11 there' s anybody in the audience who wishes to
speak on this application? Hearing none, then
12 I ' ll close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
13 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
Bill Goggins .
15 MR. GOGGINS : Good afternoon, my name is
William Goggins . I'm here to support my
16 application. We' re asking for a waterside deck
that' s 24 foot wide, six foot deep as well as
17 approval of what the Building Department
determined to be a third story.
18 Give a little background of what happened
at my house, we had gotten a building permit to
19 replace the roof, put up reverse gables and
increase the space in the attic area. When we
20 started working, the builder saw there was
something wrong with the structure, or he thought
21 there was something wrong with the structure . So
we brought in an engineer, and the engineer said,
22 I ' m not sure either. You' re going to have to
remove the ceilings and the walls from the second
23 floor so we could see what' s going on. So my
wife, my five children had to remove all our
24 belongings, toys, dressers, beds, everything from
the second floor, throw them out to the garage,
25 and we were all sleeping on the first floor. We
took down the walls and ceilings, and we found out
October 21, 2004
66
1
2 that the building was bowing out from the hip of
the roof on the south side of the building and
3 also the north side, there was structural damage .
So the engineer stayed on the job. He started
4 amending plans because we knew we would have to
submit an amended permit eventually. And he
5 stayed on the job, which was permissible from the
Building Department . We were just going to jump
6 frame and go up, then it turned out that the walls
on the first floor couldn' t sustain the structure
7 on the second floor and the new roof . So we had
to move out of the first floor too. It turned
8 into a pretty big renovation, something that we
did not intend to happen. It went from not too
9 much money for renovation to a huge cost .
So, the Building Department came down.
10 The next day we submitted our amended plans . They
were reviewed. The Building Department said we
11 needed a variance for the deck, and also we needed
a variance because they interpreted our attic to
12 be a third story.
I want to make it clear we don' t have a
13 problem with the height of the building, it' s just
the interpretation of what the attic space is .
14 They interpret it to be a third floor, so this is
why we' re here for that variance because this town
15 only permits two and-a-half story buildings .
Although they' re permitted in New York State this
16 town has a restriction of two and-a-half stories .
This is our application for a variance .
17 What we intend to do is if the variance it granted
for the third floor, what we would like to do is
18 put in a sprinkler system, which is required by
New York State law if you have a third story
19 wooden residential building, and we will do that
and this is not something that we intended to do,
20 but that' s the third story.
It' s not going to change the character of
21 the neighborhood because the building .is pretty
much the same height as the other buildings in the
22 area. It' s permissible in the Town code . The
only thing that' s not permissible is the use
23 inside the building. It' s not going to change
what we couldn' t have . It' s a permissible use as
24 far as that' s concerned.
Again, it' s not substantial because the
25 outside of the building is not going to change .
It' s how we' re dealing with the third floor or the
October 21, 2004
67
1
2 attic space .
There' s not going to be any adverse impact
3 on the neighborhood. The Trustees approved the
permit 5-0 to do the construction and the
4 renovation as well as the deck. So there will be
no environmental impact by this Board granting
5 this variance .
It' s a unique circumstance . It' s not
6 something we ever intended to happen. We just
thought we were renovating the building. I hired
7 an engineer to do these plans, and he didn' t know
that the attic would be interpreted to be a third
8 floor and I certainly didn' t know. It' s not
something I planned on and it' s not expected, in
9 fact, I was shocked we had to go through all this
process . And meanwhile, we' re still not living in
10 a house . We' re living in the garage suffering
through it as a whole family.
11 Approval of this is not going to decrease
property values in the area. It' s not going to be
12 a detriment to the nearby properties, and we ask
that the variance be granted.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re living in a
14 garage right now?
MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is there a stop
work order?
16 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Ma' am, Chair, I
17 have no objections to this and would urge the
Board to act - expediently on this .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: For fear that I may
19 take longer than it needs to, I have no
objection.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Unfortunately, I
21 need to take longer, but I need to ask one
question. In the original, you came before us
22 with an application to redo some decks on the
front of the house, was that not the situation?
23 MR. GOGGINS : On the north side, yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then
24 subsequently you attempted to work on those . Then'
you started working on the house renovating it . I
25 have to tell you, I've been in that house when the
prior owner was in the Lion' s Club, I was in the
October 21, 2004
68
1
2 house when Richie Goodale owned it . I found
uneven floors, some sagging and bowing in certain
3 locations . When you started renovating the house,
it was at that particular time that that scenario
4 that you .just gave us occurred; is that correct?
MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
MR. GOGGINS : Yes, when we bought the
6 house, the person that did the inspection for us
told us that the settling had stopped, that there
7 was some settling and that the main joist was
petrified wood and wouldn' t be moving. And what
8 happened was, the owner prior to my ownership had
done some renovations and removed some structural
9 members and then hid it with sheetrock and paint
so you couldn' t see what was done . So over the
10 course of us owning the house for almost three
years, things started sagging and the roof was
11 starting to move a little bit, and we started
going through this renovation process .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Goggins, for
the record, how much did you pay for this house?
13 MR. GOGGINS : We purchased it for
$900, 000 . That' s why -- I don' t make that much
14 money and my expectation was not to spend another
two to 400 , 000 , I thought this house was going to
15 be move-in condition, and we wouldn' t have to do
anything to it . I'm not a wealthy person, so it ' s
16 a real difficulty for us .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ,went through
17 the house on Sunday morning. I went all the way
up to the second story, which I guess is the issue
18 now the third story. The construction at present
is phenomenal . The house is over constructed.
19 Which I guess is probably to your benefit since
you' re going to live there . I feel badly about
20 your problem, I really do . It' s a serious problem
coming into the winter months as it presently
21 exists for the record.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would the Board be
22 willing to grant him the variance at this time?
First, is there anybody else in the audience that
23 wishes to address this application? Yes, ma' am?
MS . SIMON: Shannon Simon, I live on
24 Second Street and I walk the beaches regularly.
I'm grateful to Mr. Goggins for taking down the
25 fence so we can walk the beaches . But I am
concerned about the fact -- I watched this house
October 21, 2004
69
1
2 become in need of really severe help. I watched
the day that I saw the roof buckled, and I could
3 see it and started around the house to tell the
Goggins that there was a problem when I realized
4 that they were already solving that problem. That
was back, I believe at the beginning of May,
5 perhaps at the end of April .
We asked at the time whether a building
6 permit had been acquired and people around the
neighborhood seemed to think there was one, but
7 nobody approached the house, which was perfectly
logical, we didn' t want to get in the way of the
8 builders . On September 1st after the house had
all come down and the framing had gone back up, or
9 toward the end of August, we found out that there
was no building permit at all, even though the
10 house was up to the fourth floor. It' s a ground
floor, which, I guess, is a half floor, then
11 there' s a first floor, a second floor and a
completed third floor.
12 At that time, a number of us were very
concerned that a building was being built without
13 a permit . The house was supposed to have been
stopped, the work was supposed to have been
14 stopped on September 1st, we were of the
impression it was supposed to be stopped. But it
15 continued all through September, sometimes even on
Sundays and Saturdays . It continued up through
16 the beginning of October probably, I 'm not exactly
sure which date in October, but it did stop then,
17 and I took two pictures . We were told, by the
way, from the Building Department that the
18 building was supposed to be secured. It was
supposed to be secured against children getting
19 into it and perhaps causing mischief, which we all
know is a possibility, and hurricanes which, of
20 course, were rampant at that point in Florida. So
these two pictures, I didn' t even realize it until
21 we developed them how dramatic they are .
This one was taken on September 14th, this
22 was supposedly, the building was supposed to have
been stopped but you can see the fourth floor in
23 this one, and this one was taken on September
24th.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I ask you
a question, Madam Chair?
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
MS . SIMON: My concern is not with
October 21, 2004
70
1
2 Mr. Goggins, my concern is though we called the
Building Department and asked for some help with
3 getting this to stop, the Building Department told
us that it was there for security reasons . At
4 this point, here we are in October, the basement
or that bottom floor is completely open, there' s a
5 door open into the building. There are those
tarpaulins that are there on the first floor,
6 which would be the first complete floor, are now
pulled back and anybody could climb with a good
7 leap from the fence into the building, if they
didn' t have to walk through the basement . Not
8 that they would, but if securing the property was
really and truly what was going to happen, when
9 was that supposed to have happened? And why did
it take over a month after the stop order for the
10 work to stop?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My question to
11 you is, can I just ask this question? You keep on
referring to this building as a four floor
12 building --
MS . SIMON: If you look at it from the
13 beach there are four floors .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s an
14 attic?
MS . SIMON: It' s got a deck on it . Look
15 at the pictures, sir.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s an attic .
16 I am telling you it' s an attic . There is no
supporting situation here of a fourth story that
17 this Board has ever dealt with. If I am incorrect
on that, I need to be corrected on that .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The basement level is
because of FEMA and the house had to be raised.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
that, I'm saying that the top story I don' t
20 believe that' s a third story at this particular
time . I think it' s a three story house . There' s
21 no stairwell getting, to that that I could see .
MS . SIMON: There' s a deck on that top
22 floor. I don' t know what else it would be for
except that it apparently appears to be with that
23 big open window area, it looks like it' s another
floor. Maybe there' s no stairwell right now, but
24 I suspect there will be one .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goggins, could you
25 tell us what the height is to the top of the
house?
October 21, 2004
71
1
2 MR. GOGGINS : I don' t know what the exact
height is, but I know the building inspector did
3 review the height, and it does conform with the
height restrictions of the Town code because if it
4 didn' t we' d be here for a variance for that . So
the height conforms with the Town code, . I guess
5 it' s 35 feet in some calculation they make .
MS . KOWALSKI : We need something for the
6 file to put in the findings when the Board rules .
MR. GOGGINS : I can have the engineer
7 submit a statement to you. Like I said, though,
that' s not really before the Board, what' s before
8 the Board is the interpretation of whether it' s a
third floor.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have agreed to put
sprinklers in?
10 MR. GOGGINS : Absolutely. And you know,
things changed on the house, to answer Mrs . Simon,
11 because it would rain, we' d pull the tarps down.
We' d get the shop vacs, we would try and get the
12 water out of the building to keep it from damaging
the wood. So we were there almost every weekend
13 during the fall because it was raining and causing
damage . So yes, there was stuff going on. We
14 wanted to put windows in to secure it, but so many
people were complaining that we were doing work
15 there that they wouldn' t let us put the windows
in. We have been suffering with that . Every
16 night I 've been worrying that my house is getting
damage some more because of the water. It' s
17 unfortunate, but that' s the way it is .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
18 that wishes to comment on this? Mr. Bressler?
MR. BRESSLER: Eric J. Bressler, Wickham,
19 Bressler, Gordon and Geasa. I am here on behalf
of the neighbor, Patsy Rogers .
20 This is a most interesting application
that' s come before you. Notwithstanding the
21 comments of some Members of the Board before this
presentation, I think that there are certain
22 aspects of this application that need to be
explored. It' s not quite so simple as it appears .
23 There are legal issues involved here and I think
that the way that I can best summarize this
24 application is to say it' s too much.
This is a classic example of a boot strap .
25 This is a situation where something apparently
occurred and rather than come for permits, the
October 21, 2004
72
1
2 work was done . This work implicates several
provisions of the Town code, none of which, I have
3 really heard addressed here . The first issue is
that during the course of the construction, the
4 entire structure got larger, the roof is higher,
this structure is larger. And one of the bases of
5 the Building Department' s disapproval was that
that ran afoul of the rules established by this
6 Board in Walz and I 've heard no discussion about
that . Nor have I heard any justification for why
7 this Board should approve that sort of expansion.
What I have heard is that we went in there
8 to make some permitted changes and the next thing
we knew, there was a problem so instead of coming
9 back to the regulators and getting whatever
permits they needed, they bootstrapped their way,
10 and they live in a garage, and I'm sorry about
that, but it was a garage that had no CO, and, in
11 fact, they were specifically told you can' t live
in that garage . But that' s another issue that' s
12 being dealt with elsewhere .
So the construction went on, and when
13 there was a problem with the second floor, did
they get permits? No. When there was a problem
14 with the first floor, did they get permits? No.
So what you have here is a structure that is
15 larger overall and is much more nonconforming than
what was there . This Board is well aware that the
16 purpose of the code is to gradually faze out
nonconforming uses . This Board' s ruling in Walz
17 amplified that and made it clear that the Board
was going to retain jurisdiction over those issues
18 and define the issue in such a way that things
became limited. Now, it seems that that' s to be
19 completely disregarded because a problem occurred
on construction.
20 You have also heard that there' s a problem
with a number of stories and the reason that there
21 was a problem with the number of stories is that
the applicant, an attorney well versed before this
22 Board, and his builder, didn' t know what a story
was . That' s the reason there' s a problem with
23 that .
Again, if you look at the application that
24 was put before this Board and you look at the
reasons that are put forth for the variances and
25 you listen to the testimony, there is no basis
whatsoever for the granting of those types of
October 21, 2004
73
1
2 variances . If this Board wants to approve what
was there, that' s one thing, but for this Board to
3 go beyond that is totally, totally unjustified
particularly where the applicant acted at his own
4 risk.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What area are
5 you referring to Mr. Bressler?
MR. BRESSLER: The reasons for a
6 variances . A variance is needed due to ceiling
height of attic area. That tells you absolutely
7 nothing. The benefits sought by the applicant
cannot be approved by some other method. The
8 structure was built with the belief that it
conformed to the code . That doesn' t address a
9 third story, and it doesn' t address an increase in
the nonconformance .
10 The simple fact of the matter is that the
applicant has come before you telling you of his
11 misfortunes, which I have no reason to doubt . My
problem is that reading this application, and I'm
12 not going to burden the record with reading the
rest of it, which is equally unenlightening, and
13 it is before the Board, my problem, my client' s
problem with this is that it' s too much, and the
14 Board cannot or should not at this juncture
sanction what was done there and grant these
15 variances because someone chose to proceed in the
absence of permits and claim complete ignorance of
16 the legal requirements .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can -I ask a
17 question?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm still --
maybe it' s because I'm not a smart person or
19 something -- but I'm still mystified on where the
third story is . Are you referring to the attic
20 area as the third story? Or are you taking the
existing basement and saying that' s living area,
21 you' re taking the first floor plan, which I have
in front of me, which is basically the first floor
22 plan; then you have the second floor plan. When I
went up to the building, I saw a ladder going into
23 the attic area. There is no provision for a
staircase into that attic area that I can see .
24 Now, that, of course, can be altered, of course,
the young lady in the back said the same thing.
25 Are you referring to the height of the roof from
the top of the second story to the top of the
October 21, 2004
74
1
2 gable end; is that what you' re referring to?
MR. BRESSLER: What I'm referring to is
3 the fact that the roof was raised. During the
Trustees' hearing, the applicant conceded that the
4 roof was raised by five to seven feet . My client
advises me it was raised 12 feet . In answer to
5 your question as to where the third story is, I
would defer to the notice of disapproval from the
6 building inspector, and I would suggest to you
that with respect to that so-called attic area,
7 that we are dealing with a fiction, somewhat like
the garage, which was supposed to be space, dead
8 storage space . When you build an attic and you
build off a deck, you' re not talking about an
9 attic and dead storage space.
So it seems to me, and, in fact, if you
10 listen to the applicant, you know when we were
constructing it, we didn' t know what a third story
11 is, that' s what I think we' re talking about, but I
could stand corrected by the building inspector,
12 but I will say it was two and-a-half stories
before, and it' s more than that now, and I haven' t
13 heard any reason why that should be, none except
that it happened and I want it . And I don' t see
14 any reason why the building should be bigger. I
don' t see any -reason why the Walz rule as
15 enunciated by this Board doesn' t apply to the
larger mass of this building. I 'm not opposed to
16 Mr. Goggins, and my clients are not opposed to him
going in there when he has a problem, even though
17 he mays run afoul of the reconstruction rule, if he
had a problem, he had to fix it, but it does not
18 entitle him to do more . I'm sorry, Mr.
Goehringer.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As I testified
before, a deceased member of the Lion' s Club
20 originally owned this house . I 've been in the
house several times . The walls were up in the
21 , house . I was in the house at the time that
Mr. Goodale owned the house, those walls were
22 taken out . I looked into the attic area of the
house . I honestly didn' t go into the attic area
23 of the house at that time, and yes, the roof line
can be a little bit higher than that . Okay,
24 you've got some severe gable ends here on this,
which, there' s no question, okay, that' s the case,
25 but my point in question is, if this Board is
approving the basement, the first floor and the
October 21, 2004
75
1
2 second floor, which is quote/unquote, three
stories, I don' t know why the attic is an issue at
3 this time when the plans say unfinished attic
storage, because we' re not approving that, we' re
4 approving -- unless I 'm incorrect -- the basement,
which is a separate area, the first floor and the
5 second floor.
MR. BRESSLER: If that be the case,
6 Mr. Goehringer, then whence come the difference
between two and-a-half and the three that existed
7 before? Maybe the Building Department can
enlighten us in that regard since there seems to
8 be a question.
MR. GOGGINS : I can answer that question
9 very simply. We have a basement that is more than
50 percent below grade kitchen, which is deemed to
10 be a basement . Now we have a first floor where we
have a kitchen and a living room, it' s always been
11 that way. We have a second floor that is
bedrooms; then we had an attic space, which is the
12 top area of the building. Now, the Building
Department can either say that' s an attic space, a
13 half story or a third story. They determined it
to be a third story. What I found was the
14 definition of a half story is if the attic space
has a ceiling height of 50 percent of which is
15 716" in height . The rest of it can be as high as
you want as long as 50 percent of it is less than
16 7' 6" . So the Building Department could have
merely said amend your plans, make half 50 percent
17 of the ceiling 7' 6" and we don' t care about the
rest, but they didn' t do that . They said this is
18 a third floor. So we' re asking for a variance to
say, okay, it' s a third floor, we' re going to let
19 you keep the third on the condition that you put a
sprinkler system in. This doesn' t adversely
20 affect the neighborhood. You know, when we have
these applications, you know, you' re doing a
21 balancing test : The benefit to the applicant as
opposed to the detriment to the neighborhood.
22 There is no detriment to the neighborhood because
the height of the building isn' t going to change .
23 That' s a permitted use . What Mr. Bressler' s
doing -- I don' t know what he' s doing. He did
24 this in front of the Trustees . Smoke and mirrors
try to convince them that they had to do something
25 that they didn' t . The attorney for the Board got
so upset because Mr. Bressler was misquoting the
October 21, 2004
76
1
2 law, that he slammed the book down and he said,
Mr. Bressler, read the statute . He' s doing the
3 same thing here . He' s trying to make it appear
that I haven' t met the requirements to get a
4 variance . And I have met the requirements I
submit . And Mr. Bressler also misquoted, I
5 testified that from the original structure to as
it is now, it' s about four or five feet higher
i
6 than it was now, when I had submitted the original
application, which I did get a permit for, it was
7 about where it is now, because we took a roof, I
can' t remember what the pitch was, but it wasn' t
8 much of a pitch, and we repitched it higher and we
put reverse gables, so that was increasing the
9 height of the building right there . And we had a
permit for it . The only difference is now when we
10 went to renovate it, either the Building
Department looked at it more closely or whatever,
11 but they decided it was a third floor, that' s why
we' re here .
12 So for Mr. Bressler to say that I haven' t
met the requirements is ridiculous, and to say
13 that the Board is just stuck looking at what I put
in the application is also ridiculous too. This
14 merely gets us to the ZBA, and the hearing is to
amplify the reasons that we request the variance
15 for. I don' t know what his point is . I don' t
know what my neighbors want out of me, but I'm
16 merely asking for a variance that the existing
building be called a three story building, and I
17 get approval for the variance because a three
story building isn' t permitted. I didn' t go
18 outside the footprint other than the deck we' re
requesting.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Goggins,
when I looked at the house I noticed, of course,
20 you have a CO for more than a one-family dwelling,
which was a pre existing CO.
21 MR. GOGGINS : Correct .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I notice in the
22 basement, which encompasses the entire basement,
is some sort of small apartment, which I think a
23 family member is going to live there?
MR. GOGGINS : We have a CO for a
24 two-family residence plus a third seasonal
apartment . When I took it over, I got rid of the
25 seasonal apartment and kept the two family. My
parents live in one portion, which contains the
October 21, 2004
77
1
2 basement area, and we have the second portion
which is the first and second floor. That' s how
3 we have been using it ever since .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question is,
4 if you don' t have a basement it would assume to me
if I was living in the house, that the attic was
5 used for storage area purposes; is that correct?
MR. GOGGINS : That was Ithe intent, but now
6 the building inspector said it' s a third floor,
and now we' re here for a variance for a third
7 floor. If it' s granted, then we' ll be using it as
a third floor. If the Building Department said
8 you have to have a two and-a-half story, we' ll use
it as a two and-a-half story. It' s not the use,
9 it' s the variance to have a third floor.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, how can we
10 get away from that aspect?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, can we adjourn
11 this hearing so we can move on until the next
Board meeting, Zoning Board meeting on --
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I think
there' s two issues here, Ruth, and I have to tell
13 you that I personally agree with the lady that
spoke in the back. What we have is an unsafe
14 structure because Mr. Goggins -- please, this has
nothing to do, this is straight down the middle --
15 this man' s got to be able to put windows in this
building because he' s going to lose this building
16 if he doesn' t do it . Somewhere along the line
somebody has to speak to the Building Department,
17 or we have to determine an interim decision to at
least allow him to put the windows in this
18 building, winter is coming. I 'm talking about
mainly the windows that are exposed to the
19 waterfront area of this house .
MR. GOGGINS : I won' t speak any more,
20 unless Mr. Bressler has more . I' ll rest on what
I've said. I would like this to end today. This
21 Board has granted interim decisions .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This Board in a
22 unique circumstance has granted interim decisions .
I think we have to allow him to put the windows in
23 the front of the house .
MR. BRESSLER: Mr.. Goehringer, I would
24 just like to say about the use issue, if this
thing is not to be held open and that is I refer
25 to Mr. Goggins' letter of September 21, 2004 . It
is our position that he does not have a legal
October 21, 2004
78
1
2 two-family dwelling. There was a pre CO for a
two-family dwelling; it was subsequently converted
3 into a bed and breakfast . There was a decision
permitting that . He' s then gave up the bed and
4 breakfast, and now espouses the interesting legal
argument that somehow there' s a relationship back
5 having given up that two-family, that there' s some
sort of relation back after the bed and breakfast
6 is discontinued to a two family, and that is
something that is just not true . And I need to
7 disabuse the Board of that notion.
MR. GOGGINS : That' s irrelevant, we' re
8 asking for variance for a deck and a third story,
that' s irrelevant .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to make a
motion closing the hearing reserving decision
10 until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
11 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
12 Mullen Motors have a multitude of variances .
Mr. Lark?
13 MR. LARK: Good afternoon, Richard Lark,
Main Road Cutchogue for the applicant .
14 The petitioner' s application or
applications before you are somewhat unnecessarily
15 complicated by the Building Department' s view of
the zoning ordinance . As an overview, I thought
16 the best way to proceed is to go through the
Building Department' s notice of disapproval . The
17 last of which is October 7, 2004 . And I believe
prior to that there' s since March 25th, there' s
18 about five additional disapprovals all on the same
application. The application has never changed
19 since the beginning. It's been exactly the same .
So I'm going to deal with the last amended notice
20 of disapproval in my comments because I think it
is Board has to get a feel for just what' s being
21 asked for here .
Basically it' s a lot line application
22 change and an amended site plan application
change, which, of course, is before the Planning
23 Board, which it is, but the Planning Board cannot
act until there' s clearance by the Zoning Board of
24 Appeals on various issues, primarily variances .
The Planning Board wrote you a letter on
25 10/19/04 stating they have no objection to the
application as presented with them, of course,
October 21, 2004
79
1
2 they' re going to work on the site plan. They
understand full well what' s before you because
3 they have conferred with the Building Department
as to just what variances would have to be
4 required for this application to proceed on the
lot line because it was the Planning Board
5 originally, and you have to understand, that
wanted the lot line application to be what it is
6 so that there would not be an impact on the Main
Road. They recognize the problem Mullen -- we' ll
7 discuss that in a moment -- was faced with and so
they decided to widen it on the Main Road about
8 30 , 40 feet and carry it back on the angle to
allow only one curb cut entrance in and out from
9 the Main Road. It was from there that we got
going on the thing.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me interrupt .
You' re talking about the curb cut between Mullen
11 Motors and Claude and Claude?
MR. LARK: Yes . That' s going to remain
12 the same . So there would be no increase in curb
cut traffic .
13 And I believe it' s important for you to
note that if you would take, if we had an overhead
14 aerial photograph just directly overhead of what' s
there today and then take another one of when the
15 project is completed, I submit to you you' d see
very little if any change . The change in the
16 overall footprint is insignificant as to what' s
there today with the jumble of various accessory
17 buildings there that they' re tearing down and
replacing and then filling in the spaces . From
18 the ground level there will be absolutely no
change in the use of the property. It' s going to
19 be exactly the same as it is there today. So the
variance and special applications before you are
20 fairly detailed. I have included pictures,
building layouts and what' s intended to be
21 accomplished. So you really have a complete
overview on what' s going on on the property today
22 as well as what is being proposed.
I won' t burden you and dwell on that, a
23 lot of things speak for themselves . However, I
will answer any questions, and I have Richard
24 Mullen, who is here, and he can answer any
questions because this was foisted on him by
25 Daimler Chrysler and when it' s all said and done,
expense notwithstanding, it will be a benefit to
October 21, 2004
80
1
2 both he and the community. This wasn' t something
he wished. It was put upon him because they
3 absolutely insist if he' s going to keep his
dealership, he has to modernize, bring it up to
4 speed, comply with every rule and regulation that
they set up as to what a car dealership,
5 especially now, when you consider everything with
the black box and the warranties and everything
6 else, they want the shop the way they want it and
the showrooms the way they want it .
7 It' s important to note, I want to get back
to the Building Department, and it' s interesting
8 because I sat here this morning, and I listened to
the very same thing over again that they' re
9 married to the notion, meaning the Building
Department, that if you have a designated lot on a
10 tax map, that that' s an individual lot . What you
can' t get through the Building Department' s head,
11 doesn' t understand in Suffolk County, the map tax
designation is only for assessment purposes only,
12 period. It has no other legal significance . The
county legislature never adopted the Suffolk
13 County tax map. That' s not true in Nassau,
Westchester and the City of New York, where they
14 have adopted the tax map, and it has legal
significance, the lot on the tax map, but out here
15 in Suffolk it doesn' t . It doesn' t effect zoning.
The Health Department completely ignores it, but
16 yet our Building Department -- you, you've heard
it from people, I get a separate tax bill, it' s an
17 individual lot, I have a right to use it as an
individual lot . It' s not true . But that' s why,
18 when I was faced with the application, you have to
understand, there' s four tax lots here, so I had
19 the surveyor coordinate, and you' ll see on the
legend, it' s a reduced version of what you have
20 which we sent to all the neighbors, and it' s a lot
easier to handle . I had the surveyor coordinate
21 the tax lots with what he called parcels because
the tax lot will be changed when, if this is
22 approved and it' s all done with the Planning
Board, and that' s done with the stroke of a pen
23 with the assessor' s office once the lines are
delineated as to what you want or what' s to be .
24 So on the lower left-hand side of that map, as
well as the big map, and for all the applications
25 whether the site plan, the lot line changes,
special exception or the variances, I had him do
October 21, 2004
81
1
2 the same map, so we wouldn' t have that old problem
of inconsistency. So when you, the Board are
3 looking at it, if you look at the one map, you' re
looking for all applications, and I think that' s
4 important because otherwise it got really
confusing because originally they were looking at
5 all different maps . But in the left-hand portion
of that, he does the tax lot coverage issue, which
6 the Building Department had trouble with, then he
converts it to the parcel issue, which of course
7 will be the legal lot when we' re all done . I
think that' s important for the Board, when they' re
8 reviewing it, that they get the notion out because
you can play all sorts of games when you are using
9 the tax lot, and that was driven home to me when I
was preparing this and reviewing this application
10 to get it ready for the variances when I read the
Town Board when they changed the zone in 199 on
11 the parcels on the Locust Avenue, they made it all
business . They just cut through all this tax lot
12 stuff . They used it, but they said, okay, if
we' re going to change the zone here, that' s all
13 well and good, but look, the back lot, which is
the 24 . 1, that' s going to be for parking. We' re
14 dictating the drainage, that goes with the Mullen
Motors, what they call Colonial Corners, that can
15 stay the same, but if you make any change on
Locust Avenue, you got to keep the buffer going up
16 on the west side of Locust Avenue just the way
we' re dictating you' re required to put it down
17 there on the southerly side . And if you make any
change to Colonial Corners, it has to be in
18 concert with the automobile dealership, which is
Mullen Motors here in this case . Which, of
19 course, is being done here because the property
that we' re taking away from tax Lot 22 . 1, which is
20 the 8, 551 square feet, that is being added over,
which will be incorporated in Parcel 1, and in
21 fact, it' s being added to tax Lot 20 and to tax
Lot 15, and I' ll use those terms interchangeably
22 otherwise they' ll make no sense to you because the
Building Department in its disapproval, when we go
23 through it, always refers to tax lots .
So the point of it is that the Town Board
24 didn' t pay any attention to tax lots is what I'm
trying to say. So if you' re going to do something
25 with this property, it has to be done this way.
Simply put, Parcel 1 on your map will
October 21, 2004
82
1
2 incorporate all of 19 and 20 and 8 , 551 square feet
of 22 . 1, so it will have a total of 44 , 152 square
3 feet . The result of that is that Parcel 2 , which
is the remainder of 22 . 1 on paper today will then
4 become 21, 355 square feet, Parcel 3 will remain
the same at 24 , 595 --
5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Lark, you are
correct when you said the notice of disapproval
6 was confusing, and the reason I 'm going to stop
you there is I'm trying to follow you with what
7 you' re saying. On the notice of disapproval we' re
okay on the 44 , 152 for Lot 1, for area one, but
8 what we' ll call area one?
MR. LARK: Parcel 1, okay.
9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Lot 2 , will become
less nonconforming in size from 21 to 29 , and I
10 can' t find where the corresponding 29 is .
MR. LARK: It' s an absolute error, it' s
11 going to become more nonconforming. Because under
a business zone which all the parcels have is
12 30 , 000 square feet per lot . So by going from the
29, 000-odd what it is now to the 21, it becomes
13 more nonconforming. Which is going to require a
variance, which is one of the applications before
14 you.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In the notice of
15 disapproval, the second sentence, Lot 2 will
become less nonconforming in size from 21 to 29,
16 that' s incorrect?
MR. LARK: It' s correct that it' s not
17 correct .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 21, 355?
18 MR. LARK: That' s correct . Right . That' s
shown on the schedule . The interesting thing is
19 they've had this schedule since the date of it in
July.
20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Madam Chairman, can
I please ask that the Building Department please
21 correct this? When I'm reading through this I
said either you' re wrong, the Building
22 Department' s wrong or somebody' s wrong.
MR. LARK: I' ll give you a history on
23 that . When that occurred originally, I had the
surveyor, John Metzgar go over and talk to
24 them. He explained everything to them and it just
generated a bunch of nickel-dime changes that
25 never addressed the thing he went over there to
talk to him about to begin with. He gave up .
October 21, 2004
83
1
2 Okay, now, when you do that, that' s what
the parcels will look like when they' re done,
3 44 , 152 and the other 21, 355, and the other one
24 , 595 . What happens there is that when you refer
4 then to the notice of disapproval, as I said all
the property zoned B, general business district,
5 that requires 30, 000 square feet . So Parcel 1
exceeds the 30 , 000 square feet when this
6 application, if it' s finally approved, would
exceed it . That lot coverage of 30 percent then
7 we' re dealing with 30 percent of what would be
there, which is the 44 , 000 and that is on your
8 schedule, and that is going to, with the building
addition, will have a 32 . 2 percent, so the area
9 coverage variance for Parcel 1 request is really
reduced down to its simplest terms of 2 . 2 percent,
10 because it' s 30 and we' re going to 32 . 2 . They
have all agreed on the square footages of that
11 because the plan for the addition got a little
confusing because you' re tearing down buildings
12 and you' re adding space around it and filling in.
But after coordination with the surveyor and
13 Building Department, they all came to agree on the
numbers there . So that' s what they would be .
14 That' s one of the first parts of the
application for the variance is to allow the
15 construction, which would be a 2 . 2 percent
increase, that' s what the variance is because 30
16 percent of the 44 , 000 is 13 , 245 square foot of
building, that' s without any variances at all, and
17 we' re proposing the 14 , 227, which is the
difference which produces that two percent .
18 The interesting thing of that, this is
where the Building Department had some difficulty
19 with it also, if you just grant the lot line
change and leave the buildings exactly the way
20 they are, don' t touch a thing, what happens is
that you have 10, 900 square feet of building or a
21 25 percent lot coverage for Parcel 1, the 44 , 000
parcel . So he can' t get it through his head that
22 it' s really a 7 . 2 percent increase from what' s
there today, if we leave the buildings there
23 today, which still doesn' t change the variance
request of 2 . 2 percent . There wasn' t fancy math
24 or fuzzy math. The surveyor went berserk trying
to explain it to him. Rich Mullen was trying to
25 explain it to him that we' re not increasing the
footprint that much, but he couldn' t get it
October 21, 2004
84
1
2 through his head. So we just let it go and we
applied, and you have it now before you and I
3 think that schedule on the left-hand side pretty
much explains it all .
4 Where does the increase come from, the 324
square foot? It comes from when you tear down
5 those bad, decrepit buildings in the back. Right
now they have spaces between them two, three foot
6 walk spaces, in one case four. When you take
those, fill them in then on the east side of the
7 proposed addition, there' s a little more of a
perimeter because the old beauty salon and barber
8 shop, that building is being torn down and there' s
a little increase around there, and that explains
9 the difference of the 3 , 00 where it came from.
That was difficult for them to understand, but
10 that' s neither here nor there .
One of the applications in the verbiage of
11 the thing, in Parcel 2 , as someone pointed out
before, is being reduced down to 21, 355 square
12 feet, that has a lot coverage of only 21 percent .
The lot coverage is not the issue, it' s the size
13 of the lot because all the buildings will be the
same . That kind of got lost in the notice of
14 disapproval but it' s there .
The front yard requests, it' s got three
15 front yards when you consider the totality of the
application. You have Locust, you have Main Road
16 and you have Cottage Place, and Locust fortunately
is not involved because nothing' s being changed on
17 Locust . Main Road is basically not affected at
all, and the reason for that is that tax Lot 20
18 has an average setback of 20 feet, that' s that
bowed out portion where the showroom is . When you
19 take the average setback of the two buildings
fronting on Main Road, we' ll call Colonial Corners
20 for ease of things, that' s got an average setback
of 23 feet . So we' re not affecting that at all
21 because the proposal for the addition, and it' s
shown on there, starts at 78 feet off the Main
22 Road, and it increases as it moves further east to
I think 102 . The point being, this is where the
23 Planning Board got into that staggered back
concept . So there would be no impact as you look
24 at it from the front . But the Building Department
took the whole thing, that' s where that scenario
25 area that' s part of the notice of disapproval
because part of the addition is behind what the
October 21, 2004
85
1
2 accountant' s office is, and you can' t have it both
ways . You can' t have a building in front of it
3 and still be in the front yard in that sense . So
we did increase the length of the existing, what
4 we call, the Mullen Motors property, and it did
increase over, but there is absolutely no impact
5 on the Main Road due to the setback. And as you
know, the zoning ordinance allows where you have
6 the average existing setbacks and it' s not
substantial, you can go along with that . So, I
7 just wanted to point that out . That' s all due to
the staging back.
8 Cottage Place, there' s going to be no real
change, it' s got 12 . 9 now. It' s had 12 . 9 for how
9 many years . There' s absolutely no change . What
is the interesting situation there is that the
10 two buildings there today that front on that total
161 . 2 feet. We' re filling in the 4 ' 9" gap so it
11 will have 167 feet . That' s the only change on
Cottage Place. There' s no change with the
12 setbacks, everything is exactly the same .
The side yards have been a real -- not a
13 bone of contention with the applicant, and not a
bone of contention with the Planning Board, but
14 the Building Department, pick a side yard, pick a
rear yard. They told me they were picking the
15 Main Road as the front yard and the southerly
portion as the rear yard, but he then changed it
16 when he writes his disapproval and he created the
southerly portion as the side yard. Today, if you
17 use the tax lots, not the parcels, but the tax
lots, it is two feet off the tax lot . So then he
18 writes his disapproval that it' s plus or minus two
feet, the side yard requirement, but it would only
19 apply to the five feet on the easterly side where
it adjoins the easterly property, which is the
20 parking lot, which is dedicated to Mullen Motors .
So it' s a technical side yard, and I referred to
21 that . I didn' t beat him up too bad on that
because really the side yard variance being
22 requested if you grant the lot line is 15 . 5 feet,
which is the difference between where the building
23 sits on its easterly side and the proposed
property line due to the setback, the lot line
24 change .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see you have 15 . 5 .
25 MR. LARK: Right . That' s what I would
consider the side yard there .
October 21, 2004
86
1
2 The next part of the disapproval of the
building inspector on Page 2 , Mrs . Tortora, since
3 you' re trying to follow that is most interesting
because the Building Department has determined
4 that the Mullen Motors use of the property is
nonconforming, and, therefore, a special exception
5 is required. Well, when I researched the record,
I found out, and you have them before you in the
6 special exception application, there' s been five
special expectations and five variances granted on
7 this property ranging from 1960 to 1991 . Granted,
in the early days of our zoning ordinance the
8 special exceptions in this case had a lot to do
with signs and things like that, you have it all
9 there, and I recognize that . But every one of the
applications that I read, both variance and
10 special exception, all recognize the Mullen Motors
car dealership and service center or public garage
11 as it' s referred to in the zoning ordinance . And
one of the most specific, Chairman Gillespie, who
12 was the original chairman for many years, noted
that the Flying A Gasoline sign was a separate
13 business on the property, and wasn' t going to
discuss it as part of that application. However,
14 when you read Appeal 3674 , which is 1987, the
application for addition that showroom bulging out
15 in the front there, one of the findings by the
Board was that the subject premises improved with
16 a principal one-story building used for car sales
and repairs . Then there' s all the other
17 decisions . All repairs must be done inside, you
can' t do them outside . So it is really bizarre
18 that they found that this is a nonconforming use,
which it is not because of the special exceptions .
19 I viewed it when I looked at it and
thought about it, as courts will say, the error_ or
20 the non-recognition by the Building Department is
really harmless in this case because -- and I
21 filed for the special exception deliberately
mainly for the reason that because of the lot line
22 change of taking that Colonial Corners piece, that
8 , 500 square feet and adding it to it,
23 technically, there' s no special exception ever
been granted because they usually dealt with Tax
24 Lot 20 , you follow me, so by taking a portion of
22 . 1 ,and adding it, I said, okay, there' s never a
25 question, if the Board is going to grant the
special exception under the zoning ordinance for
October 21, 2004
87
1
2 this, then we should include this so it should be
all of Parcel 1, which is the two tax lots and
3 that little add piece, which is part of the lot
line change . So I said, let i,t go, we' ll apply
4 for it and we' ll be done with it . As I said
before, when the Town Board dealt with it, they
5 required the covenant to change with the zone . If
you did anything in 22 . 1, it' s got to be in
6 conjunction with the dealership . So I said let' s
not leave an open question, let' s take care of it
7 and close the door. It is conforming, but I point
out to you under 100-242 a variance on the
8 coverage issue still exists . So I said, go for
the variance on that, go for the special exception
9 on that, it' s a hand in glove type of thing.
Now, you've got everything in there that I
10 can possibly do. I just tried to explain today
the nuances of the confusion of this, the notice
11 of disapproval, which, of course, is our entry to
get here anyway, and after seven of them give me
12 one, I' ll go. But in summary, I set out in the
zoning ordinance in 100-263 and 264 I believe the
13 application, not because of preexisting use
necessarily but on its own merits today with the
14 lot line change, does fit the criteria that are
set forth in the statute, which you must consider
15 and enumerate one by one if you ever write a
decision on it, you have to consider all of those
16 items, as you know and I do think it fits so I
won' t belabor it . And under the balancing test ,
17 which is required by 267 of the Town law, when you
area requests, which is basically area variances
18 that we talked about, and you look at just briefly
the benefit to the applicant versus any downside
19 to the community, I can' t conceive of a downside
to the community. In fact, I can get up here for
20 an hour and say what an upside it will be, but the
main thing is, it should eliminate traffic on
21 Cottage Place . It should all be on the inside .
When the car goes in, it stays in. It doesn' t go
22 in and out as it does now for various repairs .
There' s no other method, if you' re going to grant
23 the lot line, if the Planning Board is, than to
get a variance, and I don' t believe they' re
24 substantial in what you see there today because I
don' t think there' s any change significantly since
25 everything is remaining the same . I don' t believe
there' s any adverse effect on the environment .
October 21, 2004
88
1
2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Did you include in
our packets the five variances and special
3 exceptions?
MR. LARK: Yes . It' s in the special
4 exception one, there' s ten, five variances -- a
lot of them had to do with parking, had to do with
5 increasing of the building and so on and so forth
as well as signs, signs were a big issue back in
6 the early days if you will remember.
Is there any questions because I do have
7 Rich here?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any
8 questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was curious to
9 know why the lot line between Parcel 2 and 3 goes
through the building?
10 MR. LARK: That' s got to be a technical
issue . Mr. Sidor addresses that issue in the
11 letter you got yesterday. It was something I
brought up and Tom McCarthy who is doing a lot of
12 the building coordinating between the Daimler
people and the actual getting the steel building
13 here because it will be primarily steel, said that
it' s a nonissue in one sense, but in the other
14 sense, it is an issue because the Health
Department, they have to go through the Health
15 Department to get -- they' re not doing anything,
there' s public water there, but they have to get
16 approval for the cesspools, and whether or not
they' re require more cesspools or not depends not
17 only the area of the lot, he' s better versed on
that than I am, there' s some weird regulations on
18 that, but because that' s a separate lot even
though it' s dedicated in the zoning to Mullen
19 Motors thing, that picks up in inherent amount of
square footage for the cesspool requirements,
20 whatever they are . I'm not well-versed on that
because it didn' t make any sense to me . He said
21 it doesn' t make sense but that' s the way they view
things . They just ignore tax lots, they just
22 ignore things we' re used to.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That piece of
23 property was generic to the Cottage Place property
but has since been used by the dealership for
24 merely the storage of cars; is that correct?
MR. LARK: Yes, that back piece, that' s
25 dedicated.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was a fallow
October 21, 2004
89
1
2 piece, which they made through the Planning Board
a useable piece of property.
3 MR. LARK: Planning Board and Town
Board.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right?
MR. LARK: Right .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That piece is
also --
6 MR. LARK: The requirement was you have
the covenant that was required and amended because
7 that' s the one that created how many spaces were
dedicated to Mullen Motors for the site plan.
8 What type of buffering? And it was interesting,
they wanted originally islands in there, then they
9 changed and said that' s no good, but we' ll
eliminate the islands, but that 1, 000 square feet
10 you got to put the landscaping buffering someplace
else, so they went across the street on Cottage,
11 that' s why you see that landscape buffering. It
got to be part of the overall site plan dictated
12 by the Town Board.
MS . KOWALSKI : I was wondering is Parcel 3
13 merged with Parcel 2?
MR. LARK: Today, no.
14 MS . KOWALSKI : Why doesn' t Parcel 3 merge
with one of the other two parcels; do you have a
15 reason for keeping it separate?
MR. LARK: The Town Board kept it
16 separate, and we were told to keep it separate for
this purpose solely until the Health Department --
17 Mr. Mullen couldn' t care less, but even though
he' s not increasing his toilet facilities there,
18 the Health Department because you' re increasing
some of the roof space, could come up with more
19 cesspools, so I have to get you credit someplace
so you don' t have to do that .
20 MS . KOWALSKI : I want to be sure .
MR. LARK: That' s not before you right
21 now. Ultimately when the Health Department issue
gets squared away, and the Planning Board says we
22 want those merged, but we recognize that you' re
going to have the back part leased exclusively to
23 Mullen Motors, then fine, they don' t care . It
could be two parcels, it doesn' t matter at that
24 point . But right now it' s been kept out and until
they can get this Health Department squared away.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I am just lost
October 21, 2004
90
1
2 in this nonconforming permitted by special
exception, I'm going to look at that a little .
3 MR. LARK: They deemed it nonconforming
and I don' t understand why when we had special
4 exception from the get-go and some of it preceded
zoning, the early days .
5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The use?
MR. LARK: Sure . Tax Lot 20,
6 absolutely.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean where Mullen
7 Motors is now. Yes, they purposely made it B in
189 because you were there . I was there .
8 MR. LARK: That' s exactly right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They made it B because
9 they had to, he was business . What are they going
to do, make him nonconforming use? They made him
10 conforming.
MR. LARK: That' s why I gave up, and there
11 were special exceptions, which the code now, and
did then too, did it for certain things like
12 public garages and used cars and regular sales you
have to have a special exception.
13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: None of the
variances dealt with the use, though?
14 MR. LARK: They all discussed it, but they
were for parking, signs and area . But there' s
15 five special exceptions there . Two or three were
signs, but the last one I read was to expand the
16 building in 188 or ' 87 . There' s a quote in there
this is what it' s used for.
17 - CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have none .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
audience who would like to speak on this
19 application? Then I' ll make a motion to close the
hearing reserving decision until later.
20 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Shelley
Scoggin. Shelley?
22 MS . SCOGGIN: My roof is leaking. My
children live in a bedroom shaped like this
23 (indicating) . So we decided to replace the roof,
then decided once the roof was off, the thing to
24 do was give them a little extra space and put a
couple little dormers out . Here I am because we
25 live on narrow lots on Pine Tree Road. I am the
just about the smallest house on the street . I
October 21, 2004
91
1
2 will remain just about the smallest house on the
street . Eugene Berger' s doing the work, if you
3 see his stuff, it' s beautiful . What' s going out
is smaller than the footprint of the existing
4 house . We just happen to be on the dirt road,
Bittersweet is right out my bedroom window, I
5 can' t help that, but the dormer' s not going out
that far, but we need a decision because my roof
6 is leaking.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have any
objections .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any
objections?
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Neither do I . Make a
10 motion to close the hearing.
(See minutes for resolution. )
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to
approve this variance for Scoggins 5622 for a
12 small dormer.
(See minutes for resolution. )
13 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
14 for an AT&T Wireless Omnipoint for the Orient Fire
District in Orient . Would the applicants please
15 step to the mike? Mr. Boyd?
MR. BOYD: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman,
16 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Edward
Boyd, I represent the Orient Fire District .
17 Orient Fire District is the principal applicant in
this matter.
18 We stand before you today because we have
a very serious problem with the communications on
19 the east end of Southold town. We have a problem
that impacts the fire department communications,
20 ambulance and Southold Town police . We have tried
to address this problem in numerous ways over the
21 past several years, and to date all of our
attempts have been unsuccessful . We still have
22 great difficulty in alerting the firemen that
there is a fire . We have great difficulty in the
23 communications between fire officers and fire
fighters, between the bay station and the fire
24 trucks . We have difficulties with the ambulance
communicating with the base station, with medical
25 control at Stony Brook Hospital, and the police
department has their own litany of difficulties
October 21, 2004
92
1
2 with dead spots, failed communications impossible
communications . All of which pose a very serious
3 threat to the health and safety of the people who
live on the east end of Southold town. I 'm
4 talking not only Orient but also the East Marion:
area.
5 Due to the topography of the land on the
east end, we have found through consulting with
6 many experts, some of whom will be here today, the
solution seems to be switching to a new radio
7 frequency for the fire department communications,
to a 450 megahertz channel . I'm not going to go
8 into the technical details of that, we' ll leave
that to the experts . Suffice it to say that in
9 order for the 450 band to work, we must get the
antenna up in the air, and I'm talking seriously
10 up in the air, 120 feet .
I think there' s been a misunderstanding
11 among some people, I' d like to address that from
the beginning. The idea that our application is
12 being driven by commercial interests and that the
fire department is just acting as a vehicle for
13 these commercial interests, nothing could be
further from . the truth. Our experts will
14 demonstrate beyond a doubt that we must have this
120 base for our antenna in order for our
15 communications to be effective . What happens
below that 120 foot level, with the exception of
16 the other public service antennas which are going
to be located at the 90 foot level, really is of
17 no concern other than it will supply a source of
revenue for the tower to be built at no cost of
18 the taxpayers of the Orient Fire District, and
will supply a continuing source of income for the
19 fire district, which will reduce the taxes for
the -- excuse me, which will result in reduced
20 need for taxes in the foreseeable future .
As this tower is being built for the fire
21 district and for fire district use, we believe
that it is entitled a total exemption of the
22 zoning ordinances of Southold town. As you are
well aware since 1988 when the Court of Appeals
23 decided the case the County of Monroe versus the
City of Rochester, the test that we must apply in
24 any of those matters is a balancing of the public
interest . This is an analytical approach and is
25 based upon nine points that are set forth in that
case . Just to refresh, I ' ll run over those points
October 21, 2004
93
1
2 very, very quickly. We must consider the nature
and the scope of the instrumentality which is
3 seeking the immunity; in this case it' s the Orient
Fire District . We have to look at the encroaching
4 government' s legislative grant of authority, the
kind of function or land use that is involved; the
5 effect of the land use regulation would have upon
the enterprise or the project that is concerned.
6 The impact on legitimate local interests,
alternative methods of providing the proposed
7 improvements, the extent of the public interest to
be served by the improvements, and finally the
8 intergovernmental participation and the
opportunity to be heard.
9 Orient Fire District has tried very hard
to keep the public aware at all stages of the
10 proceeding as to what they' re doing. The plans
have changed several times during the course of
11 this process, and those plans have changed because
the district is trying so very hard to come up
12 with the best possible communication system to
take care of present and future needs for
13 themselves, for the police department and, of
course, for the number of people who used cellular
14 telephones .
This project is not being considered
15 primarily for the cellular telephone users, but I
hasten to add that cellular telephones number one
16 are no longer a luxury carried by only a few
people who are able to afford them, but are a way
17 of daily life . Because they are a way of daily
life they have become vital to the communications
18 in the public safety area as well . Most of your
volunteer fire fighters and ambulance people use
19 them. We know that the ambulance uses the
cellular telephone on a regular basis to contact
20 medical control in Stony Brook Hospital . We have
to use the cellular telephones to contact Eastern
21 Long Island Hospital from the ambulance .
Cellular telephones are an important way
22 of our life and by building this tower, primarily
for our fire department use, and secondarily for
23 the improvement of the Southold Town Police
Department communications, we will also provide a
24 method in improving cellular communication on the
east end of the island for each and every person
25 who uses it .
I am confident that when we finish the
October 21, 2004
94
1
2 testimony in this case, when that' s been heard and
you have tested that testimonyusing the mandated
3 balancing of public interest approach, you will
conclude that the Orient Fire District is indeed
4 exempt from the zoning requirements, the operation
of the Town zoning code, and it will be able to go
5 ahead and build this much needed tower to improve
our communications .
6 I have a number of witnesses and I' d like
to, unless there are any questions at this point,
7 simply start with those witnesses and see how much
of this we can get through today.
8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Sir, is the
balancing test you' re referring under the Telecom
9 Act?
MR. BOYD: No. It' s a decision of the
10 Court of Appeals of the State of New York that had
to do with the construction of an airport, a
11 dispute between the City of Rochester and the
County of Monroe . This particular case has been
12 amplified several times since then. Most notably
and this is a case that involves fire departments
13 directly, in Nanuet Fire Company No . 1 versus
Ampster as the Chairman of the Town of Clarkstown
14 Zoning Boards of Appeals, I will be happy to
provide you with the citations, indeed to provide
15 you with those cases so you can read them on your
own. Those are the matters that take• precedence
16 here'.
If there' s nothing further, I would like
17 to proceed right with the beginning of our
approach, and the first person I'm going to call
18 to speak will be Martin Trent, who is the Chairman
of the Board of Commissioners of the Orient Fire
19 District .
MR. TRENT: I have prepared a statement I
20 can provide you with copies . Thank you (handing) .
My name is Martin Trent, I am Chairman of
21 the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Orient Fire
District, and the past Chief of the Orient Fire
22 Department . I have been a volunteer fire fighter
in Orient for the last 25 years .
23 A fire commissioner has two basic
responsibilities in serving his or her
24 community. One, to insure that the department has
the equipment and resources needed to protect life
25 and property; and two, to accomplish this in a
fiscally prudent manner that controls the fire
October 21, 2004
95
1
2 district portion of our property tax levy. The
Orient Fire District is seeking your approval to
3 improve the fire, emergency and police
communications for our community in order to
4 better protect life and property, our number one
priority. It is an unfortunate fact that there
5 are currently areas within our fire district where
radio communications are lacking.
6 To us, this is an issue of protecting our
own lives as well as those of the public . We
7 don' t want to see one life lost, one fire fighter,
one police officer or one person injured or one
8 home or business destroyed because we couldn' t
contact the firehouse, the police department or
9 each other in times of an emergency. The
communications antenna will provide for increased
10 public safety by improving our broadcast and
receiving abilities to cover the entire
11 geographical area of the fire district .
The communications antenna is not a
12 cure-all, but the experts advise us that it is a
necessary first step in order improve our
13 emergency service communications . There are other
actions that are necessary. We have already
14 received our FCC license to allow us to move to
high band frequency as many fire districts are now
15 doing, and we always need to update our hardware
communications equipment .
16 We are all aware that we live in a post
9/11 world now. The Animal Disease Laboratory at
17 Plum Island has been taken over by Homeland
Security. Like it or not the volunteer members of
18 the Orient Fire Department and the officers of the
Southold Police Department have been thrust into
19 the role of frontline responders in case of an
emergency on the island. It is imperative that we
20 have a communications system that works as well at
Orient Point as it does on the Causeway.
21 To address our second major priority, fire
commissioners are responsible for the property tax
22 warrant associated with operating the fire
district . While the financial aspects of the
23 communications antenna are not strictly a concern
of this Board, they are important to us .
24 The antenna pole will be constructed at no
cost to the taxpayer by Beacon Wireless
25 Management . Beacon has already received
commitments from three major wireless
October 21, 2004
96
1
2 communication companies, T-Mobile, AT&T and
Verizon to locate antennas inside the pole .
3 The annual rent to the fire district for
housing their wireless carriers will be $45, 000 a
4 year. If a fourth carrier signs on, the income to
the fire district will increase to more than
5 $70 , 000 annually. This is a substantial amount of
our total fire district tax levy of approximately
6 $354 , 000 annually. As a fire commissioner, I
would be remiss in my duties to ignore a revenue
7 source that can be utilized to stabilize or reduce
future fire district property taxes .
8 The fire district hosted a well-attended
public information meeting at the firehouse last
9 year as part of a community outreach effort . Most
speakers at the session supported the
10 communications antenna on the public safety
grounds, two speakers even cited instances of 911
11 emergency cell calls they made from Orient that
"roamed" to Connecticut, thus costing valuable
12 response time .
In addition to the Orient Fire District,
13 it is noteworthy that the Southold Town Police
Department and Southold Town PEA have supported
14 installation of the communications antenna.
We understand some members of our
15 community will object to the antenna pole on the
grounds of aesthetics, saying it' s too tall or
16 saying additional studies should be conducted in
order to delay the project . It' s not a perfect
17 plan, but we intend to do the best we can. The
antenna will be installed in the rear of the
18 firehouse grounds, away from both the Main Road
and Tabor Road. It will be an appropriately
19 colored flagpole-type structure, and the base will
be landscaped. The experts advise us that the
20 height is necessary in order to obtain the needed
geographic coverage to enhance public safety
21 communications .
In conclusion, please be aware that the
22 Orient Fire Department is an all volunteer
organization. No one is paid, not the fire
23 commissioners, not the fire chiefs, not the fire
fighters, nor our emergency medical personnel .
24 The volunteers are not in this for personal
financial gain. The dedicated people in our small
25 department put thousands of hours of training and
in response to emergencies of all types every year
October 21, 2004
97
l
2 for our community.
We ask that you put their safety, the
3 lives of the fire fighters, police officers, and
emergency medical responders first, and give them
4 one of the tools they need to do the job. I
respectfully request your approval of this
5 application to help protect the lives of our
volunteers, and the lives and property of all the
6 people in our community. Thank you for your
time .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Marty.
MR. BOYD: The next witness I .would like
8 to call is Fred Terry, he' s the First Assistant
Chief of the Orient Fire Department .
9 MR. TERRY: Members of the Board, Ladies
and Gentlemen, my name is Fred Terry. I'm First
10 Assistant Chief of the Orient Fire Department .
I 'm here on behalf of myself and Mike Rose, our
11 chief, who could not make it here today. I 've
been a fire fighter for 42 years, and I 've been an
12 emergency medical technician for 26 years . I can
recall numerous calls when I was the only EMT in
13 the district, and I was on the phone and due to
lack of communication because my pager didn' t
14 activate, other members of the fire department had
to come out to the field and find me so we could
15 respond to the call; this happened numerous times
and you know valuable minutes mean a lot when
16 you' re trying to save a life.
I have a letter I ' d like to read from our
17 chief . He couldn' t be here .
"On February 6th, the Orient Fire
18 Department responded to a possible structure fire
in Green Acres . Upon arriving on the scene, I
19 realized there was a working fire on the second
floor and tried to call for assistance . With no
20 response from either the Southold Town Police or
the Suffolk County Fire Rescue One, I returned to
21 the chief' s truck and again tried to call for
help . At this time Southold Town Police responded
22 and tried to call out a second alarm that was not
received by our members . When one of the
23 ex-chiefs showed up on the scene, I ordered him to
return to our firehouse and dispatch the call for
24 assistance a third time, this one finally getting
out to all members but not until a lot of critical
25 time was lost . If this fire had not been
contained by a closed door, the loss would have
October 21, 2004
98
1
2 been much worse . Time in the fire service is a
critical factor, and when seconds can make a
3 difference, 10 to 15 minutes is consequences I
hope never to face again due to poor or inadequate
4 communications . The proposed OFD cell tower will
correct this problem. Chief Mike Rose . "
5 I just want to say that as all of us are
concerned with, my biggest concern is life, quick
6 response and when I'm chief, I just want to be
able to communicate with my fellow fire fighters
7 so nobody will be lost in active duty. Like I
say, my only concern is helping people, and I
8 think most people in this room, if they think
about it, good communication is critical . Thank
9 you for your time .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
10 MR. BOYD: As I 'm sure the Board is well
aware at having looked at the drawings submitted
11 so far, the antenna that we proposed puts the 450
megahertz for the fire department at the top . At
12 the 90 foot level there will be two cross arms one
of those will provide for communications on the
13 fire department low band, which is a 46-46
frequency, that is the band that is used for
14 paging. By putting the antenna at the 90 foot
level should eliminate the problems that Chief
15 Terry was talking about not being able to be
reached by pager in his field when he' s out there .
16 The other cross arm will have an antenna on it .
It will be utilized by the Southold Town Police .
17 And to explain the present difficulties
the Southold Town Police are having in that area,
18 we've asked Lieutenant Sawicki of the police
department to be here today, and for him to
19 explain the difficulties and some of the steps
that they have attempted to try to cure those
20 problems out on the east end of Long Island. I' ll
turn it over to him. Lieutenant Sawicki .
21 LT. SAWICKI : Good afternoon, my name is
Lieutenant Sawicki with the Southold Town Police
22 Department . I've been with the police department
for 23 years, in charge of the communications
23 division six, seven years . During my term in
charge of the communications division we have
24 several problems with dead spots out in Orient .
When the officers are on portables we can' t copy
25 them. When vehicle traffic stops, we can' t copy
them. It seems on the causeway and east of now
October 21, 2004
99
1
2 River Road, that' s where all the problems are . We
have several occasions when officers were on
3 domestic disputes and they were inside the house
and we couldn' t copy them because there was no
4 service . We tried putting in a new receiver and
raising the antenna at the Orient Firehouse, that
5 didn' t work. We just recently completed and moved
the antenna from the cable site in West Land and
6 moved it to the cable site in Greenport Village
and that still didn' t work.
7 I've spoken to my radio plan and they said
the only reason how we can solve this problem is
8 to have an antenna out in Orient 90 feet high. So
the police department supports the tower and the
9 90 foot so we can have officer safety, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
10 MR. BOYD: To amplify on what Lieutenant
Sawicki has put forth, we' re going to call the
11 first of our technical experts, that' s Bill
Scheibel . He can explain better than any of us
12 exactly what this antenna will mean to all of us
and what sort of coverage we can expect from the
13 new antenna placement .
MR. SCHEIBEL: I own and operate a company
14 called Eastern Long Island Electronics . I
maintain systems you may be familiar with, like
15 when you pick up the phone and dial 911, that' s
Motorola operated system, I'm the guy who runs the
16 company who' s responsible for that contract . So
the guys work for me and my company, every time
17 you pick up the phone and dial 911, you use the
system that we maintain.
18 So I maintain the 911 system for the east
end of Suffolk County. I also maintain
19 communications systems, fire departments, police
departments and several other concerns on the east
20 end. Back in the beginning of the year, Orient
Fire Department got a hold of me and in the course
21 of doing business, it was discussed what could we
do to improve communications for the Orient Fire
22 Department . So I embarked upon a study to figure
out exactly what the problems were and what we
23 would have to do to solve them, and that' s the
information I brought with me today.
24 The whole idea was we had to improve the
overall communications for the fire department,
25 there were many facets to that . One, of course,
is paging and there has been progress in that area
October 21, 2004
100
1
2 as Sergeant Sawicki mentioned and one of the
chiefs, that we have done some rearranging of the
3 antennas, gotten a little higher, there' s a new
base station; that does get paging to be better,
4 but it doesn' t resolve the issue in terms of
dispatch and a fire chief being able to talk to
5 his firemen, and you know, muster resources to act
upon a particular scene . It doesn' t help us in
6 resolving that at all . That also involves
managing the scene of a fire, what actually has to
7 be done and how to communicate to the people at
this fire what needs to be done and have the most
8 success at that scene .
There' s also the issue of fireman safety.
9 There are systems in place today that utilize
technology and enable you to know when a fireman' s
10 in trouble . The existing communications systems
today and used in Orient are not capable of that .
11 In other words, those new systems that other fire
departments implemented across the island, the
12 current Orient system is incapable of using that
type of technology.
13 In terms of fire ground, that' s .where
basic fire operations occur. The existing radio
14 communication facilities do not allow for
effective fire ground communications . A simple
15 example of that would be when there' s a man on a
hydrant and you need more or less water, it' s very
16 important that that be an effective communication.
And today that very simple fact is not there, that
17 level of communication is extremely poor right now
in Orient .
18 Additionally, the issue of mutual aid,
that' s when there' s multiple fire departments
19 required to go to a scene, and one place to get
them to communicate effectively, so you can make
20 the best use of your resources that you have . In
all these aspects the current communication system
21 for Orient Fire Department fell short of where
technology is today and even other departments are
22 doing that service in my company.
What does this really mean? Some of it
23 has already been stated. It' s a matter of missed
calls you may have a number of firemen available,
24 we have other jobs, they' re volunteer firemen, but
if they don' t get the initial page, you can' t
25 muster those people to the scene and missed calls
means you don' t have the resources you need to be
October 21, 2004
101
1
2 as effective as you can be .
Firemen safety issues, if a fireman is in
3 trouble and you don' t have a mechanism to alert
others to his possible problem, you don' t have an
4 effective communication system. Poor fire ground
communications gets back to the issue of : I need
5 more water, but I can' t get it . I need more men,
but I can' t get the message back to the chief .
6 And long range communications, when it
comes to mutual aid, talking back from Orient to
7 fire control to get another dispatch done, to get
another department involved, that' s a very
8 important communication, and time is of the
essence . If you have to repeat that call two or
9 three times, those are minutes lost . The biggest
issue we have is that the platform that Orient
10 currently uses there' s really no room for
improvement at all . We've done everything we can
11 in terms of the antenna system we have to work
with, the systems we have to work with, and we
12 can' t really get it to work any better than it
currently works . That' s really just an outpouring
13 of what happens with technology today. We all
have personal computers and microwave ovens, but
14 low band communication system that fire
traditionally uses is the most susceptible to
15 interference from those other consumer devices .
So the logical thing to do is to .move out of that
16 space and move toward a better form of
communication, that' s where the use of the 450
17 megahertz channel comes in.
As far as the equipment, upgrading the
18 equipment is something that has to be done, but
more importantly, you have to have facility to
19 make use of the better equipment that you would
obtain, and without a tower system and antenna
20 system to utilize that new equipment, you really
haven' t accomplished anything, and that' s as
21 simple as you need height .
Height is might in the radio world.
22 That' s why you don' t see T.V. antennas mounted on
100 foot buildings . We mount them on things like
23 the Empire State Building or on huge towers out in
the fields of New Jersey. Because the farther you
24 need a signal to travel and the clearer you want
that signal to be, the higher you have to put the
25 antenna. It' s a simple matter of physics . Radio
waives can' t travel through a lot of things . You
October 21, 2004
102
1
2 probably notice that on your broadcast radio in
your car and you drive through a tunnel, you can' t
3 hear anything on the radio. The same thing
affects radio communications for firemen. It' s
4 even more important because something can get in
the way of your ability to communicate and the
5 other person you need to communicate to, something
as simple as trees, foliage, the composition of
6 buildings, whether it' s a wood frame building,
concrete building it all drastically affects radio
7 communication. The way to fix that is to use
height . The higher you put the central
8 transmitting and receiving antenna, the more
likely it is that a remote receiver in the field
9 can transmit and receive effectively. It' s a law
of radio.
10 Interference is a necessary evil . Once
again, the higher you put the antenna, the more
11 effective the antenna is and the more likely it is
you can mitigate the potential problems, the
12 interference, that' s why you want the antenna
where you do.
13 In this world of computers, we have
computer programs that allow me to simulate how a
14 particular radio system is going to behave given
certain variables . I tried to show what level of
15 coverage a fireman with a hand-held radio would
have with a high band system on the tower at the
16 120 feet that we asked for. Basically, to put
this in the simplest form I can, is that a fireman
17 with a hand-held radio would have effective radio
coverage every place there' s green or light blue .
18 Today the coverage that a fireman has from radio
to radio isn' t chartable . I can' t chart it
19 because it' s that bad. For the simple reason that
there' s no center stage mechanism for
20 communications . All we've got is can this radio
talk to this other radio. Once you install a high
21 band receiver system and have dedicated high band
channel, you now have the ability to talk through
22 that central antenna. It amplifies the signal
many times and sends it out to the other hand-held
23 radio. That' s the whole premise upon which the
450 megahertz channel will be built . That' s how
24 you can insure or the computer can insure that you
will have this level of coverage .
25 In summation, these are the benefits I see
with the new system: One, you would absolutely
October 21, 2004
103
1
2 have district wide coverage with a hand-held
radio. So the issue of one fireman being able to
3 talk to another fireman would no longer be an
issue; that level of coverage would be guaranteed
4 through the placement of the new antenna and new
system. No more lost pages, in two ways, one,
5 because we fixed the low band antenna by raising
the antenna, so it' s more likely that the small
6 hand held, small pager the fireman has on his belt
will be heard, but also through better dispatch
7 capability and that chief being able to be on
scene and reliably reach another fireman and
8 another chief back to dispatch, gives him much
better control and notification of his resources .
9 The other things, fireman safety issues,
Things like man down that we can' t implement with
10 the existing system are now easily put in place .
The radio has a button on it, when I'm a fireman
11 and I'm in trouble, I had hit the orange button,
everyone else on the system knows I'm in trouble
12 by radio. The other problem is the interference
we talked about on low band, we move to high band,
13 somewhat mitigated, we don' t have to worry about
it anymore . That low band interference is not
14 going to get any better. The proliferation of
other things that make interference is going to go
15 on. Once you move to high band, you no longer
have to worry about it, and that' s the extent of
16 my presentation. Questions?
MR. BOYD: Next witness we' re going to
17 call on will be Mike Walker. He' s going to
explain the layout of the site, why we have to do
18 what we' re doing. He' ll explain his credentials
and his reasons for being here .
19 MR. WALKER: Good afternoon, Members of
the Board and observers . My name is Michael
20 Walker, I 'm a registered architect in the State of
New York. I have been working in the
21 telecommunications business since the mid ' 90s .
I 've been involved with site development here on
22 Long Island since the mid ' 90s for mostly Sprint
and T-Mobile . I have here a picture which I 'm
23 sure everyone has seen, but I will quickly
describe the features of this proposed site for
24 the record.
This is Main Street and Tabor Road. This
25 is the existing firehouse and the paved driveways
around it . The extra storage building in the
October 21, 2004
104
1
2 back, we have located the tower so that it meets
the various setback requirements behind this
3 building and planted a visual buffer strip all the
way around the compounds . The setbacks from the
4 east property line is 179 feet . The setback from
Tabor Road is approximately 330 feet, and the
5 setback from Main Road is about 150 feet . It' s 45
feet behind this existing building, and I think
6 that' s everyone, the south setback is 139 feet .
The tower is a simple straightforward pole with
7 three antennas . The high band antenna that
Mr. Scheibel talked about at the very tip, then
8 the Southold Police antenna then the Orient Fire
District antenna. There are no other antennas
9 that are visible on the pole .
This other drawing that I have simply
10 shows the layout of the compound. The pole stands
in the middle of the compound, has a fence around
11 it, and the landscape screen and the three
carriers that are currently committed are
12 Omnipoint, Verizon and AT&T, and all their
equipment will all be located inside of an
13 enclosed building.
This site is an unmanned site . The
14 equipment shelters are locked. They' re visited by
a technician perhaps once a month. There is no
15 sewage effluent or anything like that . It' s a
silent piece of equipment that sits there by
16 itself . I' ll stop talking because everybody' s
pretty familiar with .the physical layout here .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: How many feet did you
18 say it was from the Main Road, the antenna?
MR. WALKER: From Main Road I'm not sure,
19 but from the rear property line from the adjacent
property it' s 150 feet back to the tower.
20 MR. WERNAKOWSKI : I'm Henry Wernakowski,
I'm one of the adjacent property owners . He
21 stated 150 feet from the tower to the Main Road,
it' s not, it' s 150 feet from my property.
22 MR. BOYD: It was a little confusing, I
think Mr. Walker' s testimony was it was 150 feet
23 from the adjacent property line, not from the Main
Road.
24 Everyone is concerned about the appearance
of this tower when it is constructed, and in order
25 to allay some of the misconceptions that have
gotten around and some of the fears, we have had
October 21, 2004
105
1
2 photo simulations prepared of exactly what this
tower will look like when constructed. In order
3 to present those to photo simulations, I'm going
to call upon Donna Marie Stipo, who has done the
4 work and can explain her credentials in the area
and what she has done and show you the actual
5 appearance of the tower when it is completed.
MS . STIPO: Good afternoon, Donna Marie
6 Stipo, I am a planner, standing member of the
American Planning Association. I am a member of
7 the APA Chapter, Wagner University, Wagner School,
NYU, and I'm a graduate of Boston University with
8 a Bachelor of Science .
We were retained to take a look at the
9 surrounding area and prepare photo simulations .
The word "photo simulation" means that photographs
10 were taken with a 50 millimeter lens from
surrounding areas and points . A 50 millimeter
11 lens will replicate the human eye through the
camera lens, for those that are familiar with
12 photography, and essentially the structure is then
built in a program called MIA. It is one of the
13 top programs in the industry -- some may be
familiar with 3-D Studio Viz, it' s very similar --
14 and what that program does is essentially build
the structure and then place it and scale it into
15 the photograph, giving you the word "photo
simulation. " It simulates what you would see
16 should the structure be built . And what is
provided on that board is what we would call a
17 before and after, essentially it' s the existing
condition, then the proposed condition that would
18 be rendered.
What we do in taking the photographs, we
19 took a look at the entire surrounding area. We
took a look at the sensitivity with respect to the
20 historic nature and architectural details within
Orient . We worked for a year tirelessly with
21 SHIPO and received a letter of no effect from the
Senior Historic Restoration Coordinator, Mr. Jule
22 Adams . We took a look at the sensitivity of the
site with respect to the entire area as well as
23 the residential and the causeway. Those
photographs are presented to you for your review.
24 There' s nine of them there .
The structure itself is stealth with
25 respect to mitigation. It would be an enclosed
structure or a cylinder structure, and the
October 21, 2004
106
1
2 antennas that would be from the providers would be
in the interior, so they would essentially have no
3 visibility. The whip antennas that are presented
by the police and fire are essentially thin
4 antennas at 90 and 120 feet, and would therefore
lose visibility to most of the residents in the
5 surrounding area.
We also noted that there would be limited
6 to no impact within the historic district and the
homes located in that area. In order to actually
7 give you a proper rendering and to put the
structure exactly where it should be so residents
8 would have an opportunity to see it, we performed
what is called a crane test, and we took a crane,
9 a physical crane, to the property, measured out
from the drawings that were provided where the
10 structure would be . We had the crane set up in
the center of the compound or area of equipment,
11 and the boom was raised to the proper height .
Therefore, we had a physical visible structure .
12 Of the photographs we provided SHIPO with, 22
photographs, it showed them the actual crane
13 setting as well as simulations, and that was as
per their requirements .
14 The structure itself is mitigated from the
surrounding area and SHIPO found that it would not
15 have any impact or change the current aesthetic or
architectural areas and would not have an impact
16 with respect to the historic area.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is SHIPO?
17 MS . STIPO: State Historic Preservation
Officer.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
MS . STIPO: You' re welcome .
19 We also took a look at the tower and what
would visibility be from the scenic byway, which
20 is the corridor that goes across the water, and we
found that the tower or the crane itself was
21 barely visible, what is visible is the peak of the
church, and that photograph is presented to you
22 and at 50 millimeter. I also have an 80
millimeter, which I had to use in order to see it
23 through the lens of the camera that I can provide
the Board with. Do you have any questions?
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you have
anything to do with the design of the antenna?
25 MS . STIPO: No, I don' t design the pole or
any of the structures .
October 21, 2004
107
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd?
3 MR. BOYD: So far the testimony that you
have heard has centered on the fire department and
4 police department communications . Though the
cellular application will have no visual impact,
5 we feel it is important that we present all of the
applicants at the same time so that a decision may
6 be made on the entire package . In order to do
that, I 'm going to turn this part of the
7 presentation over to Lawrence Ray, Esquire who
will present the witnesses having to do with the
8 cellular co-tenants that will appear on this
tower.
9 I reiterate, and I'm sure that everyone
else will say pretty much the same thing, that
10 aside from the buildings that are scattered around
the base of the antenna structure, you won' t be
11 able to tell whether there' s a cellular antenna
there or not . This structure that we' re putting
12 up is for the fire department use . It' s to get
our antenna up to that required 120 foot level .
13 Mr. Ray.
MR. RAY: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Lawrence
14 Ray, 36 North New York Avenue, Huntington.
As Mr. Boyd had indicated, I' ll be
15 addressing the AT&T Wireless and Omnipoint aspect
of the application. They are co-applicants both
16 in this matter. Both, AT&T and Omnipoint are
licensed by the Federal Communications Commission
17 to construct, maintain and operate personal
wireless service systems here in Suffolk County,
18 and, in fact, throughout much of the U. S .
Mr. Boyd briefly outlined how important
19 wireless communications have become to our
society. Most people use wireless communications
20 on a daily basis, business people, residents . At
times of national or local or even personal
21 emergencies, wireless communications have become
an important part of the safety net of the
22 community. In fact, in the last calendar year
approximately 50 percent of all calls made to 911
23 were made from mobile telephones . So this is an
integral part of the application in a sense that
24 it will complete the public safety for the Orient
community, it will assist police department, the
25 fire district and private individuals at times of
emergency.
October 21, 2004
108
1
2 As you all know, also the wireless
providers have been increasing their scope of
3 service to their customers and can now provide
internet access, email access and data as well as
4 the traditional voice information that comes over
on telephones . '
5 I have appeared before this Board on a
number of occasions, and I am well aware of the
6 Town code as it relates to wireless carriers, and
the Board and the Town to its benefit has
7 encouraged the applicants for the providers of
wireless services to collocate their antennas
8 wherever possible, and I was here before the Board
in an application for AT&T Wireless to enclose
9 antennas in a church steeple on Fisher' s Island,
and I was here on another application for Sprint
10 to enclose antennas in the church in Orient, and I
have represented carriers throughout Long Island
11 in applications to collocate antennas in church
steeples and on fire district towers throughout
12 Long Island. And the list is rather lengthy and
of fire districts that have invited wireless
13 carriers to collocate . It makes sense . If
there' s going to be a structure for communications
14 for a fire department, you might as well utilize
that structure for collocation, and the list is
15 lengthy. I ' ll give you a couple of the
highlights : The Southampton Police Department,
16 Ridge Fire Department, Rocky Point Fire
Department, Hagerman, Lake Ronkonkoma, Flanders,
17 Eastport, West Sayville, North Massepequa, North
Patchogue, it' s a lengthy list . In each case we
18 have gone out of our way to try to collocate on
fire department or police department towers so
19 that we don' t have to erect another structure in
addition to the structure that' s already providing
20 service for the public safety agency in question.
This is a special application because not
21 only would we be collocating on a tower that is
needed by the fire department, but we would be
22 collocating in such a way that you won' t even see
the antenna that are providing the service for
23 AT&T and Omnipoint . They will be completely
enclosed. I think it' s a win-win situation, we' re
24 collocating and we' re invisible . So we' re able to
provide service to the residents of Orient, to the
25 people who travel through Orient, to people who
are faced with an emergency, and to the Orient
October 21, 2004
109
1
2 community at times of national emergency.
There have been questions as to why, for
3 example, the carriers can' t all collocate in the
Orient church steeple . When I was here before you
4 for that application we presented an elevation and
it showed where the antennas of Sprint were to be
5 located in that steeple . There' s room for perhaps
one antenna array at the bottom of the steeple,
6 but it would be below the tree line and our radio
frequency engineers have indicated that that would
7 be useless for their purposes and it would only
be one carrier, and there are four carriers that
8 serve the area in addition to Sprint . AT&T
Wireless and Omnipoint are co-applicants this
9 afternoon. Verizon has expressed a very strong
interest in collocating inside this pole also, and
10 Nextel, the last of the carriers, has also
expressed some interest in collocating.
11 By doing this and by approving the fire
district' s pole that it needs for its
12 communications, you would also be allowing all of
the remaining carriers to provide service to the
13 Orient community without having any visual impact
whatsoever on the Orient community.
14 The site will operate at a very low power
level, and I' ll be presenting an expert in that
15 field to address that field in just a few minutes .
But before doing so, I'm going to briefly ask each
16 of the radio frequency engineers for each of the
companies, there will be two witnesses, to address
17 the area that would be covered by this site should
this application be approved. Omnipoint' s
18 antennas would be enclosed near the top of this
pole inside this pole . Nicholas Balzano is a
19 radio frequency engineer for Omnipoint . He has
prepared a map that shows where the area of
20 coverage exists now and the area that would be
served should this application be granted. And
21 I' d like to hand up Mr. Balzano' s curriculum
vitae .
22 Mr. Balzano, please state your name and
address for the record.
23 MR. BALZANO: Nicholas Balzano, 3500
Sunrise Highway, Great River, New York.
24 MR. RAY: Mr. Balzano, you are a radio
frequency engineer for Omnipoint?
25 MR. BALZANO: Yes, I am.
MR. RAY: And you' re fully familiar with
October 21, 2004
110
1
2 Omnipoint' s network in this area?
MR. BALZANO: Yes, I am.
3 MR. RAY: At our request did you prepare a
map that shows the area of existing coverage and
4 then the area that would be covered with reliable
service if the application were granted and
5 Omnipoint were to install its antennas inside this
pole?
6 MR. BALZANO: Yes, I did.
MR. RAY: Could you describe the map to
7 the Board, please?
MR. BALZANO: Yes . Here we have the map
8 of Orient and so we can see Route 25 . The
existing site Omnipoint has in the area. Then
9 here we have the location. The first overlay
basically the coverage that we have in the
10 area. The green represents basically reliable
coverage . What this means is that within this
11 area a customer would be able to make or receive
phone calls, it will not experience drop
12 calls . The clear area that represents unreliable
coverage . What it means is that within this area
13 a customer will experience a dropped call and will
not be able to receive or make a call .
14 Specifically in Orient the gap is about 5 . 2 miles
along Route 25 and plus or minus three within the
15 business district of Orient as in Orient Point .
Now, the blue basically represents what would be
16 the coverage offered by the subject site at ,120
feet . As you can see the site will cover an
17 overlap basically with the coverage that we have
towards the west along Route 25 and will leave us
18 still a gap of 1 . 2 miles on the east towards
Orient Point . What this means within this area
19 basically a customer traveling on Route 25 or in
the area towards Orient Point will not be able to
20 make and receive phone calls .
MR. RAY: Thank you, Mr. Balzano. I have
21 smaller maps for each of the Board members . Do
any of the Board Members have any questions of
22 Mr. Balzano?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Now your radio
23 communications have nothing to do with the police
communications that will reach to Plum Island
24 shall we say?
MR. RAY: Correct . Natalie Noelle is
25 Mr. Balzano' s counterpart for AT&T Wireless .
MS . NOELLE : My name is Natalie Noelle for
October 21, 2004
111
1
2 AT&T Wireless, I'm at One Huntington Quadrangle in
Melville, New York.
3 MR. RAY: Miss Noelle, AT&T Wireless'
system works in a similar manner as that described
4 by Omnipoint by Mr. Balzano?
MS . NOELLE : That' s correct .
5 MR. RAY: You have also prepared
propagation maps that show the existing reliable
6 service and the service that would be enhanced if
this application were to be approved?
7 MS . NOELLE: That' s correct .
MR. RAY: Would you briefly describe your
8 maps to ,the Board?
MS . NOELLE: Certainly. The map is
9 actually similar to Mr. Balzano' s in that the
green areas represent areas of reliability
10 coverage and, as he said, it' s an area that in the
green areas you are likely to be able to complete
11 your phone calls, you have good quality calls,
voice service is well . You have good data calls .
12 In the white areas represented on this map, it
shows that you will most likely have unreliable
13 coverage, which means you may experience dropped
calls, missed calls, you may not get your pages,
14 that you have messages waiting. Various problems
that we' re all familiar with in areas of weak
15 coverage .
MR. RAY: If you turn the overleaf and you
16 could show the Board Members what the enhancement
would look like .
17 MS . NOELLE : AT&T is operating at a
similar frequency in the 1900 megahertz bands . At
18 this location we are 10 feet lower, we' re
proposing to be 10 feet lower on this structure
19 than T-Mobile' s or Omnipoint, and we will provide
a large area of coverage that eliminates the
20 coverage deficiency that' s immediately surrounding
the Orient Fire District station or the
21 location. But the extent of it is about a mile
radius, it' s about one and a half to two miles,
22 the extent of it along Route 25 .
MR. RAY: Thank you, Miss Noelle . Unless
23 the Board has questions regarding the propagation
issues, I would also like to call Mr. Petersen who
24 will address the compliance with FCC.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, I think, has a
25 question.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On your diagram,
October 21, 2004
112
1
2 this is with the antenna installed in Orient what
we' re looking at right now, right?
3 MS . NOELLE : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You see Parkview
4 Drive, that green spot, that big green spot, that
says North Sea on my map anyway. Tell me the
5 reason why there' s white in between that in that
big green, why would there be white there?
6 MS . NOELLE : Here?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . What would be
7 the reason why you couldn' t get reception there?
MS . NOELLE : This map takes into
8 consideration any of the terrain properties if the
area either dips off suddenly or it comes up. The
9 area is mainly flat but just because of the
distance that we' re working with here, this area I
10 believe is just beach-type area, you' re pretty
flat, you' re very close to the water, you' ll be
11 able to get the coverage right in there because of
that . You' re close to the water and also water
12 helps to propagate the signal .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about
13 Northview Drive, which is that long white strip.
Right along that is that strip at the top, why
14 would you have no reception there?
MS . NOELLE : Actually there' s a change in
15 the terrain right there . It' s referred to as
Brown' s Hills and the coverage stops right along
16 that area.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It' s high there and
17 where the white is it goes down?
MS . NOELLE : That' s correct . As
18 Mr. Scheibel mentioned all our propagation is
affected by terrain as well as foliage .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you.
MR. RAY: Mr. Petersen?
20 MR. PETERSEN: Ronald Petersen, I live at
170 Fairview Drive, Bedminster, New Jersey. My
21 background, is an electrical engineer and electro
physics . I have a Bachelor of Science and a
22 Master' s of Science from Brooklyn Polytech. I
worked for Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill a
23 little over 40 years . I retired over three years
ago, and now I'm doing consulting as an
24 independent consultant . The last 30 years at Bell
Labs I managed the wireless and optical technology
25 safety department, which had corporate
responsibility for all safety issues involving
October 21, 2004
113
1
2 radio frequency, emitting devices both ours and
others . I also chair a number of international
3 committees, one of which develops the safety
guidelines upon which the FCC guidelines are based
4 in part . Also, a number of committees that
develop standards for the assessment of human
5 exposure of radio waves from antennas and other
devices such as this .
6 MR. RAY: I'm going to hand out
Mr. Petersen' s resume . Mr. Petersen, you
7 testified before this Board on prior applications ;
isn' t that right?
8 MR. PETERSEN: I'm not sure if before this
Board. I've testified before a number of Boards
9 out here, including Southampton and Shelter Island
and Riverhead. Most of the Boards out here . I
10 may have, but if I have it' s been a while .
MR. RAY: Mr. Petersen, I requested that
11 you study the proposed antenna facility, the power
output and make a determination as to whether the
12 combined cumulative output would meet FCC
standards?
13 MR. PETERSEN: Yes, we did.
MR. RAY: Could you describe how you
14 conducted your study and what the results were?
MR. PETERSEN: Yes . We were provided with
15 all the antenna and transmitter information that
we needed to calculate what the signal strength
16 would be at the antennas at their respective
elevations . We use a model that we have been
17 using over the years that actually presents a
worst case estimate, it over estimates what the
18 signal strength is . It' s a safety analysis . We
just assume everything adds up in one direction
19 and maximizes the signal strength. We have done
this for this particular site, including the
20 police and fire department antennas, the AT&T
Wireless antennas and the T-Mobile, Omnipoint
21 antennas, and looking at this, what we find that
the maximum signal strength anywhere in the
22 vicinity of the site normally accessible to the
public will be less than three percent of the FCC
23 guidelines .
Now, we found in the past that this really
24 is an overestimate . When we actually go out and
make measurements to compare our predicted values
25 with the measured values, typically the measured
values. are anywhere from three to 10 times lower
October 21, 2004
114
1
2 than what we predict . In this case it will
probably be even lower yet because, for example,
3 we assume that the police and fire department
transmitters are on continually the two-way radios
4 can' t be on continually because you press to talk
then you don' t transmit while you' re listening and
5 so forth, so that alone will reduce the level by
about fifty percent, but nonetheless, even under
6 worst-case conditions, reflections, maximum power
on all the time, the maximum signal strength would
7 still be less than three percent of the FCC
guidelines .
8 MR. RAY: Mr. Petersen' s report is
submitted to the Board. As the Board is aware the
9 Telecommunications Act of 1996 actually preempts
local government from regulating the placement of
10 wireless facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions
11 so long as the emissions are within the FCC limit .
And as Mr. Petersen said, not only will we comply
12 but we' ll only be three percent of the limit at
most . We believe that from our vantage point,
13 AT&T Wireless and Omnipoint, that this is a superb
application in the sense that we are abiding by
14 all of the requests of requisites of the Town
code . We are collocating, which is a very strong
15 public policy of this town, and we have completely
mitigated our visual impacts by enclosing our
16 antennas inside the poles . If the Board were to,
for example, deny an application such as this, I
17 would submit that that would be tantamount to a
prohibition of provision of wireless services in
18 the town.
We have gone out of our way over and over
19 again before this Board to try to come up with the
least obtrusive means to provide service in the
20 town, and so long as the police and fire
department need this tower for their own services,
21 we believe that this is a very wise and excellent
site from a planning standpoint and from an
22 engineering standpoint .
Unless the Board has any other questions
23 of the witnesses I have presented or Mr. Boyd' s
witnesses that will conclude our presentation.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Do we have
any questions?
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I do .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim.
October 21, 2004
115
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You are here before
us because you want to build a tower that' s 120
3 feet .
MR. RAY: Are you addressing me or
4 Mr. Boyd?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes .
5 MR. RAY: I am a co-applicant . I am
representing the interests of some of the
6 applicants, and as I pointed out during my
presentation we are here because we need to
7 provide service, as we are required by our
license, to the Orient community. The fire
8 department needs to build a tower. It needs to be
120 feet tall, and we are aware that the Town )
9 requires us to collocate if there' s going to be a
site in a particular area, so we are
10 co-applicants .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If we were to lower
11 the tower, what effect would that have on your
communications, the cellular part of it?
12 MR. RAY: The cellular part, ,Iif for
instance the fire department tower were to be
13 lower, and we had to enclose the antennas within
the pole at a lower height, it would diminish
14 these maps, diminish the footprint of the
propagation area so we would have to build
15 additional sites in the area. As you can see now,
we' re not reaching the point so we need to build
16 some kind of structure out by the ferry in
addition to this at some time . If the height of
17 this pole were to be lower, we would probably have
to build an intermediary pole between the ferry
18 and the fire district to provide service for that
in between area and perhaps also going to the west
19 somewhere .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the height
20 at which you will be? The highest cellular
antenna.
21 MR. RAY: Omnipoint antennas will occupy
the internal point of the pole between 110 feet
22 and 120 feet and AT&T Wireless will be below
that .
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In 10 foot
increments, so 110 to 100?
24 MR. RAY: Roughly. And there would be
ample room for the other two carriers that I
25 mentioned, Verizon and Nextel, should they enter
into a lease agreement to include their antennas
October 21, 2004
116
1
2 in the pole below theirs, as shown in the
elevation that Mr. Walker had presented just a
3 little while ago.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you' re saying
4 that, say there was only one cellular company
going on, they could operate at the 80 foot level?
5 MR. RAY: Each carrier has a different
grid and some operate at different frequencies so
6 that some of the carriers actually can transmit a
little further than others . But the two who are
7 before you this afternoon, at the heights that are
proposed, the propagation maps show the extent of
8 the coverage that we can provide . What Verizon' s
propagation footprint or Nextel' s propagation
9 footprint will be at a lower height, I don' t have
that information.
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So Verizon would be
number three?
11 MR. RAY: Presumably.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We have one and two
12 and three, and four?
MR. RAY: Would be Verizon and Nextel .
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But the coverage is
going to be less .
14 MR. RAY: Not necessarily. I'm not an
expert but Verizon operates at a different
15 frequency, and I think they' re able to transmit a
little farther than can Omnipoint and AT&T
16 Wireless .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So it might be
17 equal to, something like that . But in any case,
you' re still not covering all of Orient?
18 MR. RAY: No . As I say, we don' t reach
the point . And so we would have to utilize some
19 kind of a structure near the point to get the far
eastern end of the town.
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just have one
more question.
21 MR. RAY: But without this site we would
have to have multiple sites to carry the coverage
22 across this area.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just have one
23 more question, but I think it' s Mr. Boyd or maybe
the radio guy. At 120 foot level, is that the
24 minimum that you could have to get good coverage
out there?
25 MR. BOYD: We are advised that 120 feet is
the absolute minimum for us for the 450 megahertzs
October 21, 2004
117
1
2 radio that we wish to install, yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This coverage is
3 going to get you out to Plum Island?
MR. BOYD: Yes .
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have .
MR. BOYD: For the 450 it will . And there
5 are other things that have to go into that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That I
6 understand. I think first and foremost we' re
building a tower so that the fire department can
7 communicate .
MR. BOYD: That is the primary. We are
8 allowing at no cost, Southold Town Police to put
their communications antenna on our tower. There
9 are two prongs, if you will, to the fire
department communications, number one is the 450
10 megahertzs bands . The antenna will be located at
the very top of the tower. At the 90 foot level,
11 there will be the two cross arms, there will be
two antennas there, one will be for the fire
12 department, low bands 46-46 frequency; the other
antenna will be for the police department, which
13 runs around 155, 156 depending whether A channel,
B channel, so forth. This will take care of the
14 public safety communication.
As you discussed a few minutes ago, you
15 had one cellular tenant at the 110 to 120 foot
level, there' s another one at 100 to 110 feet .
16 There will be no cellular tenant at the 90 to 100
feet because that must be kept separate and apart
17 for the two public service antennas that will be
on the outlying supports . The problems with
18 separation of antennas, horizontal separation as
well as vertical separation, and we had to do a
19 lot of jiggling around to make sure we' re not
going to in any way jeopardize the optimum use of
20 that 90 foot level by trying to put a cellular a
cellular tenant in there, that' s reserved, again,
21 for public safety.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Let me ask you one
22 more question, does the fire department own any
other land other than the land that the firehouse
23 sits on?
MR. BOYD: Not that I'm aware of ..
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know Orient has a lot
of questions they wish to have answered, is there
25 someone that can kind of put together all these
things, a couple people so we just don' t go and
October 21, 2004
118
1
2 repeat ourselves? Mr. Reale, are you here
representing someone?
3 . MR. REALE : Ed Reale on behalf of the
Fireman' s Association, but I think there are a
4 number of people in town who wish to be heard.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like everybody to
5 try to not to repeat themselves . Freddie .
MS . WAXBERGER: Freddie Waxberger, I 'm
6 ex-president of the Orient Association and
ex-president of the Oyster Pond Historical
7 Society.
I remember sitting with some of you for a
8 long hot summer, three of you at least, helping
the code committee to develop the Southold Town
9 Wireless Communications legislation. I know we' re
all dedicated to protecting the quality of life
10 and the property values in residential areas, and
I think we' re all very proud of the code that the
11 committee produced, which was based on research
and very sound precedents and principles .
12 I believe that code is threatened by any
precedent that could be set by the approval of
13 this tower. I would like first to address this
issue and then the need for improved
14 communications for the fire department .
I would like to remind the Board that the
15 proposal by Bell Atlantic in 1997 for a cell tower
on residential property in Orient, that was the
16 immediate reason for enacting the moratorium.
That tower would have been just one block farther
17 east than this one . And at about the same setback
from the Main Road.
18 In his analysis prepared for the Planning
Board on April 22 , 1997 Charles Voorhees of
19 Nelson, Pope and Voorhees, the Town consultants
expressed strongly his concerns about the
20 potential for land use conflict and the visual
. impacts that would result particularly on the
21 agricultural vistas on Route 25 and Flagg
Road. I'm going to quote three quotes from that
22 document : "Maintenance of these vistas is
important and protecting the rural nature of the
23 hamlet and thus the visual impacts of the proposed
project should be considered significant . The
24 location of the large communications structure in
the area will result in an inherent land use
25 conflict and this impact is expected to be
significant . In addition to these site-specific
October 21, 2004
119
1
2 impacts, the cumulative impacts of the proposed
project must be considered. Approval of the
3 proposed project will set a precedent for approval
of other tower sites within the town. Without
4 proper planning, this would result in a
significant intrusion of the rural nature of the
5 community. " Luckily that planning was done and we
have legislation to protect the town. The
6 Planning Board designated the project a Type 1
action under SEQRA. As you know, the proposal was
7 ultimately withdrawn. Subsequently the stretch of
Main Road between Greenport and Orient Point, the
8 town achieved New York State Scenic Byways
designation for its historic and rural vistas .
9 This tower would have made it impossible to
achieve that .
10 It should be noted that' the tower proposed
by Beacon Wireless for the fire department
11 property is 125 feet, 25 feet higher than the Bell
Atlantic proposal is, and the property is only one
12 block from the national historic district of
Village Lane and its environment, a lot closer
13 than Bell Atlantic' s was . Southold Town did not
have legislation which would clearly be a Type 1
14 action, but thanks to the work, Southold does have
legislation and that lengthy and expensive step
15 can be avoided.
The tower in this proposal exceeds by 65
16 feet the height for which the ZBA may give an
exception under the law. It' s more than double
17 the height, and it' s projected to occupy the
property which is smaller than the required five
18 acres . I believe it' s also closer than the 300
feet allowed for the nearest structure, domestic
19 structure .
This application must be denied. All the
20 residents of Orient are concerned that the fire
department have access to adequate communication,
21 there is no question that the facility must be
upgraded. I am convinced that this can be
22 achieved in a way that would satisfy both the fire
department and the community. The Orient
23 community has historically supported the
department' s needs, within the last 20 years
24 financing a bond to build the new firehouse to
purchase the property on which it sits and the
25 property on which this tower is projected, and
financing a pension plan. Because of this
October 21, 2004
120
1
2 history, I feel confident that the community will
work with the department to expedite the
3 identification and financing of necessary
equipment to insure adequate communication as
4 quickly as possible . It is in the best interest
of the entire community to do so. The 125 foot
5 Beacon tower and its accompanying buildings,
however, which would impose the appearance of an
6 industrial plant on the rural and historic center
of Orient, must be denied.
7 In 1990, the commissioners of the Orient
Fire District voted to cancel a contract for a
8 cell tower on the property because as chairman
Pete Lewis was quoted in the Traveler Watchman:
9 The Board felt they didn' t have the backing of the
community residents, ' Lewis said, indicating that
10 the fire district should not be involved in a
commercial enterprise, and we thought it was in
11 the best interest of the community to terminate
the contract .
12 Orient is a small community. We have
about 800 mail boxes . We don' t need six wireless
13 carriers . I am convinced that the reception of
transmission problems of the fire department,
14 which have now been brought to the attention of
the community, can be solved expeditiously by the
15 community working together to find a solution
which is right for Orient . This tower would be
16 wrong for Orient even if there were not a law
which prohibited it . Thanks .
17 MR. MCLINSKEY: My name is John McLinskey,
My wife and I, Kathleen, live on Orchard Street in
18 Orient . The proposed tower would be directly
across from the front of my house .
19 I wish to state my opposition to the
possible erection of a cell tower at Orient Fire
20 Department site simply because it is in the wrong
place. If you wish to erect a communications
21 antenna, you ought to place it at the highest
possible elevation, referring to nautical Chart 1,
22 2 , 3 , 5, 9 which is a national governmental
nautical chart . The elevation of the Orient Fire
23 Department house is approximately 20 feet above
sea level . Immediately to the northeast, north of
24 the Main Road, within a one mile radius of the
firehouse, the elevation rises approximately 100
25 feet as can be seen from the contours on the chart
cited above . That' s 100 feet above sea level . If
October 21, 2004
121
1
2 the tower could be built in a wooded area in
which, for example, the tree height was 50 feet
3 and an additional height of 10 to 20 feet would
clear the foliage of the trees, placing the tower
4 at an elevation of 50 feet, plus the tower height
of 70 feet would yield an effective height of '120
5 feet above sea level, which is close to the height
requested by the cell tower. So by simply
6 changing location and going to this higher
elevation, we will have achieved the desired 120
7 feet, which is being requested.
The advantages are immediately clear, the
8 lower portion of the tower would be hidden by the
wooded areas foliage leaving only a 10 to 20 foot
9 portion visible to the eye . Because it is placed
high on the terrain, the antenna can see both
10 sides of the high dune, thus eliminating many dead
spots or weak signal areas about which the
11 department has serious concerns . This, therefore,
has a technical advantage over a 12 story vertical
12 edifice directly adjacent to the Village Lane,
immediately in the heart of the community, which
13 would disfigure the village by its quasi
industrial appearance .
14 This village is a little gem, surrounded
as it is north, south, east and west by the bodies
15 of the water, the sound and inland sea, Hallocks
Pond, Orient Harbor, and the not so distant
16 Gardener' s Bay. This is a village not of the rich
or the extremely rich but of the hard working,
17 middle class people of which I am one . The
country store, the post office, surrounding the
18 streets with their modest homes, a bit modest, but
we like it that way. The cell tower is completely
19 out of character.
Now I wish to speak of the heart of the
20 community. What do I mean by the heart of the
community? We know that the members of the fire
21 department perform a wonderful service to this
community, often at personal sacrifice and
22 sacrifice to their families . We know that many
members of the fire department have been members
23 for generations and members of the oldest families
that have settled in this area in former times and
24 naturally must take great pride in that heritage .
In a great sense, this is their place, the fire
25 department not being simply a service but an
important part of their social life . This is
October 21, 2004
122
1
2 their familial place . The place where they were
born, where they were raised, the place of their
3 boyhood traumas . We all have the familial place,
the place where we call home, the place we return
4 home to see our friends . The Memorial Day parade
is a magnificent sight . One \can see all the
5 members of the department and their families
participating in their rite, the laying of the
6 wreaths in each of the monuments . The members of
the fire department and their families are indeed
7 the heart of the village . They have our highest
approbation. The heart of this village is in some
8 sense the heart of America.
I wish to address the matter of the radio
9 frequency radiation from the proposed cell tower.
Over the years the Federal Communication
10 Commission and many other interested parties
including the Institute of Electrical and
11 Electronics Engineers, have attempted to arrive at
a standard for radio frequency and electromagnetic
12 field safety. Just as the sun' s radiation affects
our skin, so too radio frequency radiation has
13 physiological effects . And measurement of the
magnitude of the radiation is made as an electric
14 and magnetic field intensity that is most often
given in the measurement given the paradensity,
15 which is the parape unit area measured in watts
per square meter. That is the engineer passes
16 through a surface area. It can also be given in
milliwatt per square centimeter, the
17 standard use is called a Maximal Permissible
Exposure or MPE. In the application made by the
18 Orient Fire Department, Affordable Housing
Associates, Beacon Wireless Management and others
19 in the asset informity assessment Paragraph 4 they
state : "With respect to the FCC limits for public
20 exposure comparisons of the weighted and combined
analytical results indicate that the maximum level
21 associated with proposed base station antennas,
the summation, the maximum values for each service
22 is at least 33 times below the MPE; that is to
say, approximately three percent of the MPE .
23 Admittedly, the scientific evidence is in their
favor, quite obviously, this amount of radiation
24 is small . I do not mean to be contentious, but if
we make an error, it is a moral imperative to err
25 on the side of caution. We do this every day in
our lives; we must always err on the side of
October 21, 2004
123
1
2 caution. Remember each student will be exposed to
this radiation through all the school day and from
3 kindergarten through the sixth grade for a period
of seven years . It is our children who will
4 suffer the cumulative effects of this radiation.
It therefore behooves us to act prudently and
5 providently for our children.
Our children are our treasure . The owner
6 of the cell tower in all probability stands to
make millions of dollars for which he will give
7 the fire department some thousands of dollars a
year. But no amount of money should cause us to
8 possibly endanger the welfare of our children. We
therefore request an independent on-site
9 assessment of the possible deleterious effects of
the cell tower radiation. This assessment should
10 not be a computer simulation but a field
measurement made in the vicinity of the Oyster
11 Pond School . -Is it not prudent to choose a site
away from the school? Why choose. a site so close
12 to the school when it is not necessary? As argued
above, not the most effective site for antenna
13 communications, it is simply in the wrong place .
In summary, by locating the fire district
14 antenna at a higher elevation preferably on the
high dune, you would first solve the aesthetics
15 problem, secondly, largely insure against weak
signal areas; and third, essentially eliminate the
16 possible cumulative, longer term deleterious
health effects on the Oyster Pond School
17 population. The life of the contract made with
Beacon Wireless is 30 years . Do the parents of
18 this community really wish to have their children
exposed to this radiation for 30 years? We ask
19 the Zoning Board to deny this application. It is
an antenna in the wrong place .
20 Now I wish to also mention with respect to
alternate possibilities of the position of the
21 antenna the Federal Communication Commission has
what is called an antenna structure registration.
22 On the net I searched the Greenport area, and
there are four structures which are in the
23 Greenport area. The first one is registered
1039820 and has a height of 160 . 7 feet; the second
24 is a structure, its registration is 1003627, and
its height is 360 feet . I will give these papers
25 to you because they give the latitude and
longitude so you can actually see it on the chart .
October 21, 2004
124
1
2 The third is registered 1033042 . Its height is
377 feet, and it is owned by the Village of -
3 Greenport . The last is 446 feet, its registration
number is 1041889 . So we wish to offer these as
4 alternative venues . The position in the village
is simply the incorrect place, the wrong place to
5 place this antenna. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd, I think Mrs .
6 Tortora would like to ask you a question.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In relation to what
7 he said, how long is the lease for?
MR. BOYD: I think it could be renewed as
8 much as for 30 years .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the initial
9 terms?
MR. CANNUSCIO: The initial term is five
10 years for options for five additional five year
terms .
11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Could we have a
copy of the lease agreement, please?
12 MR. BOYD: I' ll be happy to provide you
with a copy of the lease agreement . I was just
13 curious when he said the length of the lease .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Has the fire
14 department ever thought that the idea of putting
that antenna on Brown' s Hills, putting the antenna
15 there?
MR. BOYD: First off, we don' t own any
16 land up there in Brown' s Hills .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you know of any
17 land up there, a five acre parcel that would be
large enough?
18 MR. BOYD: I certainly don' t know of any
five acre parcel that would be, if available,
19 affordable .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are there houses up
20 there in Brown' s Hills; there are residences up
there?
21 , MR. BOYD: Yes, certainly. It' s not
virgin land. We have looked into a lot of
22 possibilities . I note that we' re talking about
some tall tower in Greenport and such, I 'm sure we
23 could have our expert address that because the
distance, the horizontal distance from the area we
24 wish to serve precludes that .
MS . HOPKINS : My name ,is Ann Hopkins . I
25 live in Orient on Platt Road, and I am currently
President of the Orient Association, which is a
October 21, 2004
125
1
2 civic association of approximately 200 residents
and property owners of Orient . I have a prepared
3 statement, but I'm not going to read it all
because I know time is late, but I was very glad
4 that finally a name that I think has been quite
carefully kept out of all this discussion, namely
5 Vincent Cannuscio, has been raised because in all
of this talk in the fire department and police
6 department needs and of the cellular tower
companies that we have not mentioned the fact that
7 the fire department' s lease is with Vincent
Cannuscio of Affordable Housing doing business as
8 Beacon Wireless Management . And I feel that it is
very important that we keep in mind that he i's a
9 real estate developer; that he' s under whatever
name he uses, his company, is not a public
10 utility. Although he says he intends to sublease
space on the tower to a wireless communications
11 company, that does not give him the right to
special treatment as a public utility. We don' t
12 know for all this talk and all the maps, whether
all of these companies will still be in existence
13 by the time any tower gets built, the way things
are changing. I have my own cell phone with AT&T
14 Wireless, and I have the impression that it might
be sold to somebody else . So I don' t think we
15 should count on that . The Orient Association has
received many inquiries in recent weeks from
16 residents concerned about this proposal . We have
heard from native Orienters and newcomers, and
17 they are all united in believing that there must
be a way to meet the real communication needs of
18 the fire department without this tower in this
place . We are convinced that they are correct .
19 This proposal means that this tower as
currently proposed would be 40 feet taller than
20 the steeple of the Orient Congregational Church
across the road which has been the highest
21 structure in our hamlet since it was first erected
in 1843 . The fact that at that height this tower
22 might have to be lighted just makes it worse, as
does the industrial complex that would accompany
23 this structure . One new homeowner of a house
behind Village Lane was cited to enhance its view
24 of the steeple is appalled to learn that he might
have this monster in his sight as well . I myself
25 am equally appalled that I would see it across the
field from my house on Platt Road hundreds of
October 21, 2004
126
1
2 yards away. But all residents of Orient as well
as those who merely stop by to visit would be
3 adversely affected by a monstrosity of this size
immediately adjacent to the historic district . It
4 is important to note that the five fire
commissioners are elected by Orient tax payers and
5 thus have an obligation like all elected officials
to listen to and respect the views of those they
6 represent, something they have largely declined to
do . Many members of the fire department are among
7 those opposing the decision to allow Mr. Cannuscio
to lease fire district property. The lease does
8 not require Mr. Cannuscio to install new or
upgrade existing fire department equipment ; in
9 fact, the lease prohibits the fire department from
installing equipment that might interfere with his
10 own installation. One member of the fire
department is reported to have asked Mr. Cannuscio
11 why do we need you; why indeed? One possible
answer, of course, is that the commissioners are
12 tempted by the prospect of the income the fire
district would receive . But in the two years the
13 lease has been in effect, the department has
received no income and has been determined by
14 several court cases any future income would be
offset by loss of the district' s tax exempt
15 status .
Orient residents have always been willing
16 to support our fire department . We would rather
pay for whatever facilities the department needs
17 ourselves without entangling ourselves with
Mr. Cannuscio. A group of Orient residents have
18 joined together as a committee of the Orient
Association, one of whom members is John McLinskey
19, to explore alternative solutions to the fire
department' s genuine need to improve its
20 communications equipment .
If there is a demonstrable need for
21 additional antennas in the Orient area besides the
one in the steeple of the congregational church,
22 something that has not yet been proven, and I
don' t believe it has just because of these
23 impressive demonstrations, because anyone who is
having trouble with reception in our area can
24 switch to a carrier that can accommodate them, but
if there is a genuine need, the members of this
25 committee are ready to help telecommunications
companies locate appropriate sites . Together they
October 21, 2004
127
1
2 can provide a wide range of technical expertise
and experience, and they have made it clear that
3 they are eager to assist the fire department in
meeting its telecommunications need without
4 destroying the historic beauty of our hamlet .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask Mrs .
5 Hopkins some questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We just heard
testimony for a couple hours from experts that say
7 that the fire department needs to have an antenna
that' s 120 feet tall in order to provide adequate
8 service for the fire fighters . Now, you' re
speaking to a person who lost two friends in a
9 fire in Greenport . So, I understand the need for
communication because if they had had
10 communication such as we have today that these men
could rely on, they would be alive today, I am
11 wondering, I heard three people speak, I 'm
assuming they' re all members of the Orient
12 Association?
MS . HOPKINS : Don' t assume that .
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Two of you, you and
this gentleman, and this gentleman here?
14 MS . HOPKINS : Three, yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If in fact you' re
15 aware that the fire department has a problem and
you have been aware of that for I would say '
16 onwards of about five years and you come here,
three people say to us, well, we can work with
17 you, what have you done; what can you propose at
this hearing to solve the problem? Which is 120
18 feet for an antenna, what is it that you would
like to propose for us?
19 MS . HOPKINS : Let me say that I am not at
all an expert, that' s one reason we have the
20 committee . John is ready to say things and there
are other people who have said them. But we don' t
21 know, yes, they have said, yes, they need 120
feet . John has suggested you can have the 120
22 feet elsewhere and we just believe that nobody has
the force behind this project now, initially the
23 fire department had it except that the fire
department likes the idea of the income from the
24 tower. They have the force behind it, it has been
Mr. Cannuscio. If you were to eliminate that
25 factor and sit down with the fire department and
figure out, do you really have to have 120 feet
October 21, 2004
128
1
2 there or can you do it -- we know that one report
indicated that a great deal of the problem had to
3 do with 25 year old equipment that they had. I 'm
not going to get into that because I truly am not
4 informed on that .
AUDIENCE MEMBER: May I address that?
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Sir, I'm going to
tell you right off the bat, I worked in the cable
6 industry for 20 years . I held at one time a FCC
Class 1 license of a microwave attachment, so I
7 heard what you read before and honestly I wouldn' t
hand that in as evidence . What I would really
8 like for you to do, I would really love to hear
because I understand, you guys live in a beautiful
9 place, I love going down there . I always say to
my wife I got to get my passport out so I can go
10 down to Orient . Believe me, I've grown up with a
tower in my front yard, back yard all my life, the
11 highest one you mentioned, that' s the one I looked
at all my life . It' s not pretty. It' s visible
12 but it' s not pretty. And I want to hear a
solution. I heard three people say to me, we want
13 to work with you, but this is going on for five
years . Now, what happens tomorrow when one of
14 these guys get caught in a house, and they go to
press that on button and it doesn' t work? That' s
15 what we need to address .
MR. MCLINSKEY: Sir, may I say this to
16 you? I agree with you completely. When firemen
lose their lives it is the greatest concern to us,
17 after all, this is our fire department . Not
yours, ours . In answer to your previous question,
18 I had mentioned to you that you can get the height
that you specified of 120 feet by simply going to
19 a higher elevation. You can go to the right on
the nautical chart where you can see the contours,
20 you see it goes up to 100 feet . You can easily
take and place a tower up on that high dune and
21 you will easily get 120 feet or more . This will
definitely cover the dead spots about which the
22 fire department has concern. So this can be done
by the fire department . It is not a cellular
23 tower solution. It is a solution for your problem
as firemen and as policemen. This is where you
24 get height by going to high elevation, and if you
do so you will sharply reduce the loss of signal
25 and most certainly reduce the possibility of
having weak signals .
October 21, 2004
129
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You yourself said
that the emission from these towers will be
3 dangerous?
MR. MCLINSKEY: You wish me to repeat the
4 testimony?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, I would like to
5 hear what some other people have to say.
MR. MCLINSKEY: It is not dangerous, I 'm
6 saying it' s the cumulative effect on our children
at the local school .
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All you' re doing
then is moving the problem.
8 MR. MCLINSKEY: I 'm not moving the
problem. I'm simply saying if you go to a higher
9 elevation, you will have 120 feet, and you will
remove the problem of eradiating the children
10 because it will be a mile away.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It will be a mile
11 away from you.
MR. MCLINSKEY: Away from the school .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So it' s just the
school you' re concerned about?
13 MR. MCLINSKEY: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have .one more
14 question, the cellular people, would you let this
tower be built if the cellular phone were not
15 inside that tower?
MR. MCLINSKEY: I am not concerned with
16 the cellular tower itself . If a cellular tower
can be placed in such place where it does not harm
17 the aesthetics of the community, that' s fine . I
have no objection to the work. I'm simply saying
18 this cellular tower should not be placed at almost
sea level, 20 feet above sea level, which is the
19 location where it is now.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree, but I see
20 no alternative .
MR. MCLINSKEY: The alternative is to go
21 to a higher elevation about one mile away.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But do you own land
22 there?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d really like to hear
23 what other people have to say.
MS . MACARTHUR: My name is Frances
24 MacArthur, we are building a house within 200 feet
or maybe 300 feet of that tower. There was a
25 rumor, and I'm not sure it' s true, that the ferry
landing offered not only to allow a high tower to
October 21, 2004
130
1
2 be built on their property, but also to cede the
income to the fire department . If it is possible
3 to continue to pursue something like that it might
solve the problem of destroying the agricultural
4 nature of the property. We and other people who
live in the immediate region of the fire
5 department bought our property to enjoy.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Gillooly, did you
6 have a question?
MR. GILLOOLY: I'm Richard Gillooly. I'm
7 not a very good public speaker, so please excuse
me . We have had a lot of experts testify here I 'm
8 sure at great expense . I think a lot of what has
been said here is the feelings of both sides of
9 the community. I think if you took a hand count,
there isn' t anybody who doesn' t want the fire
10 department to have what they need. In fact, we
want them to have better than what other people
11 have because they deserve it for all the reasons
stated before .
12 I think there' s another way to do this . I
think that these experts that -- and I hire
13 experts in my own business . The experts try to
find reasons to support the people, the person
14 that hired them, not the alternatives . Your point
is well taken about alternatives, and I don' t know
15 why there hasn' t been other alternatives
developed; it' s a very valid point, and something
16 we need to address right away for the fire
department, and I fully support that not only with
17 my opinion but with my checkbook, and let' s come
to an answer, but I think this tower idea, the
18 contract is flawed. We don' t need the guy who' s
putting it together to have a five year lease and
19 then walk away from it if he doesn' t want to do it
anymore . He has a right of assignment of the
20 contract; we don' t know who we' ll be dealing with
then. Half the income is going to him personally.
21 Why don' t we do it if all that revenue can be
erected for $100 , 000 tower? We can do it
22 ourselves . We don' t need to hire somebody else to
do what we need for our community. And I think we
23 can figure out how to do what we need for the fire
department without bothering you guys who work for
24 nothing or all of these people who are here who
work for nothing. It' s sort of inartfully put
25 but --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Reale?
October 21, 2004
131
1
2 MR. REALE: It' s getting late, and I know
you've had a long day here . This could go on for
3 a long time, but I' d like to make a few points .
First is you've heard a lot of technical
4 information today from the proponents of the
tower. Probably none of this was in the file
5 before today, so we would like to ask the Board if
the file could be kept open at the end of today
6 for whatever period deemed necessary so comments
could be made and further information would be
7 supplied in response to this, and also to that
which we may not get to today because of the hour.
8 So we would ask for a couple of weeks to submit
and leave the record open.
9 Secondly, I think we need to bring this
back to what this Board' s role is in this entire
10 application. This Board is charged with the
review of the special exception permit for a
11 cellular tower. The Town code, the Town Board has
enacted a law sets forth specific standards . The
12 laws on a special exception use says, if you can
prove that you meet those standards, you've got to
13 give it to them; if they don' t, they don' t get it .
That' s what a special exception is . My
14 understanding of the zoning law is it' s not your
power to vary the Town Board' s standards for
15 special exception. There' s been no testimony here
with respect to the specific standards of the
16 special exception use today. There' s been nothing
about the standards for variance of which you' re
17 all very familiar with, I don' t have to enumerate
them, we don' t have time . Not even any testimony
18 offered on why variances are needed or the
standards for variances . So taking that from
19 right at this point, I don' t think this particular
tower can be approved by this Board given the
20 testimony thus far and what we've heard today.
Another separate and unrelated point and
21 in part addressing what Mr. Dinizio said earlier,
the Orient Association in communicating with me
22 has been very concerned, they' re the people who
are served by the emergency services, very
23 concerned about not being opposed to whatever is
best for the emergency service . One point that we
24 made to the fire district back in last December,
when we were looking into what issues were
25 presented by this application, particularly the
private intermediary Beacon Wireless Affordable
October 21, 2004
132
1
2 Housing Associates is that the fire district loses
its potential for its tax exemption. Right now
3 the property' s tax exempt and it should be . There
are numerous case decisions by the state
4 controller and the attorney general where when a
private use is imposed on a tax exempt piece of
5 property, the entire property loses its tax exempt
status . We didn' t leave that for today to leave
6 it as a surprise . I wrote a letter to Mr. Boyd
December 3rd of last year, giving him the
7 decisions and telling him we' re concerned about
that . It' s a concern that residents of the
8 fire district are going to have to pay the
taxes if they lose the exemption, then the
9 assessments are going to be even higher. So
whatever profits are generated by this tower by
10 the developer of the tower, may in fact be negated
or at least reduced by the loss of the tax
11 exemption.
I do want to submit this letter just so
12 it' s clear the Association' s trying to work with
them on this . We never did get an answer and I
13 think you should look at that lease . That
question that was raised about the lease is
14 important . There' s nothing in the file to
indicate who all these applicants are . If you
15 look through the file you' ll see there are five or
six notices of disapproval going back to a year
16 and a half or so, different cast of characters,
the only one being consistent is the district . We
17 have now AT&T and Omnipoint on board, I think
T-Mobile was on board at some point . There' s
18 nothing in the record to indicate what that
relationship is other than maybe speculation that
19 if you get the tower then we' ll come . There is a
lease between the Affordable Housing Associates,
20 Beacon Wireless and the fire district which really
should be in the file as well, and I think it
21 should be reviewed by the Town to see the impact
that has to possibly the tax assessment on this .
22 And again, it' s one of the reasons to go
back to what Mr. Dinizio was saying why there' s
23 concern about this private involvement . Another
separate point that I would like to address on
24 paper later is Mr. Boyd opened today saying we' re
exempt, we' re the fire district, we' re exempt . In .
25 fact, he didn' t mean exempt, he said there' s a
balancing test and he enumerated the standards for
October 21, 2004
133
1
2 the balancing test . But even if that is the case,
you still have this private component to this
3 thing.
Mr. Ray said it' s a superb application as
4 a lawyer, it' s magnificent, it' s masterful . We
have the fire district, we have Mr. Cannuscio' s
5 company and all these other things coming in at
once . We don' t know whether we' re dealing with
6 the fire department, the fire district, a private
entity, a public utility, it' s all mixed_ together,
7 which makes your decision a little more difficult
but also blurs the lines about what are the
8 standards . You still have the special exception
permit, you still have the variance standards,
9 they have to be dealt with, even if the fire
department gets the balancing test treatment, the
10 other applicants don' t and Beacon Wireless is not
a utility. Assuming that there is areal contract
11 with AT&T and Omnipoint, its very applicants say
it' s superb, it' s brilliant, but that doesn' t mean
12 that we just have to turn our eye because there
have been tragedies, there have been safety
13 issues .
Just to address Mr. Dinizio, one last
14 thing, it' s the applicant' s burden to demonstrate
to this Board that they have tried other things,
15 that they have looked into other means of
addressing the communication problem, whether it' s
16 repeaters or greater height or lesser height,
those are issues beyond me . But there hasn' t been
17 any demonstration of that either. There' s been
this conclusory statement that we need 120 feet
18 period. There was a report floating around back
in December that was done for the district that
19 was done by an expert, his name was Weyherter,
W-E-Y-H-R-E-T-E-R, who is some sort of electrical
20 engineer, who said they needed 90 foot tower to
address their needs and that was dated February
21 23 , 2003 . So, no one' s opposed to trying to get
the best emergency services, no one that I have
22 spoken to in the entire Orient area, but that
hasn' t been demonstrated that that is the least
23 that we can do, and it hasn' t been demonstrated
that that meets the code . I will reserve other
24 submissions for papers .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
25 MR. DROSKOSKI : My name is Stanley
Droskoski . I live in Orient . I have been a
October 21, 2004
134
1
2 life-long resident of Orient . I have served the
Town of Southold as a police officer for 32 years
3 the later portion of it as chief of police . I
wrote a letter not too long ago and I' ll submit it
4 to the Board but there' s no sense reading it
again. But I have listened to some of the
5 testimony of the people here today. I'm not
qualified to question the legal aspects or the
6 intricacies of the tower itself, but I listened to
this gentleman orate here for quite some period of
7 time and he said it all in the first two
sentences : "It' s across the street from my
8 house . " He could have sat down after that . I 've
heard say that they' re concerned about the
9 children in the school but presently there' s a
tower in the church right next to the school, and
10 if that isn' t bothering the children, I don' t know
why this one would.
11 We' re talking about aesthetics, it all
boils down to aesthetics . We' re not talking about
12 need to how it looks . When you talk about a tower
that' s 120 feet tall, and you say you put it on
13 Brown' s Hill so you only have 50 foot showing, but
it' s still up there 120 feet because it' s from sea
14 level, I imagine that' s how something like this is
measured.
15 Someone said that Mr. Cannuscio is
benefiting, perhaps he is but I think we reached
16 out to him; he didn' t reach out to us . Am I
wrong? I thought we reached out to him. My wife
17 and I are here today to stand up and be counted to
tell you that we are in favor of this tower.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Ma' am?
MS . DUFF: Hi, my name is it Sue Duff, I 'm
19 from Orient Point, I' ll be brief . I have one
question for the last gentleman here . He said
20 that the fire department would lose their tax
exemption; did the church? My next question is I
21 live in Orient Point . I lose electricity, I lose
my phones, I lose my water and I have a cell phone
22 that doesn' t work. I would like that to be
remedied.
23 MS . DEMEREST: My name is - Frances
Demerest, and I was born and brought up in Orient
24 Point . My husband was better than a 55 year
member of the fire department . I am a 50 years
25 charter member of our ladies auxiliary. When the
fire department needed a new building, the Orient
October 21, 2004
135
1
2 Association bucked. The building was redrawn much
smaller, which we have a kitchen that if you put
3 four females in it you' re almost bumping each
other' s butt . Because there was not enough
4 storage space or anything else, they had to put
the metal annex building up for other supplies . I
5 think this was very unfair to the community. If I
remember right the firehouse originally cost a
6 million dollars, and what they did there to have
enough space is much more than a million dollars,
7 and I hope that your committee will approve what
we want in Orient . Also, I am a member of the
8 Orient Association.
MS . MCNEELEY: Hello, my name is Ellen
9 McNeeley. I'm a resident of Orient . I have been
for 17 years and I'm the cochair of the
10 subcommittee of the Orient Association that did a
lot of work in review on the issue of the tower
11 when it first came up . I wanted to address
something that you said, Mr. Dinizio, this
12 committee has repeatedly and in writing asked both
the chief, Michael Rose and the Chairman, Martin
13 Trent to meet and sit down with members of the
fire department in order to discuss what their
14 needs really were and what their problems really
were . We have stories about being up on Green
15 Acres and not being able to communicate, but we
don' t know. We have never been able to get them
16 to define for us which equipment, under which
circumstances, in which locations and what the
17 complete congeries of the problems are because it
can be any number of them, not the least of which
18 would be the 25 year old equipment that they have
been working with which we don' t have any kind of
19 records necessarily of maintenance in order to
know.
20 The only thing they did was to hold an
informational meeting at one point this past fall,
21 which was much more of a presentation by Beacon
similar to what you have seen here today, rather
, 22 than an actual addressing of the technical issues
that we have repeatedly called for.
23 I have some comments on the amendment of
the application from John Turner, who is the Ph.D.
24 in physics and electrical engineering and a
military communications specialist, who is
25 teaching at NYU, otherwise he would be here
today. He has said that they have requested a 25
October 21, 2004
136
1
2 foot flag pole along to' host a new UHV emergency
communications antenna along with the fire
3 district' s present low band antenna in the
Southold Police' s high band antenna. Further, the
4 application states that this approach is the only
method available to provide adequate
5 communications throughout the district . This
statement, he alleges, is incorrect based upon
6 technical information. It' s been difficult,
however, for us on this last go-round to examine
7 the technical information because of the late
filings with the Zoning Board of Appeals relative
8 to technical information that has never been
supplied to us for our technical people to review.
9 Part of the issue in any kind of a public
situation like this is that both sides must have
10 ample time to review and to make judgments on what
the technical issues are for presentation for
11 final vote .
Until the time the OFD shares with the
12 community the specifics of the difficulties they
are having in emergency communications, there' s no
13 way for the community to have confidence that any
proposed remedy, in this case a large antenna and
14 an upgrade to UHF, will solve the problems they
are having. In addition, we understand that if
15 they upgrade to a higher power, which the proposal
claims requires a higher tower, the department
16 will face two problems : It may not be able to
communicate with other departments, including East
17 Marion and Greenport unless they also upgrade,
which is evidently a problem that has already
18 confronted other districts . We don' t have
anything in the budget or know of anything in the
19 budgets for those other communities that would
indicate, that they are upgrading, and, therefore,
20 would be able to communicate with the new high
band communications that Orient is seeking.
21 There will also be considerable additional
expense involved to upgrade the equipment on
22 trucks and bases, not simply the antenna and
whatever, and we have very much agreed that we
23 want very much to help them to acquire whatever
equipment that they need in order to meet the
24 safety requirements of the town, but we need more
cooperation from them in terms of the technical
25 information and review, and we need some further
demonstration that this 125 foot tower is, in
October 21, 2004
137
1
2 fact, technically required. The lease itself is
rather tricky because among other things -- I
3 won' t go into great detail -- but the Orient Fire
District is required to pay for insurance to
4 protect the district and Beacon. The OFD is
required to indemnify Beacon for the fire
5 department' s actions and any environmental
problems caused by the OFD or anybody else . Their
6 payment obligations of the fire department that
occur in the absence of any revenue of the
7 tower. As is noted by the Orient Association
previously, it' s not clear where we would obtain
8 any funds to pay for these amounts except from the
community by raising taxes . And there is a lot of
9 contingent liability risks that are inherent in
that lease that have not been addressed properly
10 by the fire district at this point, and we want to
get together with them to resolve all of these
11 issues without too much further time being lost .
MR. BURDEN: My name is Howard Burden, I
12 live at Middleton Road, Greenport . The
Cablevision tower in Greenport is right in my
13 backyard, and it doesn' t bother me in the least .
I was born on Village Lane in Orient, 1700 Village
14 Lane in Orient, and in 1965 we moved out to Orient
Point, 38200 Main Road in Orient, and Miss
15 Waxberger, when I was at my dad' s -- I'm taking
care of my 80 year old father who lives in Orient
16 now back at the old homestead -- and last week
when I got this card I looked at it, and prior to
17 that a week ago or 10 days ago, Orient Point was
without telephone service for basically a week,
18 gave my father my cell phone said, Here, if you
need me call me . Well, forget that because cell
19 phones don' t work. The fire department uses cell
phones as well as they' re a great source of
20 back-up communication, and I heard today Miss
Waxberger said all the comment was for being
21 against the construction of the tower. I see
spots on that map that still have dead spots out
22 in Orient Point, maybe we need a 200 , 250 foot
tower to cover all of Orient . So that you have
23 people that do have back-up communications and
the fire department is taken care of . Orient' s
24 very dear to me . I certainly don' t want to see it
destroyed, but it' s also disturbing when I ride to
25 Orient and I see the flashing yellow lights that
introduce you to the school area, but if that' s
October 21, 2004
138
1
2 what' s necessary to keep one child from being
injured, ,-then we have to have it; it' s that
3 simple . And the fire department needs the
communication capacity now, not in two years, not
4 in five years because a life could be lost tonight
because they don' t have the communication. So the
5 foot-dragging by the Orient Association has got to
stop . Thank '-you.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia, do you have
something?
7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Actually, just some
housekeeping so that perhaps we can clear up some
8 gray areas, maybe not . Going through the code
requirements required to be submitted, I would ask
9 that you review thoroughly 100 , 163 , Items A
through E inclusively, with particular attention
10 to documentation including notarized statement by
the applicant as to whether construction of the
11 wireless communication facility will accommodate
collocation of additional antennas for future
12 uses . I need seven copies of the deed or lease
agreement establishing applicant' s right to use;
13 nine search ring affidavits prepared, signed
sealed qualified radio, et cetera.
14 MR. BOYD: I believe we submitted all
that .
15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t think we
have seen collocation to the extent which would
16 explain --
MR. BOYD: I believe that' s all been
17 submitted some time ago. We have submitted
affidavits . We have submitted affidavits from
18 radio frequency engineers, propagation map, search
ring affidavits, the affidavit of collocation,
19 each and every requirement in the code was
submitted and then supplemented recently with some
20 supplemental material .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I didn' t get that
21 in my packet, maybe it' s an oversight . I 'm just
asking to review that .
22 MS . KOWALSKI : If you can refer to those
items and tell us where it is within the
23 documentation because there have been so many
changes .
24 MR. BOYD: We will go over all that and
index where it is .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don' t have the lease
agreement .
October 21, 2004
139
1
2 MR. BOYD: I'm not sure what the lease
agreement has to do with the decision of this
3 Board, but we' ll be happy to provide that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd, we' re missing
4 two members who haven' t heard a lot of this . Also
it does state in the code we are not experts in
5 this whole field, that we can hire an engineer of
our own choosing, which you will have to pay for,
6 to give us some legal and expert testimony because
you' re talking to -- except for Jim who knows a
7 bit about it -- but we' re really unaware of the
technicalities, and we think this is such an
8 important issue, that we want to make sure that we
make the right determination because, first and
9 foremost, we are all interested in the safety of
the people of Orient and East Marion. So we will
10 have our meeting two weeks from today, because we
have to discuss among ourselves how we want to
11 proceed with this . So I want to adjourn this
hearing and keep it open.
12 MR. BOYD: With the indulgence of the
Board, I would like to provide Mr. Scheibel a few
13 minutes to discuss some of these points that have
been raised about the alternate locations for a
14 tower and so forth. He is the expert on this
matter, and I think it would be enlightening if he
15 could speak. I also want to make sure that we
don' t get off the track on this thing. It seems
16 that a lot of objection has centered around the
fact that there will be cellular collocation on
17 this tower, and I want to remind members of this
Board that this tower is being built for the fire
18 department and public safety communications use of
the Southold Town Police Department . The fact
19 that there will be cellular tenants collocated on
that tower is not the driving force at all . It is
20 the fire communications that are required, and
with that I would like to give it to Mr. Scheibel
21 to talk.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s a dual
22 application that you have .
MR. BOYD: It is a dual application
23 because we wanted to try and avoid the necessity
for the co-tenants to have to come back and make
24 additional applications and to further burden the
Board applications they would have to make to
25 collocate on that tower. We' d like to do it all
at once, but the primary' thing that' s driving this
October 21, 2004
140
1
2 is the fire district' s need for communications .
Bill?
3 MR. SCHEIBEL: I just need to clarify
something, please . I was hired by the fire
4 department . The fire department, who I have been
maintaining for years, I have not been paid, I am
5 here right now because I am here . I can tell you,
I drove part of this . I have said to the fire
6 department, you do have a bunch of old stuff
there, and it' s not going to get the job done for
7 you. But as I stated earlier, to upgrade what' s
there without a whole scale upgrade of the
8 communications capability is not in keeping with
the mechanisms of the fire departments today. You
9 have to give fire departments the best tools
available and a wholesale upgrading of the
10 equipment out there now is like half baking a
cake . And I'm trying, I tried really hard in
11 putting together everything I did in trying to
show based on the parameters the fire department
12 gave me, which was including Plum Island, give us
the best coverage you can, do what other fire
13 departments are doing, and that' s what I came up
with. To address individual issues like moving
14 the tower to another site, there' s always the
possibility of moving the tower to another site,
15 but the FCC only lets you apply for your license
to put you in a specific place . The norm for
16 that, the standard in the industry is to put that
at the firehouse for the simple reason you need to
17 control that transmitter locally. You don' t want
to try and remotely control that transmitter
18 because there' s other variables that now you have
to deal with like can my dispatcher override
19 someone who' s trying to control a locally remoted
transmitter, you don' t do that .
20 You can use microwave, that' s a great
answer. Do you have any idea what it costs to put
21 that system in or what kind of tower you need? You
need to hang a microwave dish on. Way bigger than
22 what you need to hang the antenna at 120 feet on.
Look, I don' t make this stuff up . This is
23 what I do for a living. I've been a radio hobbit
since I was five years old. This is what I do . I
24 love doing this, and I'm not going to try and
steer any one of my targets wrong. I do this for
25 every department east of. Exit 62 , and I just try
to do the best job I can do for the fire
October 21, 2004
141
1
2 department .
And relative to specific issues about
3 putting it in a different place, yeah, we could
put it in a different place, but there are other
4 issues and you just stated one of them. Sure, put
in microwave, but that' s a bigger tower and bigger
5 piece of hardware . Now you have to have a dish
that' s three feet in diameter, that' s higher than
6 everything around it directly aimed at the other
site; it has to be higher than anything that' s
7 around it . Does anybody want to look at that any
more than they want to look at the 120 foot flag
8 pole? I don' t know. I'm just trying to do a job.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . I think we would
9 like to caucus for a few minutes, please .
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken. )
10 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Back on the record. We
11 have decided that the two applications must be
separated. The cellular tower should be one, and
12 the communications tower, the variances the other.
What we will need is a height variance on that .
13 We will hear the height variance on some sort of
structure to improve the communications of the
14 fire department and the police department on
November 18th at 1 : 00 p.m. Thank you all for
15 coming.
MR. RAY: Ma' am Chairman, what about the
16 second application for collocation?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' ll have to apply
17 separately for that .
MR. RAY: And our application, you want us
18 to resubmit all the documentation that we have
already submitted?
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s up to you.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Clarification here
20 and I think this is what the synopsis of what we
agreed to, the Orient Fire Department, if it
21 wishes to create a 125 foot tower for its own use,
does not require a special exception as a special
22 district from this Board. That is what we are in
essence ruling on at this juncture . In reviewing
23 the code we all unanimously agree that that is the
case . That does not extend to public utilities .
24 However, you will require a height variance .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I' ll make a
25 motion. May I have a second?
(See minutes for resolution. )
October 21, 2004
142
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
5 State of New York, do hereby certify:
6 THAT the within transcript is a true record of
7 the testimony given.
8 I further certify that I am not related by
9 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
10 action; and
11 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
12 of this matter.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
14 hand this 21st day of October, 2004 .
15
16
17 r
18
Florence V. Wiles
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
October 21, 2004