HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/30/2006 Hearing 1
2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
3
4 --------------------------------------------X
5 T O W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D
6
7 Z O N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S
8
9 ---------------------------------------------X
Southold Town Hall
10 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
11
March 30, 2006
12 9 :30 a.m.
13 Board Members Present
14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
15 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
16 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
17 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
18 LESLIE WEISMAN, Board Member
19 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
20 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
21
22
o a
23 Nnc
JUL
24 a.
a
25 Sau .����a T��
. C levk
z
z
U
Pi
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning,
everybody, I' d like to call to order our regularly
3 scheduled meeting of March 30 , 2006, Thursday at
9 : 30 a .m. I' d like a motion declaring all of our
4 applications have negative declaration.
(See minutes for resolution. )
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is
for the Cardwells on Peconic Lane in Peconic .
6 They have an old house and they wish to
reconstruct part of it and actually make more of a
7 third floor. Is there someone here who wishes to
speak on this application?
8 MR. CARDWELL: I'm Jay Cardwell, I ' m one
of the owners of the property along with Eric
9 Rouleau, who is sitting here with me . We bought
the house a year ago and sort of fell in love with
10 the house, the character, sort of the bones of a
house . But it was preceded by years and decades
11 of decay and neglect . We proceeded to start a
renovation.
12 In the history of the house built in 1906,
in the ' 50s they actually added and reconstructed
13 the former attic space into a third floor, two
bedrooms and a bath. Over the years, they
14 dismantled the bathroom that was on the third
floor, left the other two bedrooms there and took
15 it off the tax rolls and let it exist as storage
and space, but the construction of it was a third
16 floor. What we have in looking at the house and
wanting it renovate it and upgrade the house and
17 all of its services is to reactivate the third
floor and to convert the former two bedrooms and a
18 bath into one large master bedroom and bath. But
at the same time in looking at what was done in
19 the ' 50s, from the rear of the house, is to try to
unify the character of the house and its
20 architecture and to enhance it a little bit by
allowing the dormers that exist on the front of
21 the house to be repeated on the back of the house,
as we reconstruct and renovate the third floor.
22 We believe that that has the least impact
on the size and the scope of the house and
23 utilizes the existing structure that' s already
there that was put into place in the ' 50s . Do you
24 have any questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the front it does
25 look like a two story house until you drive around
but we usually do not allow three stories . Are
March 30 , 2006
3
1
2 you planning to sprinkle the whole house?
MR. CARDWELL: Yes, we would.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I always liked that
house on Peconic Lane .
4 MR. CARDWELL: Any alteration only changes
the actual ridge line of the house by only two
5 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We saw that . Jim, do
6 you have any questions?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I ' d like to
8 compliment you on the clarity and completeness of
your application, and as an architect commend you
9 on your architectural sensibility, which is going
to really do a wonderful job with restoring a very
10 worthy house . Also I understand that you' re going
to wind up with consistent interior ceiling
11 heights as a result of changing the slope of the
rear roof and creating a sounder structure by
12 going to 2 by 10 ' s instead of 2 by 4 ' s, which is a
very good idea.
13 MR. CARDWELL: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to be
honest with you, I don' t prejudge these
15 applications . I'm not necessarily in favor of
third story use based upon the code
16 situation. However, after looking at it and
spending some time there at two inspections, I ' m
17 being swayed.
I just have to write this decision and I
18 know you went through a litany -- and that' s not a
sarcastic statement of what you just stated --
19 give me, is it more than architectural or is it
just the actual aspect of wanting to return the
20 house to its original state?
MR. CARDWELL: I think part of it is being
21 able to keep the first two floors in a
configuration and taking some of those rooms
22 back. Part of our renovation is to remove some of
the layers of knotty pine, and take it back. We
23 have some photographs from 1906 and take the house
back to that character. But in updating the house
24 and making sure that, one, it can be financed and
be what I consider a property that will outlive
25 us, I think that having a master bath suite within
the house enhances it, and I think adding that
March 30 , 2006
4
1
2 onto the back or in some other configuration I
think would detract from the look of the house and
3 its integrity within the community. And looking
at the fact that the third floor already existed,
4 sort of enhancing that, I think accomplishes the
long term value of the house and what I consider
5 not only aesthetics, but it' s ability to be
financed, to have the least impact on the
6 structure .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, as mentioned,
8 the code allows two and a half stories and
ordinarily you would assume this kind of burden of
9 proof to say why is a two and a half story house
could be converted to a three story house and the
10 fact that once upon a time it was once a three
story house is in itself not decisive as a
11 consideration.
It is a nice house . You look at it ; you
12 look at the back. Clearly it' s a work in progress
as we say. And I guess I would like to hear more
13 reasons why this particular two and a half story
house -- there are loads of two and a half story
14 houses in Southold -- but why there is a
compelling reason other than the ones you' ve
15 stated why this variance should be granted. What
is special about this particular application other
16 than what I've heard?
MR. CARDWELL : I think that -- I don' t
17 want to repeat myself . When I look at the back,
when I look at the rear of the house, and we also
18 look at the history of the house, we want the look
of the house not to change and alter from the
19 exterior as much as possible . From the rear of
the house, yes, there is an alteration, but I
20 think that corrects some of the architectural
enhancement that was sort of done in the 150s . It
21 looks from the rear a bit of a mess, and I think
what we' re doing enhances the overall architecture
22 of the house . I think that, yes, at one time it
was three stories and that was sort of abandoned
23 at one point, but I think that adding two more
feet to it just does not impact the overall aspect
24 of the look of the house, and I think it allows
the project to go forward quicker than having us
25 add 1, 000 square feet somewhere in the back of the
house .
March 30 , 2006
5
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I guess you' re of
course right about the look of the house and as
3 you say the rear of the house is kind of a mess .
One question, our question before us is whether
4, that defect could be cured without turning a two
and a half story house into a three story house .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, it is already
a three-story house and historically it' s been a
6 three-story house .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But it reverted to a
7 two and a half story, correct?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just for a brief period
8 of time but actually when you go back a lot of
these houses are three stories . And just to fill
9 you in, we have granted when they are restoring
old houses that have had three stories we have
10 granted that as long as they sprinkle the house .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : With limited square
11 footage, as long as they sprinkle the house .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So that would be the
12 grounds of the special treatment of this case is
the history and the restoring, not simply the
13 expanding. Because you know we get lots of
applications from people who would like to turn a
14 really nice house into a yet better house for
aesthetic and convenience reasons .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That ' s correct . This
is historical more than anything else .
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further
questions .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How many square feet
will it be with the master bedroom?
18 MR. CARDWELL : I believe it will go from
1 , 800 square feet and the attic space will add
19 about 500 or 600 feet, about 600 square feet in
the attic, and then we did have -- which is not
20 required under the Zoning Board -- the addition of
the sunroom, which will add another few hundred
21 square feet in the back, that will replace the
porch. So I think in total about 2 , 500 square
22 feet .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s living area
23 without the attic space?
MR. CARDWELL: With the attic space .
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ' d like to comment
as to Michael' s question. The two and a half
25 story comes from that the ceiling is not high
enough on the third level of that house to be
March 30 , 2006
6
1
2 considered livable space . Most houses are that .
And I'm assuming that you are going to make that
3 livable space, that' s going to be an eight feet or
seven foot, whatever it is that it is not now?
4 MR. CARDWELL: Right . Right now it' s
seven and a half feet that slopes down to about
5 five and a half feet, and in actuality I think
about 50 percent of that space is over some of the
6 minimum requirements, but, yes, by bringing it up
two and a half feet and by replacing the rafters
7 so they are more proportional to coded
architecture, we will take it up to an eight foot
8 ceiling.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s going to
9 make it livable space by our code and by the state
code . That' s how you get a two and a half story
10 house in Southold Town or in New York state .
We' re granting you really the opportunity to make
11 it legal just simply because we can' t grant it to
make it legal if it' s not an eight foot ceiling.
12 MR. CARDWELL: The plans will allow us .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to be clear
13 because Michael' s question to you was what is the
compelling reason for you to have a third story.
14 And you don' t have one now, and there was never a
third story in that house, in that the ceiling was
15 never high enough.
MR. CARDWELL: I think when it was done in
16 the 150s, it was allowed.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We didn' t have the
17 code until 1957, then from that point on that was
never a three-story house, no matter how you
18 looked at it, no matter if there was a bathroom in
there or not, it was not conforming.
19 MR. CARDWELL: I' ll accept that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re going to in
20 turn grant that .
MR. CARDWELL: I appreciate that .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Have you gone to New
York state for a review of that third story?
22 MR. CARDWELL : I 've not gone to New York
state for review, what I 've been told is provided
23 I sprinkle the entire house I will be in
compliance with New York state and therefore I
24 don' t have to seek a variance from them.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s no longer
25 since, but last year when we adopted this
international code .
March 30 , 2006
7
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
audience who wishes to speak on this application?
3 If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing
and reserve decision until later.
4 (See minutes for resolution. )
- ------------------------------------------------
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is
for Julie Haerr on Mill Creek Drive . They wish to
6 construct a garage; is there anyone here to speak
on this application?
7 MR. STROMSKI : My name is Robert Stromski .
I ' m a representative of the architectural company
8 working for the applicant . The application before
you is based on an addition and alteration to an
9 existing residence . This application, due to the
nature of the existing house, is looking for
10 relief of a continuation of an existing front
yard, nonconformance and the creation of a side
11 yard nonconformance with the attached proposed
two-car garage .
12 My client came to us with the desire to
renovate the home, pretty much convert the first
13 floor into larger living space and then moving one
of the bedrooms upstairs for t'he master suite .
14 The addition to the house is a washroom, laundry
room and bathroom with a two car garage .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re all going to be
attached, there' s going to be doors?
16 MR. STROMSKI : The eight foot distance
between the house and garage is a full heated
17 space . It' s all considered interior living space .
It ' s not a covered breezeway. It' s all living
18 space . This application has been submitted to the
New York State DEC and the Board of Trustees . We
19 were granted a permit from the Trustees with
regard to wetlands jurisdiction from the Town.
20 We' re still in the process of doing the DEC. They
had some measures that we' re implementing from
21 their requirements, which is the installation of
hay bales during construction and also the
22 installation of dry wells to contain runoff .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From your leaders and
23 gutters?
MR. STROMSKI : Yes . One of the things
24 that we feel is that the application is not
something that' s entirely new to the area.
25 Driving around the area you can see there' s some
houses that are fairly close to one another. And
March 30 , 2006
8
1
2 what we have done is we've taken from the
internet, from Google Earth, an aerial photograph
3 from the actual neighborhood. I' d like to present
this to the Board. Basically you can see from
4 that there are a few homes in the area, especially
these homes and these homes here are fairly close
5 to the side yards and to their respective
properties .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because you' re going to
be fairly close on that one side yard, eight feet
7 didn' t look very --
MR. STROMSKI : Yes . One of the things we
8 looked at, trying to do other things, possibly do
some sort of addition to the west side, instead of
9 putting everything on the east side but that would
encroach getting closer to the water. It' s
10 something that' s not -- the only spot to put the
addition is where we have it . So we tried to look
11 at alternatives . One of the things we've done to
kind of soften the impact to the neighbor on the
12 east side is we've constructed the roof of the
garage with a gable that would have the sloping
13 side of the roof facing the neighbor. So even
though we' re eight feet, we' re not proposing a
14 two-story wall eight foot off the property line .
We' re proposing a one-story wall with a sloping
15 roof that slopes away from the property. So with
respect to that, as far as normal shadows and so
16 forth, we' re not going to be casting a tremendous
shadow on our neighbor.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is that garage
to the ridge?
18 MR. STROMSKI : The height of the garage' s
ridge is about 191611 , and the fascia line of the
19 roof, which would be eight foot away from the
property is, the top of it would be roughly about
20 10 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
21 MR. STROMSKI : Also, I forgot to mention I
have the return receipts of all the certified
22 mailings .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good, you can give
23 those to Linda.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need to ask a
24 question about the distance between the storage
shed and the house when it' s my turn.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jerry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the
March 30 , 2006
9
1
2 concerns I have in reference to eight feet is that
we, not we, I request that an open side yard exist
3 at all times on either side of the house or one
side of the house when construction is completed
4 or when proposed construction is completed, and I
really don' t know why you can' t make the eight
5 feet 10 feet, make the garage 20 feet, but we' ll
discuss that . Can you give me a measurement
6 between the house and the storage building, the
frame shed to include whatever stone porch or
7 whatever that is on the front there, I failed to
realize that when I looked at it .
8 MR. STROMSKI : You want the distance from
the frame shed to the house, right?
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
MR. STROMSKI : Just by scaling it real
10 quick, you' re looking I would say at least 20
feet .
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that will be
one of the considerations that I make in reference
12 to my decision on the Board. I'm going to go back
and look at it prior to the decision, and it' s
13 only a concern mainly because everybody needs to
deal with their waterfront at certain times and
14 that' s the reason why I deal with it on that
aspect .
15 MR. STROMSKI : As far as construction?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As far as any
16 further maintenance on the property after
construction.
17 MR. STROMSKI : The distance between the
frame shed and the house 20 feet would be more
18 than enough for any small bobcat equipment or
anything to get back to the house . That' s going
19 to be pretty much the access to the grounds for
the excavation, so forth, of the garage . I mean,
20 there' s plenty of room to be able to maintain the
waterfront and so forth if the garage is
21 constructed with the frame shed where it exists .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you planning to put
22 in some plantings along the line on the other side
of the garage so your neighbor has a pleasanter
23 view?
MR. HAERR: There' s a tree line there now,
24 15 , 20 foot pine tree line right next to the
garage . My name is Carl Haerr, this is my wife
25 Julie .
MR. STROMSKI : They would have no
March 30, 2006
10
1
2 objection to planting additional arborvitae or
evergreen or screen planting.
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In fact, the
question I was going to ask is it is such a mature
4 tree line of spruce, it' s quite dense, although
the actual pine doesn' t really start until up high
5 off the ground. So there is some visual
permeability and possibly planting something like
6 Inkberry that will fit with the spruce, I presume
the garage is on slab.
7 MR. STROMSKI : The garage is on a slab,
the addition is on a crawl space .
8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because to excavate
in any way would severely damage potentially the
9 root structure of the existing spruce, but if
you' re on slab it' s less likely to have any impact
10 and that would be some consideration.
MR. HAERR: Did you say Inkberry?
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . It' s a
particular type of shrub that can be easily
12 pruned, it' s an evergreen with a tiny little leaf .
It' s local, it' s indigenous, and it will work with
13 the existing spruce . It just fills in the bottom
for everybody' s visual privacy.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have no
15 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The crux of it, I
don' t know it' s necessarily difficulty is of
17 course the eight feet from the east boundary. And
it ' s noted that it' s only one corner from the
18 garage . If there were a sense that the distance
should be 10 feet rather than eight feet, would
19 that be taken by making the garage smaller or by
reducing the size of the connecting addition to
20 the house between the existing house and garage or
don' t you know at this point?
21 MR. STROMSKI : With a two-car garage, with
a distance of 22 feet from outside to outside .
22 That' s a comparable two-car garage . It will give
you about 22 feet on the inside . Your normal
23 parking spaces in townships are about 10 feet, so
20 feet or so, it' s a little tight when you open
24 car doors and so forth, and having column
structures inside the garage . If the Board feels
25 that they would like to enlarge in that side yard
slightly, there are some measures where we could
March 30 , 2006
11
1
2 possibly take a few inches, six inches out of the
eight foot addition, that would change the tub,
3 shower into a corner unit, which is one of the
things they' d like is having a full tub-shower,
4 but there are a few measures where we could
possibly pull a few inches out of the back, a few
5 inches out of the garage and still make it
somewhat comfortable .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you going to have a
shower on the garage?
7 MR. STROMSKI : No . There' s no shower
proposed on the garage . The shower we' re talking
8 about is actually inside the eight foot addition
in the full bath.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The way the garage
10 is sited at the moment, in order for it to be
perpendicular to the existing house -- you have
11 actually an increase in the side yard as you go
toward the water, which without a scale looks to
12 me that it may taper into about 12 feet? I 'm
guessing, from 8 to 12 .
13 MR. STROMSKI : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the median
14 likely is about 10 feet .
MR. STROMSKI : Right, the largest impact
15 is that front corner. Obviously, our position is
that in discussions with our client, we would ask
16 the Board to possibly look at it as it exists with
just the eight foot on the corner, understanding
17 that we have taken measures to try and limit the
impact of our neighbor, we' d like to have the full
18 tub shower, we' d like to have the more comfort
room in the garage . So if there' s any way that
19 the Board could work on that decision. But if the
Board does feel that according to the prior cases
20 or that the character of the neighborhood would be
better served if it was increased slightly, there
21 are some measures that we can do that would not
adversely affect this . Obviously our client would
22 like to propose it as it is, that' s why we've done
it .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on
24 this application?
MS . VEROSTEK: My name is Jessie Verostek,
25 and I'm the owner of the property next door. And
it ' s only eight feet, and I feel it should be at
March 30 , 2006
12
1
2 least 10 feet away from my property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. How about even
3 if they put some more screening in there you still
would prefer the 10 feet?
4 MS . VEROSTEK: I would prefer it because
it is close .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much.
Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this
6 application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
7 (See minutes for resolution. )
------------------------------------------ -------
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
the Lockes in Orient on Hillcrest Drive . They
9 wish to put a swimming pool in the rear. I went
to look at it yesterday and while I appreciate
10 your concern about the trees, you' re awfully close
to the road going up to Brown' s Hills now with the
11 dust and everything coming in, and I was wondering
if you couldn' t move that pool back just a little
12 bit to where you had the stakes for the patio and
just incorporate the trees into your patio and
13 still move it back away from that rear.
MR. LOCKE : We were trying to keep the
14 trees away from the pool .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re still going to
15 get leaves in that pool no matter what you do .
You have a lot of trees there . I know because I
16 have a lot of trees on my property and believe me
they just blow all around no matter what you do .
17 MR. LOCKE : I put the pool 40 feet away
from Brown' s Hills Road just for that purpose . I
18 left the brush between my yard and Brown' s Hills
because I want to provide some sort of privacy for
19 myself .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
20 MR. LOCKE : You' d like us to push it in a
little bit?
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I think so,
because in the summer time you' re going to get
22 more traffic going up and down Brown' s Hills . I
just feel you should be moved back a little bit .
23 But we' ll see what everybody else has to say,
that' s my opinion. Michael?
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only comment is
since the nonconforming part is the part toward
25 what we call the "paper road, " it is 40 feet fully
from Brown' s Hills .
March 30 , 2006
13
1
2 MR. LOCKE : Technically I'm supposed to be
10 feet from the line .
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And you' re 40?
MR. LOCKE : Yes, I'm 40 .
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think if there
would be an issue, I think there would be an issue
5 with respect to the road that makes your back yard
a front yard?
6 MR. LOCKE : Right .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Your site plan
9 suggests that you' re going to incorporate at less
than 40 feet from the property edge a fence all
10 the way around. That will require a little bit,
it looks like, cutting into the brambles, which I
11 don' t think is a big deal . What kind of fence do
you imagine? It isn' t listed. Is it a solid
12 fence, cyclone?
MR. LOCKE : Black chain link. And we were
13 going to plant things over there and mulch it, and
try and make it look pretty.
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Again, for
privacy' s sake, if you want to do chain link then
15 you' ll need to do a good deal of evergreen
screening from the road side at the very least .
16 MR. LOCKE : The brambles are pretty high.
When they green up, they' re eight feet .
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I wouldn' t
encourage you to cut them particularly, but since
18 you have to locate a fence there anyway by law,
you might want to consider doing something like
19 that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I realize that
the 40 feet is conforming from Brown' s Hills Road
21 but I have to write some of the findings for the
decision, I was wondering why you pushed the pool
22 all the way back that far; was there a
topographical reason?
23 MR. LOCKE : My rear yard is pretty fully
treed. I ' m somewhat different in that when we put
24 the house in I pretty much kept every tree in the
rear yard that I could, but I kind of like the
25 trees . My back yard is almost like a park, and I
also left -- I didn' t go right up to Brown' s
March 30 , 2006
14
1
2 Hills, I have a good 25 , 30 feet worth of brush.
I kind of like it actually. That area of my yard
3 is the only area that doesn' t have trees and gets
a lot of sun. So that' s why we put the pool
4 there .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
that would like to speak on this application? If
6 not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
7 (See minutes for resolution. )
- ------------------------------------------------
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
the Voights who wish a waiver of merger on West
9 Cove Road. Mr. McLoughlin, nice to see you.
MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I have a couple of
10 handouts I ' d like to give to the Board. One is an
outline of kind of a memorandum of what I'm going
11 to say; and at your request I also provided you
with copies of an application of a pre CO on Tax
12 Map Lot 14 . For those of you who don' t know me,
my name is Kevin McLoughlin, I 'm a local attorney.
13 I ' m here on behalf of Irma Voight, who owns two
lots in Nassau Point, Tax Map Lots 14 and 15 . Tax
14 Map Lot 14 consists of . 63 Acres . It' s improved
by a single family dwelling. The dwelling itself
15 was built prior to zoning in this town, prior to
1957 . I have also provided you with copies of two
16 COs that were issued in the late 1960s for
additions to the house, both of which mentioned
17 that they' re on Tax Map Lot 14 . Mr. and Mrs .
Voight took title to Tax Map Lot 14 in 1978 from a
18 person by the name of John Johnstone, who had
purchased that lot in 1953 . They took it in the
19 name of both Mr. and Mrs . Voight . At the same
time they purchased by separate deed adjoining Tax
20 Map Lot 15 . That' s a vacant lot consisting of . 71
acres of property, and that was deeded solely into
21 Irma Voight' s name . And that had come from both
John and Evelyn Johnstone, who had purchased that
22 lot in 1970 .
The Voights purposely checkerboarded these
23 two lots . They put the improved lot into both
their names and they put the vacant lot solely
24 into her name and this was done with the express
purpose of keeping these two lots separate and
25 distinct from one another. Unfortunately,
Mr. Voight passed away in 1998 . Title to the
March 30 , 2006
15
1
2 improved lot was held by Mr. and Mrs . Voight as
tenants by the entirety. The moment he passed
3 away, title goes solely into Mrs . Voight' s
name . Mrs . Voight also owns the adjoining tax
4 map, vacant Tax Map Lot 15 , in her name . As a
result , the Town has deemed that the two lots
5 merged. Ironically, had Mrs . Voight died, a
merger would have never taken place . Emil Voight
6 would have owned the improved lot, Tax Map Lot 14 ,
and the Estate of Irma would have owned the vacant
7 lot, no merger. Unfortunately for them it didn' t
happen that way; that' s why we' re here this
8 morning.
we have applied for a waiver of merger
9 under Section 100-26 of your code . As I 'm sure
you are aware there are criteria set forth in
10 Section 100-26 as to what this Board should
consider in granting a waiver of merger. First,
11 that the waiver will not result in any significant
increase in the density of the neighborhood.
12 Second, that the waiver would recognize the lot
that is consistent with the size of the lots in
13 that neighborhood. Third, that the waiver will
avoid economic hardship. And fourth that the
14 natural details and character of the slopes of the
lot will not significantly be changed or altered
15 and there wouldn' t be any significant filling of
land affecting nearby environmental or flood
16 areas . Let' s take these one at a time .
This waiver will not result in any
17 significant increase in the density of the
neighborhood. If you look at the tax map lots of
18 Nassau Point where this property is located,
virtually all the lots are of approximately the
19 same size or smaller than either of these two lots
are individually, and the vast majority of these
20 lots have single family homes on them. Are there
exceptions, yes, there are a few parcels that are
21 larger that have never been subdivided, but the
vast majority are lots of exactly the same size .
22 All we' re asking is for this Board to recognize
what has been since the 1930s when this
23 subdivision map was filed, was held by the
Johnstones prior to the Voights, and was held by
24 the Voights in an attempt to keep it from merging.
That' s what we' re asking. The total result will
25 be the recognition of two lots instead of one .
The second issue is whether the waiver
March 30 , 2006
16
1
2 will recognize the lot that' s consistent with the
size of the lots in the neighborhood. I have just
3 indicated to you, and I think if you look at your
tax map for Section 111, you' ll see what I have
4 said is correct . I went to the assessor' s office
and I looked at Blocks 2 , 3 and 4 in Section 111,
5 which is 3 is the block that the subject parcels
are located in, and 2 and 4 adjoin it . Out of all
6 the lots in those three blocks, approximately 82
percent of them are either smaller than or equal
7 to the size of these two individual lots, 82
percent .
8 The third criteria that you have to look
at is whether this waiver will avoid economic
9 hardship . I have provided you with copies of
contracts that have been entered into which are
10 contingent upon these being two separate lots .
One for the vacant lot is $450 , 000 , the one for
11 the improved lot is $540, 000 . I've handed to you
today an appraisal that we had done to determine
12 what would be the value of a merged lot, and the
calculation came in at $622 , 000 . If you do the
13 math the difference in value between these two
lots as separate and distinct lots and what they
14 would be worth as a merged lot is $368 , 000 . I
think under anybody' s definition of economic
15 hardship that certainly would qualify.
The fourth is whether the natural details
16 and character of the contours and slopes of the
lot will be significant changed. According to
17 what I ' ve been told, the contract vendee, the
potential purchaser, has no immediate plans to do
18 anything on the vacant lot, but he would like the
ability sometime in the future to be able to do
19 something on the lot . Right now he' s considering
the possibility, again, of sometime in the future
20 of being able to put a small house, a bungalow on
the lot for his parents . All this would require
21 would be the normal excavation to put in a house .
And that is the only real excavation -- and
22 whatever necessary clearing there would be in
conjunction to that . We' re not particularly close
23 to the water, although we are in Nassau Point , any
excavation on the property should be have no
24 impact on nearby environmental or flood
areas . Again, this is a generally built up
25 neighborhood of relatively modest sized
single-family houses on lots of smaller or equal
March 30 , 2006
17
1
2 to the lots we' re talking about .
I know you have received a letter from the
3 owners of I think four neighboring lots objecting
to this application. I think the objection is
4 somewhat hypocritical . All four of these owners
of these lots have single-family houses on lots
5 that are smaller than the two lots we' re talking
about . The Pascal lot is . 60 acres . The Teal lot
6 is . 41 acres, the Barry lot is . 43 acres, and the
Russell lot is . 46 acres . They' re anywhere from
7 58 to 85 percent of the size of the vacant lot
that we' re proposing be recognized.
8 Several issues that they also raised in
the letter that I don' t think are part of this
9 application but I would like to address anyhow,
one is they' re worried about deforestation of the
10 lot . Whether this vacant lot is a single and
separate lot or whether it is deemed to have
11 merged has no effect on whether or not trees could
be taken down on the lot . Trees could be taken
12 down on the lot whenever anybody wants to, that
concern really isn' t relative to this . They' re
13 also worried that a large structure would be
placed on the vacant lot . It' s a small lot,
14 that' s going to have a small building envelope,
which is going to dictate that if it' s ever going
15 to be developed would be developed with a house
that is in character with the neighborhood, like
16 all the other houses . The only way to do anything
else is to come before this Board and ask for
17 variances . I think what could happen to the
neighbor' s dismay would be if the two lots were
18 not recognized and a waiver was not granted. You
would have a larger lot . This is an older house
19 on the developed lot, it would seem to me that if
somebody was going to pay that kind of money for
20 that kind of house and they had a merged 1 . 34 acre
total lot, they might well consider either tearing
21 down the existing house or greatly expanding it .
And what the end result of that would be would be
22 a house not in character with the neighborhood,
would be a much larger house than everything else
23 surrounding it .
So the bottom line of my presentation this
24 morning is it seems to me that this is exactly the
type of case for which the waiver of merger
25 statute was put into the code : An accidental
merger of two lots that nobody knew about until
March 30 , 2006
18
1
2 they went to sell it .
The problem with the merger law, one of
3 the problems with the merger law in this town is
nobody ever tells anybody that their lots have
4 merged. They continue to get tax bills on
separate tax map lots . They continue to be taxed
5 on vacant lot as if it' s a separate, buildable lot
even though the town, if you go to the Building
6 Department, will tell you they've merged. It is
unfair but it happens all the time .
7 My client is an older woman whose plan in
life was to live it out there on Nassau Point .
8 Unfortunately, medical circumstances do not allow
her to do that . She' s had to live with her son
9 for a short period of time . She' s had
hospitalization. She was in San Simeon in
10 rehabilitation. She' s out now but she can' t go
back and live by herself . She' s going to need
11 considerable amounts of money. She' s on a waiting
list now for assistive living. And it' s certainly
12 quite possible if not probable she may require
nursing home care in the future, again, money that
13 she is going to need to live out the remainder of
her life in a situation that she would prefer not
14 to .
Again, I think this is the exact reason
15 why the waiver of merger statute was enacted, and
I would ask this Board to please grant it .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The driveway though is
on the vacant lot, correct?
17 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Partially, it straddles
the line . One of a three things could happen.
18 One is it could be moved solely onto the improved
lot . There is enough room to move it onto that if
19 it ever came to that . Another possibility and to
me may be the best, would be to a have a common
20 driveway if the two lots were ever developed. So
you would have one less driveway coming out onto
21 the road. So it could straddle the line and be
used for access to both lots . And I suppose a
22 third alternative would be that it could remain
the way it is and it would be an encroachment on
23 the other lot .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t have a pre
24 CO on the original house, correct?
MR. MCLOUGHLIN: We have applied for a pre
25 CO, and inspection has been done . There are a few
things that need to be addressed after that
March 30, 2006
19
1
2 inspection, and then I have no reason to believe
that a pre CO will not be granted.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm not saying I ' m for
or against this whole thing, but you know your
4 argument that a small house will be put on a
smaller lot is not true because we've seen too
5 many houses that have been built that are really
large do not need to come to us for variances . So
6 there can be a fairly large house on that vacant
lot no matter what .
7 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Certainly there are
constraints on what you can put on a lot that is
8 only 90 feet wide . You have a defined building
envelope . Oh, you can go up, but so can every
9 single house on any one of those lots on
Nassau Point, can put a two and a half story
10 addition on there, but this lot is no different
than any other lot .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a series of
12 questions . First of all, do I understand that the
"in contract" sign is on the house side, on the
13 developed part of the lot, right?
MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I guess the answer to
14 that is yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think it ' s implicit
15 in your remarks that there' s a single buyer for
both lots?
16 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: That' s correct . You have
copies of both those contracts.
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So there' s no legal
reason why the single buyer couldn' t buy it as one
18 merged lot, and then try to divide it later on to
apply for the waiver of merger; is that correct?
19 Or does it have to be done with the original
owner?
20 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: No . The price difference
would be over $360, 000 to my client . That would
21 be the problem from my vantage point and my
client' s vantage point . I think you would also
22 have a more difficult argument than I presented
today if you bought them and came back later and
23 said knowing that they had been deemed to be
merged by the Town and bought them and then came
24 back to this Board and said, Oh, we know we bought
them that way, but now we want you to do something
25 about it . I think it' s a more difficult argument .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Another thing to
March 30 , 2006
20
1
2 consider, and the court has not been very helpful
to your economic hardship argument thus far, is
3 when you' re talking about economic hardship is
what economists call opportunity cost, that is
4 selling that lot, that merged lot for $650 , 000 ,
something like that, is not exactly a hardship,
5 but it would be a relative hardship not to be able
to sell the two of them for $850 , 000 . So that ' s
6 what the hardship comes down to is money that
could have been made for properties that have
7 appreciated owing to the operation of the merger
law or the waiver of merger law.
8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This Board has
previously held on a couple occasions, and it ' s
9 twice been sustained by the Supreme Court that the
mere fact that lots are worth more as two lots
10 than one lot is not enough to show economic
hardship, that you might make $990 , 000 as opposed
11 to whatever it is, $622 , 000 , this Board has held
and the Supreme Court has affirmed is not hardship
12 per se . Your other arguments about the financial
or medical considerations speak to a different
13 point, on a different aspect of hardship, but the
mere fact that you can make a million dollars
14 versus half million dollars for two lots versus
one lot has not carried the day under this Board' s
15 interpretation of the waiver law.
MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I know it has carried the
16 day in the past on this Board as I have been
before the Board in the past and it has carried
17 the day. Clearly there' s no definition of the
term financial hardship in the code itself .
18 Again, there are two aspects of my argument, both
the sheer volume of the economic impact of the
19 merger of the two lots on the total purchase
price, and also the fact that my client is in
20 failing health, will need money to be able to
sustain herself medically in the future; and that,
21 again, this is not whatever was contemplated by
these people either in the fact of a merger
22 because they took affirmative steps to prevent it .
They did exactly what they were told legally to do
23 to checkerboard these two lots . And the mere
accident of the husband dying first as opposed to
24 the wife dying first is what has caused this . It
also wasn' t my client ' s intention to have to move
25 out of her house but that' s the reality of it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
March 30 , 2006
21
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Statement . Being
here for many, many years as I know you have been,
5 Kevin, you know how I feel about the merger and
this merger law, and I feel embarrassed and maybe
6 a little angered by the fact that a woman who' s
nearing the end of her life has to worry about
7 such a trivial, in my opinion, law, and has been
trapped by wording. With that in mind, I mean, I
8 hope that somewhere along the line it' s vigorous,
someone picks up the mantle and says, there has to
9 be some exception to this, that the Town has some
responsibility to inform people beyond the fact
10 that a legal notice, that no one, even the people
that make those laws, will read in public . So
11 certainly a lady who probably was elderly even
when this law was passed would not pick up the
12 newspaper, I'm talking about the Suffolk Times in
particular, and read that law and understand that
13 she would have been affected by it in all honesty.
And I ' ve been a lone caller of making these laws
14 so that people can understand them. And there' s
no reason why when you are sending tax bills to
15 people that you can' t tell them that, except that
of course legally you can' t because you can' t use
16 the tax laws for advertising or some odd-ball
law. But I do see you have 'two separate tax
17 bills, one goes to Irma and one goes to both of
them. To my mind that' s enough. But I have the
18 sneaky feeling that it' s not going to be
enough. So I just wanted to apologize that this
19 lady has to go through this at her time of life .
MR. MCLOUGHLIN: And kind of the corollary
20 to what you just said, Jim, is somebody at some
point in time is going to come up with the idea
21 that the Town can' t have it both ways . They can' t
tax these lots as separate, buildable lots and
22 assess them as that, and get the money from that,
and yet deem them to have been merged for building
23 purposes . Somebody is going to do a search, find
out how many lots there are in the Town of
24 Southold that are treated that way, and they' re
going to start an action against the Town to
25 recoup the tax money that is being assessed for
lots as single, buildable lots and collected and
March 30 , 2006
22
1
2 yet they' re not . You can' t have it both ways .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s all I have .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
anyone else that would like to speak on this
4 application?
MS . RUSSELL: My name is Gloria Russell
5 and I happen to live right in front of this
property. I was not notified of this meeting. I
6 did get it through my neighbor. I really question
the hardship case on this . Mrs . Voight ' s son has
7 been involved with my son as an assessor over a
number of years on that property, probably knowing
8 what it was . I think it' s a deal if somebody
wants to buy the house and he wants to sell the
9 lot to make more money, I don' t believe the
hardship . . I think differently. She has been away
10 from the home for a while . We' re getting killed
down there like all over on houses, this is a
11 little half acre . We don' t know what they' re
going to build. We have homes that they' re
12 tearing down and going sky high down there .
They' re putting in swimming pools and tennis
13 courts .
I would like the Board to think about
14 this . It ' s not a legal building lot . I don' t
believe the house would be built for the family,
15 the mother to come back with the son. Maybe I 'm
wrong, but please consider this . That' s all I
16 have to say.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
17 anyone else that wishes to speak on this
application?
18 MS . BARRY: Hi, my name is Joyce Barry,
and I am one of the homes right next door to the
19 Voights . I agree with you as far as Town law as
far as notifying people but that still does not
20 resolve this issue that we have two nonconforming
lots . I don' t know if the attorney looked across
21 the street, but I think they' re far from modest
homes; they' re mansions, and the house across the
22 street has exploded, and I think the same would be
done with those two lots . I don' t think they
23 would be modest homes, and regardless, I feel the
same way as Mrs . Russell does, that there' s not
24 going to be a cottage there, and whatever they can
get on those two lots they will . And I feel that
25 Mrs . Voight' s house will be probably leveled.
It ' s not a very nice house, you can probably touch
March 30 , 2006
23
1
2 the ceiling. I've been inside . There' s illegal
bedrooms downstairs, so there are a lot of issues
3 with this, and I'm not in favor of the division.
It ' s not because I'm against building, I just
4 think they' re nonconforming lots and that' s why
you have the law.
5 MS . RUSSELL: I just have one more point .
I do know that Mrs . Voight was approached a number
6 of years ago by Dr. Dave Pascal who lives right in
back. He wanted to buy the lot from her and keep
7 it as is because he butts right up against hers,
and he didn' t want another home built on it . And
8 she did not consider the sale . So thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Ma' am?
9 MS . BERGER: My name is Ann Berger. I 'm
here on behalf of my mother and Jake Falls . We've
10 had a family house there since 1947, and we were
unaware of this until about two days ago . So I
11 would like to make for the record that we would
like to add our name onto this list opposing the
12 merger.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What lot are you? Are
13 you adjoining?
MS . BERGER: We are not adjacent, we are
14 down the street, down below. And we also feel
that this house here -- this is situated on a
15 hill . This house is going to go two stories .
It' s going to be way height-wise, which is an
16 issue also.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Yes,
17 ma' am?
MS . KELLY: My name is Joan Kelly, and I
18 live diagonally across this property, and I would
like to say that I would not like to see a house
19 built on those two pieces . I don' t think it' s
legal, and I don' t think it should happen. Thank
20 you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
21 anybody else? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
22 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
the Brandvolds, who wish. to extend their deck, I
24 believe a bit . Is there someone here?
MS . KRAMER: Hi, I 'm Meryl Kramer, the
25 architect for the Brandvolds . I have a couple of
notices here, there was one more notice that we
March 30 , 2006
24
1
2 sent out ; I didn' t receive it back, but I did
receive a phone call from the people who it got
3 mailed to that the tax records hadn' t been updated
yet .
4 Some of you might remember granting this
variance back in November of ' 04 .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vividly.
MS . KRAMER: We had made a
6 model . Basically as we were getting closer to
starting construction on the project, my clients
7 noticed that the property directly adjacent to
theirs also received a variance and went ahead
8 with construction of a screened porch and a deck,
which turned out to be considerably closer to
9 their wood retaining wall/bulkhead, which is 29
feet . When we had originally applied for the
10 variance that we received from you, I had proposed
the deck as only eight feet deep, which would
11 maintain the existing setback from the bulkhead of
forty --
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: About 41 feet
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, 44 .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 44 , thank you, yes .
MS . KRAMER: Yes, 44 and a half . My
14 clients would like very much to reconsider the
eight foot deep deck. They would like to go a
15 maximum of 12 feet for the depth of the deck in
order to have a table and chairs . Originally,
16 again, I was very conservative about the setback
from the bulkhead, and I tried to maintain the
17 existing setback, which resulted in an eight foot
deck, which is not enough room for a nice round
18 table with chairs around. So we are proposing
that the setback be granted for 40 and
19 one-half, -- 40 . 5' to achieve a deck of 12 feet in
depth. And I' d be happy to answer any questions
20 that you might have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The notice of
disapproval says 40 feet, the notice of
22 disapproval that we get from the Building
Department says 40 feet; you' re saying it' s 40 . 5?
23 MS . KRAMER: My site plan has always said
40 . 5 .
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. I ' ll change
it . I assume all the other restrictions about it
25 not being enclosed and so forth are still --
MS . KRAMER: Yes, it ' s all open deck.
March 30 , 2006
25
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Are you going to
have a roof over this?
3 MS . KRAMER: Not over the deck. If you
look at the site plan, it' s the roof starts 60
4 feet deep then the 12 feet, the 12 feet is open
deck.
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was reading our
old approval, there was a denial, it says open
6 roof porch and deck shall remain open, okay, thank
you .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . I wanted to
8 clarify that the 12 foot reduction from the 2004
application setback on the side yard is only going
9 to be the same extent of the existing house; is
that correct?
10 MS . KRAMER: Yes . We are not encroaching
any further on any side than what was originally
11 granted.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Thank you, I just
12 wanted clarification.
MS . KRAMER: I would also like to request
13 that if for some reason you did not want to grant
some relief if you would consider a compromise
14 instead of rejecting it outright .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you consider 10
15 feet? We are starting to have to conform to our
Local Waterfront Revitalization program. And we
16 just had a meeting with the people from the
Department of State, and they' re getting very
17 concerned about giving variances with wetlands or
bulkheads or what have you.
18 MS . KRAMER: We did receive our Trustees
and LWRP negative impact .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t know whether
that was done under the old Chapter 97 or the new
20 chapter.
MS . KRAMER: I believe it was for the new
21 because we just went before the Trustees a couple
of months ago for the same issue . I have to go
22 back to all the agencies now to receive amendments
to our original approvals?
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, you would
consider 42 . 5?
24 MS . KRAMER: If absolutely necessary.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I just wanted to
25 verify that .
MS . KRAMER: I would rather consider
March 30 , 2006
26
1
2 something as a compromise rather than have it
completely thrown out and have to go for another
3 appeal .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll deal with a
compromise and see what we can do on this .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to speak on this application?
7 If not, I' ll make a motion to close the
hearing and reserve decision until later.
8 (See minutes for resolution. )
- - - ----------------------------------------------
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
for Karacostas . It' s a driveway, and I wish them
10 well .
MS . MARTIN: Amy Martin,
11 Fairweather-Brown, representing Elena Karacostas .
I mailed all the cards, I haven' t received any
12 cards back. I'm not sure exactly how this
happened, it' s a very strange site, being that the
13 fence is outside the property line, the grade is
steep and whatever, and somehow the foundation for
14 the garage has been put at 32 feet at the closest
corner from the property line instead of the 40
15 foot setback, or it was a misinterpretation at the
time .
16 What we have here is actually 117 square
feet of the proposed garage that is too close to
17 the property line because it' s on a diagonal and
just to show you -- and what we' re asking for is
18 that you allow this to continue to be built at
that location. If it were to be pushed up the
19 hill closer, it would be more of an encumbrance to
the neighbors to the east, as it would be closer
20 to his house, and there are other accessory
structures on the adjoining properties that are
21 closer to the road than this garage . There' s an
old barn on the neighbor' s property to the east,
22 and the principle structure two houses, which is
less than 200 feet away of the property to the
23 west is closer to the road than this garage . And
we' re just asking for relief from the 40 foot
24 setback to build a garage where the foundation
currently is .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which is under
construction at this time .
March 30 , 2006
27
1
2 MS . MARTIN:. It was built and then
stopped. When the surveyor' s survey showed the
3 location, it was noted to be not in the right
location.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Martin, how
5 big is this garage? Not in reference to size, but
in reference to height .
6 MS . MARTIN: I think it' s 17 or 18 feet
tall .
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It has a
two-story loft, a second story in the attic area
8 because I see the stairwell going up .
MS . MARTIN: Yes, there is a space .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be used
just for storage?
10 MS . MARTIN: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Unheated?
11 MS . MARTIN: Unheated, just for storage .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The slab for the
garage was that poured before this survey was
13 undertaken?
MS . MARTIN: The slab is not in, it' s the
14 footings .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I meant the
15 footings, sorry. The footings were actually
poured and then the survey came?
16 MS . MARTIN: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You have footings?
MS . MARTIN: And they start to build and
18 then --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I wanted to be
19 clear that this is not just a footing that you can
bury and redo?
20 MS . MARTIN: No. The application was --
things had changed in the process, actually. We
21 tried to amend the renovations to the house and
add the garage because what had happened was
22 originally the garage was going to go where the
preexisting garage was; then they had a problems
23 with -- we have been with the Health Department
for a year and a half because the septic system,
24 we reached a layer of clay with the test hole and
the septic system had to have a crane come in, dig
25 down through hundreds of yards of sand, and by
doing that, when we demolished the garage and went
March 30 , 2006
28
1
2 to replace it to keep it, they had the wall
actually try to start to collapse under the house
3 foundation. So they had to move the pools
further, and the garage can' t be built over the
4 leaching pools; that' s why we had to relocate the
garage . So the application came became very
5 confused, and when we applied, we didn' t submit
and they didn' t ask for the site plan for the
6 accessory garage, so the confusion got worse, and
that ' s how we ended up in the wrong place .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, the confusion
8 wasn' t just yours or theirs, it was mine too . I
was trying to figure out how this actually
9 happened. The original approval was for a garage
that was farther back than was actually
10 anticipated?
MS . MARTIN: No.
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In other words, the
garage on your plan is the one for which you need
12 the variance, but it looked as though the previous
approval was for the garage that has since been
13 demolished; is that right?
MS . MARTIN: When we applied for the new
14 accessory garage, we tried to make it an amendment
to the other work; they said, no, it has to be a
15 separate application. Then they did not request a
site plan, and by then we knew we couldn' t build
16 it where it was and we thought we had the site
plan when they approved it .
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As you say, it' s only
117 square feet as issued, and the garage planned
18 is 24 ' by 24 ' , which is a fairly healthy size for
a garage . Ideally, you wouldn' t want to move that
19 foundation or take it up, although it isn' t as
though the whole slab has been laid. Would be
20 there be any room to negotiate, consider
alternatives if it was felt that somehow the
21 situation had to be mitigated somehow with regard
to the reduction of the setback to the road,
22 because of this 117 square? Is there anything
else that could be done without any enormous
23 expense?
MS . MARTIN: To my knowledge, to redo the
24 foundation and the footings and whatever and
change that portion that is ahead of the 40 foot
25 line would be costly, but would also infringe on
the neighbor to the east more than this current
March 30 , 2006
29
1
2 location, as there are structures on his property
that are closer to the line .
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It couldn' t be moved
farther to the west; it couldn' t be rotated
4 clockwise around that access?
MS . MARTIN: I don' t think you could get
5 into that garage, the way the slope of the
property is . I think the other part is how
6 they' re going to rework the driveway, I 'm not sure
at this point .
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just to bring it to
8 your attention, we did get a report from the soil
and water people, and I think you ought to bring
9 that to your clients .
MS . MARTIN: We have been fighting with
10 the contractor about the site, but the problem
he' s had as far as the cleanliness of the site is
11 he can' t put a dumpster there and still get
deliveries because of the driveway. So supposedly
12 the dumpster will be delivered Monday and they
will clean up the site . The dry wells, I have
13 just sat with the owner and they will be putting
those in to make sure that there' s no roof runoff
14 going towards the bluff .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have trouble
15 evidently with the bluff face and the toe .
MS . MARTIN: They have done repairs to the
16 upper bulkhead but they are going to do repairs to
the toe and remove the tree .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. I just wanted
to bring that to your attention, it' s not under
18 our jurisdiction but I think you should know. Is
there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak
19 on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion
to close the hearing and reserve decision until
20 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
21 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
22 for Biel Associates, down on Water' s Edge .
Mr . Cuddy?
23 MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy, for the
applicants . This is a property that' s off Water' s
24 Edge Lane in an area called Bay Haven, which is
off Main Bayview Road in Southold. We have a lot
25 16 , 000 square feet in an R40 area and because of
that we' re subject to Code 244 of the Town code,
March 30 , 2006
30
1
2 gives us lesser setbacks than normally would be
so . We have two setbacks, one of them comes from
3 244 ; the other comes from 239 of the Town code .
the 244 application is to reduce the front yard of
4 this site from 35 feet to 31 feet .
Originally when we made an application to
5 the Trustees and you have the maps, this land is
on the water, the Trustees asked us based on the
6 neighbor' s concerns to move back the house from 50
feet from the bulkhead to 59 feet from the
7 bulkhead. When we did that, and that was part of
their approval, we then ended up with a front yard
8 that had four feet into the setback area. So that
was not something that we did, originally we had
9 it outside the setback area but the Trustees
requested we move it further back, and we did
10 that . I ' ll hand up a copy when I ' m finished of
the town Trustees' approval of this application.
11 We also have a concern obviously with 239
of the Town code which requires it will be 75 feet
12 back from the bulkhead. The size of this lot
precludes us from being 75 feet back, and we have
13 gone about as far back as we can. We' re close to
the neighbor in the rear, who has objected,
14 obviously, to the application and I believe will
continue to object . But in any event, we can' t
15 put our house at a different location. We put it
further back, we' re virtually in her yard. We
16 come forward, we' re then defying the Trustees . So
we have a difficult situation as far as what we
17 can do with it, but I would point out to you that
in accordance with the various criteria that are
18 applicable here that this isn' t something we
self-created. This is a lot that' s been in
19 existence since 1959 . I will hand up a copy of
the deed actually creating the lot, which also
20 gave, by the way, a perpetual right of way across
the neighbor' s lot for all purposes . So we could
21 put in utilities, water and whatever we had to do,
and that' s in effect today. In any event, what I
22 was saying is we didn' t create the situation so I
don' t believe it was a self-created hardship. We
23 have very little opportunity to do any alternative
type of moving of that house . I don' t believe it
24 environmentally affects anybody. Certainly the
Trustees found that it was not adversely affecting
25 anybody, and that' s part of their decision. I
also would say to you that it' s not a substantial
March 30 , 2006
31
1
2 type variance . I believe there' s a letter in the
file that correctly says that one variance is 11
3 percent, four foot variance front yard, the back
yard variance is approximately 22 percent, 75 foot
4 line variance .
As far as impacting the neighborhood, this
5 is a residential neighborhood, there are houses
here . Houses to our left, houses to our right,
6 east and west . Some of those houses are larger
than the house than we propose . So I believe we
7 meet the criteria and I would ask the Board to
grant the application. At this time I would hand
8 up to you the deed and also the Trustees'
approval .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I ' d just
like to say, Mr. Cuddy, that I realize that this
10 is a legally described lot, and the lot behind it,
is of course a legally described lot, and I'm sure
11 when the Breens bought their lot and built their
house, that they were fully aware that there might
12 be a house built in front of them. But I also
think it is imperative on your client to realize
13 that the Breens will be looking at a 30 ' by 50 '
high 30 , 26, 27 feet high; that they' re just going
14 to be looking into the house, and I would hope
that perhaps your clients could scale the house
15 down somewhat; that it would be a little bit more
equitable to the people behind them. Frankly,
16 it' s not going to be a pleasant site . I mean, a
30 by 50 foot house is a large house, and it' s two
17 stories .
MR. CUDDY: It' s two story, it will be
18 about 2 , 600 square feet . It' s not a large house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a good sized
19 house . I would ask that it could be shrunk a bit .
MR. CUDDY: We probably could, I ' m not
20 saying we can' t . I haven' t talked to my client .
My client couldn' t be here, he' s on kidney
21 dialysis that' s why he' s not here, but I would be
glad to discuss that with him.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, is
23 there any reason why your client chose to skew the
house toward the easterly side of the property as
24 opposed to keeping it closer to the westerly side?
MR. CUDDY: I think basically, there was a
25 concern about the extent of the right of way, so
they just put it to that side . No, not
March 30, 2006
32
1
2 particularly, there' s no fixed reason that it
can' t be moved over a bit .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That was my
4 question. I was going to simply suggest a
discussion perhaps about the site specific nature
5 of the placement of the building relative to the
impact on neighbors . Clearly to the east there' s
6 no effect particularly, the eastern or western
boundaries have no effect . It' s primarily looks
7 to me the structure that would be in your rear
yard, fronting on the water.
8 MR. CUDDY: On the westerly side there
would just be a driveway.
9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right, yes, thank
you very much.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I looked it over,
11 it looks like certainly your rear yard is a little
further away than actually indicated because of
12 that jog in the bulkhead, looks like you gain
probably another 10 feet or so .
13 MR. CUDDY: It' s the bulkhead jog that
causes that proximity.
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s not your
doing, that' s the neighbor' s doing. I certainly
15 understand that . When I first made my notes on
that, I said the house next door is 12 feet from
16 that property line, but I think it' s interesting
you have to be held to a higher standard, if that
17 right of way was another ten feet, you wouldn' t
have any trouble, that would be a side yard. So
18 looking at that, I did read the gentleman' s letter
and his B, he has the benefits sought by the
19 applicant, and I put a lot of weight in that that
building a 1, 500 square foot house footprint, if
20 you knocked 300 square feet off of that you
wouldn' t need a variance . I 'm hoping that maybe
21 you can think about that . There' s nothing to
prevent you from taking property tree lines and
22 putting it on there and that person would never
have a view of the water ever again. I certainly
23 understand that . But maybe if you think about
just trying to cut it down just a little bit so,
24 that ' s a good sized variance I think for us . We
look at it that way. I think the 38 feet property
25 line looked to me like you eventually wanted to
put a garage there . That' s my thought, there' s
March 30 , 2006
33
1
2 not one in the house, right?
MR. CUDDY: No .
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe a Cape Cod
type house with no garage . If you can think about
4 that, I have to write that decision.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you accept
5 alternate relief,. Mr. Cuddy?
MR. CUDDY: Yes . And if I could sort of
6 find out what the alternate relief proposed was, I
obviously have to go to my client .
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Can we hold it off
to next month that you can even talk to the
8 neighbors?
MR. CUDDY: It' s been years in the
9 process .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : If you can come
10 back with something. I would personally would
grant it the way it is, but I read that letter.
11 MR. CUDDY: I understand your problem and
it happens continuously where someone is blocked
12 to the view.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I acknowledge they
13 have no right to that view in so far you can plant
any tree you want there and maintain it and
14 whatever.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON Yes . First of all,
unlike, Jim, I wasn' t turned around by reading
16 that letter because the letter raised some of the
issues that I was concerned with, and the question
17 of whether there be an alternative; and yes, a 50
by 30 house is a 3 , 000 square foot house, assuming
18 two story, and is there any kind of
alternative . I just say from personal experience,
19 some years ago I bought a house with a marvelous
open view to the bay. However the lot was
20 ultimately going to be built on, and 15 years
later somebody did build on it, and looked at it
21 very closely, it' s a big house, but it was
important to us just as residents that everything
22 he did was consistent with the code . He didn' t
need any variance . And I would think that if
23 there is a solution -- just by an analogy not an
argument -- if there is a solution to build a more
24 modest house because of the situation, the
topography, the Trustees and so forth require a
25 variance, I would think that that ought to be
considered very seriously.
March 30 , 2006
34
1
2 MR. CUDDY: I appreciate that . Again, I
wish to reiterate, the reason we' re asking for the
3 four foot variance in the back is because we were
moved back nine feet . Otherwise we would be here
4 for one variance, we' d be here for a 50 foot front
yard or rear yard variance to the water. We
5 didn' t have that when we can came in to the
Trustees because what they said they moved us
6 back. Because we would have had this house and
then the question would have been, I guess, that
7 there' s no variances required for the front or
side yards it' s just a question of how far back
8 can you be from the water. It' s a difficult
situation for the applicant too because going to
9 two Boards, you get buffered back and forth. We
try to do what they ask us to do and now we' re
10 here asking you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Have you had any
11 discussions with the Bay Haven; do they have any
association?
12 MR. CUDDY: No one has ever discussed
anything to me, no .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let' s see if there' s
anyone else that has something to say.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, can I
just ask, in dealing with your client, there' s a
15 possibility that because if you go west instead of
east with this house, we know it' s turned a little
16 bit, there' s a possibility that you' re going to
gain more room from the bulkhead, and maybe even
17 the possibility of turning the house around, and
then putting an "L" across the front of it, by
18 gaining the exact same amount of window area
facing the bay, and the view conceivably, that' s
19 what I would ask you as one member of this Board
to do, thereby giving a more visual effect .
20 Again, we' re not dealing with water views in
question, as Jim had spoken so on and so
21 forth. It would be less impact on the lot .
Septic system can stay where it is, it can be
22 driven over, all you have to do is put drive-over
covers on them.
23 MR. CUDDY: As long as we can keep it at
59 feet .
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I
would say, I think you' re going to gain more room.
25 I think that could be done .
MR. CUDDY: It' s possible .
March 30, 2006
35
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
3 audience that wishes to speak on this application?
Yes, Miss Moore?
4 MS . MOORE : I represent Paula Breen and
Dorothea Nelson, who are the most affected
5 property owners, that small lot right on the
road. There are a lot of people here from the Bay
6 Haven community, so I'm glad you are suggesting
that they do have a discussion with the
7 association. They did provide for me letters,
apparently there' s been a very strong opinion with
8 respect to the development of this property. I' ll
just put that in your file . However, I am
9 representing the property owners, not the
association. They just asked me to forward the
10 paperwork to you.
I think that the issue you have all
11 actually captured it, it' s when the property owner
decided to build on this property, he didn' t - - it
12 appears that he didn' t use any architectural
design or styling to try to design a house that
13 fits within the character of this area and within
the constraints of this property. The most
14 obvious problem that I saw immediately is that
this property, the first floor elevation is going
15 to be at elevation 14 , which means that the house
right off the bat is a two story, and it also has
16 an attic portion or a ridge line that is quite
large, this house is going to be elevated and it' s
17 going to be monstrous . If you see the house to
the west, it' s a very lovely home, but it' s built
18 on a full-sized property, that seems to be the
type of design that they' re trying to place on
19 this property.
I think a lot of the objections by Miss
20 Breen and Miss Nelson would be eliminated if there
would be some sensitivity to the design of this
21 house . I'm glad you' re encouraging him to go back
to his client to consider the design aspects of
22 this property because obviously, you've seen me
here on behalf of clients, just like Mr. Cuddy is
23 on behalf of his client, but I think importantly
you have to look at the design of the house when
24 you' re trying to place it particularly in a parcel
that has 100 by 100 footprint or area where you' re
25 trying to place the house .
What I had my client do is compare the
March 30 , 2006
36
1
2 shadows, the light and air. Mr. Dinizio, I know
your position with respect to property rights ; I
3 understand that . We are not saying this property
should not be built on. We understand there is a
4 right to build on a piece of property, however,
taking a look again at the design, I had my
5 client, and I can have her just confirm or
corroborate that she took the pictures, but she
6 has photographs of the neighboring house which is
of comparable height, both sides, east and west ,
7 and look at the shadows that it creates . If you
look at the photographs, she only brought me the
8 original ones, and I asked you to put them in the
file, and please take a look at it, at 12 : 30 to
9 the south, which is going to be casting shadows on
her property, the shadows extend 24 feet . As 2 : 30
10 comes, the house on the east is casting shadows of
36 feet, and at 4 : 30 in the afternoon, the shadow
11 is 84 feet . So you can see there' s significant
shadows, light and air issues, that when you' re
12 designing, particularly when you' re impacting a
neighbor, there' s a recognition they do not have a
13 legal right to a view, that' s understood.
However, there is certain amount of protection
14 with respect to the light and air and that' s why
the setbacks are in the code to try to preserve
15 those things .
To the west at 12 : 30 is 19 feet, at 2 : 30
16 it' s 27 feet, and at 4 : 30 , 53 feet . So you can
see there are significant shadows that are cast .
17 I ' ll present them to you, put them in your file .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore,
18 would you have a copy of your client' s survey that
we can look at sometime, it doesn' t have to be
19 today.
MS . MOORE : We' ll provide that for you,
20 not a problem.
Also another issue I ' d like to point out
21 is I noticed that the access to this property is
going to be by virtue of a right of way. We have
22 our sanitary system that is right on the edge of
the right of way, and it could very easily be
23 damaged by construction. I think you need to take
a look because I believe there may be 280A access
24 issues with respect to this property. That was
not in the notice of disapproval and I think that
25 given that the access is going to be over their
property, we want to be sure that one, that the
March 30 , 2006
37
1
2 property is after the construction that it is
returned to its original condition to the extent
3 possible; that the access is reasonable; that it' s
a driveway not a road bed. And so those are
4 issues that I think this Board usually considers,
and we would like to certainly be a participant in
5 that .
With respect to the placement of this
6 house, we also notice that the design, this house
has nothing with respect to decking. The garage
7 is not discussed. Again, are you granting
variances for a house set on a certain location?
8 You' re looking at it under certain criteria as far
as how much square footage, what is the reasonable
9 amount of square footage here, and now later on
the homeowner that ends up -buying this property
10 after it gets developed, or this homeowner, we end
up with a garage in addition to the house that
11 this Board has carefully considered and the design
that has been carefully crafted so it doesn' t have
12 impacts on the neighbor. These are things I ' d ask
the Board to ask the applicant to bring the whole
13 project before us now, so we can see what is the
ultimate development of this property.
14 I believe those are the points that we
want to address . We do also want to open up the
15 exchange with Mr. Cuddy and his client so that
maybe we can come up with a compromise that we can
16 all come back together and say, okay, everybody
gave a little bit and we' ve worked something out .
17 I always think that' s a good approach.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It certainly is .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you do that
in a month?
19 MS . MOORE : Well, this will be with
respect to design, the front door right now is
20 right in the front, you see that the house to the
west, their front door is actually facing what
21 appears to have been a right of way at one time,
one survey showed a right of way to the water, the
22 other one did not, so that seems to have been
something that is not clear. At least on the most
23 recent survey it does not show a right of way in
front of the property. when the design is being
24 considered, it would create a certain amount of
privacy to have a front door that faces equivalent
25 to the front door of the house to the west, facing
each other and having a side yard be what they
March 30 , 2006
38
1
2 look at . It will provide privacy for them, it
will also create some privacy for this homeowner
3 as well . Where the cars are going to park maybe
also something to think about . There are a lot of
4 issues here, it seems we've put a typical
contractor' s plans for a building with a footprint
5 without really considering it .
Finally, the Trustees, when they reduced
6 the setback and forced this application for at
least one of the variances, the Trustees, I
7 believe for my client, they were under the
impression that when the house was pushed nine
8 feet, that the intention was to reduce the size of
the house so it would be nine feet less, not that
9 the applicant would come before this Board and ask
for a variance . I think that while they look at
10 environmental issues and setbacks of adjacent
properties, they were also considering the volumes
11 of the house . Whether they expressed it clearly
enough for the applicant or not, nine feet was
12 shaved off and that was their effort at reducing
the size of the house .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you think that
between the association and Mr. Cuddy can we
14 adjourn this for another month? We would need the
alternative plan by April 20th. If not, we' ll
15 have to postpone it until May.
MR. CUDDY: We will try, certainly. Can I
16 respond?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
17 MR. CUDDY: Unfortunately she was not at
the Trustees hearing and the Trustees asked us to
18 do that . They asked us simply to move it back
nine feet . In fact, I gave them a map, which is
19 the one before you, showing exactly nine feet
back, in fact, they wouldn' t approve, give me the
20 decision until I showed them on the map . So
that' s what they were asking, they weren' t asking
21 to shave back nine feet of the house . There was
no question about that, so I take exception to
22 that .
And secondly, I just want to say to the
23 Board, I don' t mind working with people, I don' t
think they should have the opportunity to design
24 our house necessarily. I think we should try and
locate it with the sensitivities that you have
25 asked us to, but when we start talking about
shadows, I get concerned because I have big trees
March 30 , 2006
39
1
2 and their trees cast shadows on my neighbor' s
property, and their trees cast shadows on mine .
3 We live that way, and that happens sometimes, but
I will certainly try to make the effort, and I
4 understand Mr. Goehringer' s idea of trying to move
it to the side, and I will try to get back here in
5 April to have that for you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have a feeling if
6 you go any further than that 38 feet that' s going
to require a variance too. That' s a front yard.
7 MR. CUDDY: I'm concerned how we can get
it in there .
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : When I look at that
first, I thought one, it' s got to be a front yard
9 but not necessarily in Town law, physics and
geometry doesn' t apply, you have two front yards
10 there because that right of way is on the corner.
That 38 feet is still a variance .
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing,
Mr. Cuddy, if it does change or alter, the notice
12 of disapproval, which is one thing we want to be
sensitive to, you may have to run it back to the
13 Building Department . What I'm saying in general I
think personally from looking at this, and I ' m not
14 an engineer or architect but that it certainly can
be moved.
15 MR. CUDDY: I don' t doubt that it can be
moved, the question is do we come back for a
16 greater variance .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t care if
17 it requires another variance .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I care that you
18 have to apply again, and you' re going to be three
months down the road.
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Grant alternate
relief .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t think you
can, it requires another variance . You need to
21 think about that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let' s see what happens .
22 We' ll move you to April 20th.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Fast track it .
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sir, one other very
minor request is to discuss with your client
24 whether or not there are future intentions for
decks or accessory structures, so to have the
25 conversation so it' s fairly clear about
intentions .
March 30 , 2006
40
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion that
we adjourn this hearing until April 27th at 10 : 15 .
3 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We need now to make a
4 motion to open and then close the next hearing for
John Milazzo on Island View Lane in Greenport . Is
5 there anyone who wishes to speak on this
application?
6 MS . SCHNEIDER: I need to speak on the
last hearing.
7 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll make a
8 resolution to hear additional testimony on the
Biel Associates application.
9 (See minutes for resolution. )
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Mr. Cuddy left
10 already.
MS . SCHNEIDER: Hi, my name is Susan
11 Schneider. My husband and I have been in the
neighborhood for 25 years . We decided about six
12 years ago that the home we had was too small, but
we loved the country and modest beauty of the
13 neighborhood, so we bought a lot a few lots down
from the water, and we built our house about six
14 years ago. While we needed space, we were very
careful to keep the house in keeping with the rest
15 of the neighborhood. We' re not elevated. We
didn' t raise the elevation. Our second floor is a
16 Cape style floor. It' s not very high, and the
ceilings are eight foot ceilings, and although we
17 could have used more space, we really wanted the
house to be in keeping with the neighborhood, that
18 was very important to us . And I hope the water
line will be protected in some respect as far as
19 it' s country-type beauty. From the edge of Main
Bayview, all the houses really have a view of the
20 water, so it affects all of the. houses in the
neighborhood. It' s on a hill so they can see the
21 water . And I'm concerned that if the house is
built large and bulky, that it will look more of
22 the water line of Marco Island in Florida, where
you have one building after another and you can' t
23 see any of the open spaces, which I think are
important . We come from Huntington, and in
24 Huntington, there have been many, many large huge
houses that have been built on small lots next to
25 homes that were built many years ago that are much
smaller. So we have seen many of these homes that
March 30 , 2006
41
1
2 are in shadows, and it really doesn' t look very
aesthetic to have these huge homes adjacent to
3 other homes that are much smaller. And that ' s all
I have to say. I hope that Southold will be more
4 aware of the beauty of the area and the wishes of
the neighborhood.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Fox?
CAPT. FOX: Good morning, my name is
6 Captain Tom Fox. I'm the president of the Bay
Haven Property Owners Association. I've been a
7 resident of Bay Haven for 29 years . Going back
some 15 or 20 years ago our beach was
8 unbulkheaded. When we applied for permits to have
the bulkhead in place, we had to jump through
9 hoops for the Town codes and for the DEC. We had
to meet very stringent requirements, which we did,
10 and the beach has since been preserved.
I come from an industry that is very
11 highly regulated as far as the environment, that
is the deep sea maritime industry. I don' t see
12 any reason why the code that was nominally enacted
to presumably protect the environment should have
13 variances imposed on it that might unreasonably
affect the environment . I would respectfully
14 request that this Board take a very, very close
look at this application with respect to the
15 setback from the water, and in view of what the
codes requires with respect to setback so that the
16 environment can be preserved, because, as you
know, there' s a lot of heat and light around these
17 days about preserving the environment, and I wish
you would take that into consideration. Thank
18 you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, anyone
19 else . Yes, sir?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Good morning. My name is
20 Walt Schneider, I have lived in the area for 24
years, and my concern is when I looked at where
21 this house is going to be situated, and the size
of it, I began to see a ghetto, overcrowded, loss
22 of the feeling of being in a beach community, and
more of the feeling of being in some areas of the
23 Bronx, where you have one house on top of the
other, where you have no light going through. So
24 please, please, give serious consideration. We
moved to this area because of the openness, the
25 beach, et cetera. This house as I saw it marked
out on the land would destroy that beach community
March 30 , 2006
42
1
2 feeling, it would destroy the light, and it would
be a very unpleasant experience for me to come
3 back to this place again. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much.
4 Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this
application?
5 If not, I' ll make a motion to adjourn this
hearing until April 27th.
6 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next case is John
Milazzo . Is there anyone here that wishes to
8 speak on this application at this point?
Otherwise the applicant has asked us to adjourn it
9 for some date in the future . If not, I ' ll make a
motion to recess until the applicant has his
10 application together.
(See minutes for resolution. )
11 - - ----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application
12 is for Peter Doody who wishes to build a swimming
pool in a yard other than the rear on Orchard
13 Street .
MS . MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf
14 of the applicant . I think our application is
pretty straightforward, Mr. Doody would like to
15 construct a swimming in what is considered to be
something other than a rear yard. His property is
16 located on a corner. He tried to situate the pool
so as not to be offensive to any other neighbor.
17 I ' m sure you' re familiar with the immediate area
in which this house is located, and there are a
18 number of homes very close to all the interior lot
lines . The pool is farther from the Navy Street
19 frontage than is the existing setback on the
dwelling, which is 22 feet . The pool is proposed
20 at 32 feet . There would be a hedge planted along
the easterly fence line to screen the pool from
21 view of any of the neighbors . The structure would
not be any farther -- any closer to Navy Street
22 than any of the existing dwellings on Navy Street .
And I just have some photographs to offer to
23 demonstrate that many of the properties located on
corner lots have very close side yards because
24 they are, of course, all older houses in the area .
Some of the accessory structures are closer to the
25 road, much closer than what we propose . So I ' ll
just offer up my photographs and ask if there' s
March 30 , 2006
43
1
2 any questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just the one question,
3 what is this proposed spa on your site plan?
MS . MESIANO: It' s a hot tub, it' s a
4 portable fixture . It' s not a structure . There' s
a little brick patio there, and it' s a movable
5 structure . It' s not a fixed structure .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s there already?
6 MS . MESIANO: Yes, I saw it was there .
But again, it' s not built in or in a structure .
7 It ' s just set in on brick and sand.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Mesiano, is
8 there any intentions of ever enclosing this
proposed pool?
9 MS . MESIANO : No.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What kind of
10 decking or ground cover around the pool would be
proposed?
11 MS . MESIANO : Since he has a very nice
wooden deck -- now I'm assuming, but I'm going to
12 back up and say since he' s gone to quite expense
to put in the stone patio that' s shown around the
13 back of the house, I would think that he intends
to follow that around because there is a nice wood
14 deck on the back of the house with the steps down
to grade, but where there is so much stone work
15 there, it would be logical to me that he would
intend to continue and extend that .
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it would be
approximately ground --
17 MS . MESIANO: Yes, at grade . We don' t
have an above-ground -- we don' t have a ground
18 water condition to have to raise the pool up, it
could be at grade and with screening, not visible
19 from the street .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it' s very
21 clear where you propose to locate the swimming
pool, I think it' s right about where the garden
22 is?
MS . MESIANO: Is that' s exactly where .
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This site plan
shows 40 . 5 foot setback from Navy Street . I think
24 I heard you say something else?
MS . MESIANO : I 'm sorry.
25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are we looking at
the same?
March 30 , 2006
44
1
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me show you
what I ' ve got . We have two different site plans .
3 MS . MESIANO: When I asked the surveyor to
provide me his most recent, this was provided by
4 the surveyor, and this was provided by the
contractor.
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Which is the one?
MS . MESIANO : The correct one is the one
6 from the surveyor, from Ehlers .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it is 40
7 feet?
MS . MESIANO : No 32 .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s right where that
perennial garden is .
9 MS . MESIANO: I apologize .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This actually
10 indicates the garden?
MS . MESIANO: Yes .
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It shows a proposed
fence .
12 MS . MESIANO: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the height
13 of that proposed fence?
MS . MESIANO: The fence would be that
14 which would comply with the zoning for the pool
enclosure, and I think that' s a minimum of four
15 feet .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay, just
16 checking. Because it is another one of those
issues of front yard.
17 MS . MESIANO: The fencing is strictly for
security, pool safety issues and then landscaping
18 would be used for any screening.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You do intend to do
19 some landscaping, because that' s not indicated --
it is indicated along the other property boundary.
20 MS . MESIANO: Yes . I thought I made a
note of it in my application, but I did have a
21 specific conversation with the property owner, and
he does definitely intend to do screening
22 plantings so that this is not visible from the
street .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s to his advantage
to do it too .
24 MS . MESIANO: It works for everybody and
there' s no place else to put it; if he moved it
25 farther in to the property, he would be closer to
all of his other neighbors . I would like to add
March 30, 2006
45
1
2 too, I left in a hurry because I have to come a
long way, but I had received a handwritten note
3 from neighbors, Mellinger, which are alongside --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are they the old
4 firehouse?
MS . MESIANO: They' re on the survey shown
5 behind the fire department, but I guess also as
well . Anyway they did make a statement in favor
6 of the application. It' s being faxed to me, which
I ' ll be glad to bring as soon as my fax comes in.
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI In favor of it ,
right?
8 MS . MESIANO : Yes, in support of the
application.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Important to mention.
Jim?
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
12 audience that wishes to speak on this application?
If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing
13 and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
14 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
15 for Miss Klein about a fence .
MR. ORIENTALE : Good morning, my name is
16 Gerard Orientale .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to
17 tell us?
MR. ORIENTALE : She' d like to take
18 approximately 75 feet of the six foot fence, move
it in five feet onto the property line further in.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Than it is now?
MR. ORIENTALE : Yes . On the other side of
20 the fence, the street side, she' d like to plant
that off with some sea green junipers to help
21 soften that area. Where the safety gate is that
she has, she would like to leave that in position
22 from the six foot fence, just do a return to it,
from there be the safety gate, then from there the
23 fence would be cut down to four feet, and I
believe to be back on the correct property line .
24 She would like to leave the safety gate there .
She had probably talked to you about the safety of
25 the children. And because of the six foot fence
that she would like to leave simply because of the
March 30 , 2006
46
1
2 drug problems that they have at the end of the
street that seem not to be getting addressed.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the four foot
fence would be right on the property line?
4 MR. ORIENTALE : Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you refer
to the four foot fence, you' re referring to the
6 gate towards the south; is that correct?
MR. ORIENTALE : That' s correct . That ' s
7 been cut down to four foot and put on the line .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s no
8 reason to do any plantings at that particular
point, they' ll be on the line, is that correct ,
9 because it will be conforming?
MR. ORIENTALE : Yes, because it will be
10 conforming.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, thank you.
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I recently
revisited the site and it would appear that
12 already some changes in what we had looked at
previously in the way the fence had been
13 structured has taken place; that, in fact, from
the rolling gate towards Sound Drive, that portion
14 has already been cut down, tapered down to four
feet and moved to the property line . The
15 remaining portion going towards the bluff is still
six feet and she' s requesting to leave that or
16 move that?
MR. ORIENTALE : She would like to move
17 that in five feet onto her property line . So that
on the road side she could plant some plants to
18 help disguise and soften the six foot fence from
the road side but still gain the privacy and
19 protection on her property. If she were to move
the fence in 20 feet because of the topography of
20 the land, the elevation of the fence will be
almost back down to four feet because the property
21 slopes down.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Another question,
22 given that the large portion of the fence is now
down to the code required four feet, in standing
23 there and looking toward the rear yard where there
is concern for visual privacy, there is none; you
24 can see directly into that yard from that four
foot portion at this point . My question therefore
25 is, are there additional plans to create any kind
of perpendicular landscape screening that would
March 30 , 2006
47
1
2 create any visual barrier between the four foot
section along Sound Avenue and the visual privacy,
3 in other words, like that : Here' s the fence,
here' s the house, here' s the bluff and from here
4 looking towards the bluff on the rear yard, you
can see totally into it . Unless there is
5 perpendicular landscaping or additional fence, the
visual privacy that the applicant is seeking is in
6 no way assured. So I'm asking whether or not
there has been discussions with you, you' re the
7 landscaper?
MR. ORIENTALE : She would like to do some
8 plantings on her side of the fence to help gain
back some privacy and screening out of that, that
9 has been discussed, yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I mean, that
10 doesn' t require a variance, I'm simply asking.
MR. ORIENTALE : I believe that may have
11 been on a sketch, possibly.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It just shows the
12 changing in the wooden fence . Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If the Board is
13 so inclined to go along with the moving of the six
foot fence towards the house along Sound Road, I
14 think the Board should deal with the aspect that
those particular plantings should be continuously
15 maintained either through a drip system or at
least if one dies it has to be replaced.
16 MR. ORIENTALE : I believe in a letter she
stated she would be maintain that, but, yes a drip
17 system would be installed for that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : My concern is the
whole fence, in all honesty, it' s just going to be
19 a billboard to print whatever they want .
MR. ORIENTALE : They have done that
20 already.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Exactly. I
21 actually walk to that piece of property every day.
I was there this morning, I was there yesterday
22 morning. I was even on her property yesterday.
She can move that in more and not lose two feet .
23 I measured it . If you look at your own survey,
the contours are not two feet every 20 feet . So
24 I 'm not buying the six foot to four foot privacy.
I can go 60 feet to the east of this property and
25 stand on her property every bit of it all day long
if I want to it, there' s a part that rises 20 feet
March 30 , 2006
48
1
2 to the east of that . So she' s not gaining any
privacy other than I understand what goes on down
3 there because I live down there . But I also know
that all our neighbors, we maintain our properties
4 to the street . We pick up the papers, we pick up
the cans, we pick up all the crap that goes on
5 there . And to my mind this fence just gives her
license not to maintain that side of what we all
6 maintain, and that is evident in what is there
right now. So, I like the idea of the five foot
7 that was what I suggested, 20 feet would have been
better because then she doesn' t have to cut down
8 any trees . Right now she' s got to cut down a few
trees . If she goes 20 feet, she can leave the
9 junk that' s there and the person from the car is
not going to go out and try and go through her
10 bramble after it grows up, which was always there,
and will grow back, to paint something on the
11 fence, which the last one was fairly offensive .
So I'm pushing for the 20 foot in all honesty. If
12 she wants 15, if she wants the plantings, fine,
but like Mr. Goehringer says, continuously
13 maintained, and keep in mind that I ' m there every
day, I don' t intend to move . So if there' s a dead
14 tree there, I work for the Town. I just want you
to know. I think it would be better to let her
15 grow what was there up and not have to maintain
it . Because I can tell you what is going to
16 happen, you' re going to plant trees and half of
them are going to be gone, because it' s a good
17 place to shop up there . Bring you pick-up up and
pull one out of the ground. That' s what will
18 happen.
MR. ORIENTALE : It' s too bad they took all
19 the effort that goes into the fence, it' s too bad
they couldn' t put the effort into cleaning up the
20 drug problem down there .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I couldn' t agree
21 with you more, sir. I've done my own personal
contribution to that and I know other neighbors
22 have too. In all the honesty, people have
rights . I saw this weekend what she' s complaining
23 about, but my wife keeps me from not taking
matters into my own hands . I think she ought to
24 consider pushing that back a little more and just
letting what was there grow up to the point where
25 she suggests, beyond that the Town has no rights,
other than I know what' s going to happen there and
March 30 , 2006
49
1
2 it really is not going to be pleasant . People
standing in the street looking at her house are
3 not going to think very much of it because of
what' s going to happen there . So, beyond that,
4 that' s all I have to say.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: None of the site
plans that we have indicate the existing scrub
6 tree line, the natural vegetation, which I believe
is just inside her fence, it' s on her property but
7 just inside where the wood fence is now, the six
foot high portion. Would you happen to know,
8 because it isn' t again indicated on here, how many
additional feet that wood fence would have to be
9 moved from its current position in order to be
behind that scrub?
10 MR. ORIENTALE : That I don' t know.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: About 20 feet . I
11 measured it off honestly.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s not that we
12 don' t believe you, Jimmy,
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We need a new
13 survey.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re in session
14 this afternoon, he can go down and measure it at
lunch time and come back and tell us .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Your client is
proposing five foot, if it' s a matter of eight
16 feet in order to have that existing natural
vegetation on the public side of the fence, then
17 it seems to me fairly reasonable . If it' s a huge
number of feet, that' s another story, so I ' d like
18 to know what that number is .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There are two ways of
avoiding the need for the variance . One is have
20 it 20 foot back, and the other is to have the
fence at four feet rather than six feet . Going up
21 there, I was sort of unconvinced as to what the
value was of keeping that at six feet given that
22 the rest is four feet as far as privacy or
anything else is concerned. Whether the fence is
23 four or six feet, they still have the problems of
the graffiti, so I don' t grasp what the importance
24 of the six feet is, but if six feet is desirable
for whatever reason that hasn' t been fully
25 explained, then it would be a concern to see how
far back to going toward the code required 20 feet
March 30 , 2006
50
1
2 if it' s going to serve those purposes . We just
need to be persuaded that this makes sense rather
3 than making a compromise where the Town says you
can' t have a full six feet fence, but maybe we can
4 have a little bit of six foot fence less than 20
feet from the curb.
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Michael, in order
to not require a variance there, she would have to
6 move that section that we' re speaking about right
now back 57 . 63 feet .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: She has two front
yards .
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She could move it
back to that corner of her house, rear of her
9 house . What I'm proposing is still a variance and
about a 60 percent variance .
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: . Then I agree . We' re
going to need a variance . The only question is
11 what the variance is going to look like .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Has anyone suggested
12 to Miss Klein what some of the Board Members have
been discussing, about putting up a chain link
13 fence inside, and then have complete plantings
that will be continuously maintained of an
14 evergreen on the outside . She has the privacy
with the chain link fence and she has the
15 landscaping on the outside that will be
continuously maintained and soften the whole
16 effect so that it doesn' t look like a barricade .
And it wouldn' t have graffiti up there either, and
17 it would be far more pleasing to her neighbors and
actually more pleasing to herself, because she
18 could be looking at nice vegetation instead of a
walled fence and lack of air and so on.
19 MR. ORIENTALE : I think she would consider
it, and it hasn' t been discussed.
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, I 'm the one
that suggested that as a possibility some time
21 ago . There is an economic issue I'm sure that
she' s concerned about and that' s understandable .
22 The conflict was between the visual impact on the
neighbors and her concern or security. A four
23 foot fence doesn' t provide physical safety.
However, in creating a six foot barricade
24 literally and impenetrable wall, it has really had
a heavy impact on the visual aesthetics of the
25 neighborhood. Someone could just as easily hop
over that four foot section, I think it ' s kind of
March 30 , 2006
51
1
2 moot at this point . They could have entered
through the other street . There is nothing that
3 physically prevents, unless she creates a
physically bounded fence all the way on the
4 perimeter of her property, that' s really going to
create the kind of -- I don' t mean visual privacy,
5 I mean physical safety from trespassers that she' s
concerned about . So somehow I think in this
6 process of continuing to compromise, it ' s starting
to look a little bit better visually, but it ' s not
7 really accomplishing what she wants . So I think
she' s going to have to come to grips in the safety
8 issue perhaps in joining the association' s efforts
to do something to create greater security down
9 there, you know, for everybody as cooperative
neighbors . The last thing, I'm a trained
10 designer, the last thing I want to see is anything
ugly for the sake of the applicant as well as the
11 sake of the neighborhood, but let' s be fair, the
goals she wants to achieve are really not
12 achievable short of putting something absolutely
from her house, the corner of her house, all the
13 way around to create a safety compound in the
back. And there' s still access via the bluff . If
14 someone wants to do mischief, they' re going to do
it .
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly, I
understand the six foot fence in the rear yard,
16 and she' s does gain from the noise, the noise that
people are running cars at 1 : 00 , I've seen them
17 down there at 4 : 00 , I' ve seen them there when I ' m
walking at 5 : 30 , with their cars running, radios
18 on. She does gain from that piece of fence being
there . The other stuff in her letter I thought
19 was more just hyperbole . You could understand
that it doesn' t make any sense . But I have a
20 couple other things about the survey and my
observations on that piece of property. One is
21 that you have a survey here that shows the pool in
the side yard. I was wondering if you had a
22 variance for that, and if not, was it alleviated
by the fact that you actually attached that pool
23 to the house?
MR. ORIENTALE : I don' t know.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I asked Linda to
research that . Then there' s another structure on
25 that piece of property in the side yard on the
west side of that property almost to the front of
March 30 , 2006
52
1
2 the house that I didn' t explore; but I don' t know
what that is . It' s a fence, yet it' s not on the
3 property line . Is there something in that fence
that' s protecting? It' s a four foot fence?
4 MR. ORIENTALE : They put up a four foot
fence around the pool equipment to soften that .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : In the front yard?
MR. ORIENTALE : Yes .
6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Could I respond to
that? I got an email from Jim, and he asked me if
7 there were any variances for the pool . I
researched it, there were no variances for the
8 pool . However, she may have a building permit and
a CO for the pool where it' s located because many
9 years ago -- I don' t know how old the pool is --
many years ago the Building Department
10 administration would call that a rear yard, not a
side yard.
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s attached now,
and it doesn' t show that on the survey.
12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I don' t know if she
has building permits or Cos, you might want to
13 have her respond.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is a
14 credible reason to know what the distance of the
bramble is . Regardless of which fence we go with,
15 or which fence she agrees to, or which fence the
neighbors would like better, and so on and so
16 forth, so could you get us that information?
Before the neighbors speak, I want to find out
17 where we' re going.
MR. ORIENTALE : Do you want me to go now?
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let' s hear what the
neighbors have to say.
19 MR. BECKTON: I'm Bob Beckton, co-owner of
the house at 66 Sound Road. It' s not as daunting
20 as it looks, it' s only four pages in response to ,
the 25 pages that we had to go through. This
21 represents a letter from myself, Bob Beckton, 66
Sound Road, my colleague, co-owner at 66 Sound
22 Road, Victor Brown at 658 Sound Road could not be
here today, and Bill Spilleotus, adjacent property
23 owner at 115, I think it' s Sound Avenue -- Sound
Drive, and all of these colleagues here today are
24 from the 67 Steps Coalition.
I won' t take a lot of time I hope . One
25 thing I ' d like to point out that came up, I
believe the remaining portion of the fence that
March 30 , 2006
53
1
2 exists at the six foot level is 120 feet, not 75 ,
but I think we should look into that . I think
3 it ' s longer than the remaining 70 feet . So that
should be addressed as well . I handed you
4 letters from four of us, Carl and I each wrote
individual letters, each of us oppose the
5 remaining portion of the fence at the six foot
level, that includes the portion of the gate . We
6 see no reason why, if there' s a request for the
gate to remain, why that portion has to remain at
7 six feet, certainly if there' s some emergency
that' s been listed in Miss Klein' s materials it
8 seems to us a four foot gate would be much easier
to open than a six foot gate . So that needs to be
9 addressed.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Beckton, can
10 I just stop you at this point . We have a
gentleman that' s going to measure something for
11 us; what exactly are you concerned about in
reference to the 70 as opposed so he could measure
12 that too and come back to us?
MR. BECKTON: Is it just 70 feet that
13 remains at six feet or 120 feet?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you measure
14 that for us too, sir?
MR. ORIENTALE : Sure .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just going
to stop you at each time. if you have a concern.
16 MR. BECKTON: Absolutely, and I ' m trying
to be as clear as I can. Fencing went up in July,
17 letter went out in August saying there was a
violation; we know that . You were given a
18 petition in January by over 50 people in the
neighborhood that are opposed to the fence . We' re
19 assuming that petition still stands . Those people
that signed that petition for an objection to the
20 fence . Only a part of the fence has been
modified, not the entire fence . If there' s a need
21 or opportunity, we need to go back to the
community and resurvey this for the remaining
22 portion of the fence . Then maybe we need a
request to do that . We certainly would prefer not
23 to .
Let me quickly read some of the points
24 that I can get across and I' ll try to be as brief
as possible . We continue to believe that the
25 fence presents a severe and unattractive wall in
this residential neighborhood. We believe a five
March 30 , 2006
54
1
2 foot setback planted with what is in the materials
we have, 20 foot plot, 24 inch high junipers will
3 not diminish nor mitigate the impact of this wall .
Every home on this street predates this house and
4 was built with its front yard open to Sound Road
and a six foot fence is out of character.
5 This fence has attracted graffiti since it
was installed most recently last month, it has
6 also led to increased trash. We have no reason to
believe that a five foot setback will have any
7 effect on this problem, on the remaining portion
of the fence .
8 Several other homeowners in the
neighborhood have also requested variances for six
9 foot high fences and they have complied with the
Zoning Board request to locate them at least 20
10 foot back from the property line . I have a verbal
proxy today from the Lamms as 50 Sutton Place and
11 Bill Spilleotis, the adjacent property owner who
have put their fences back in compliance with the
12 Town code of 20 feet back; they' re going to
request that their fences be moved back out to the
13 property line if this owner is granted a variance
that gives her the fence moved out to the property
14 line . They have had to move their fence back 20
feet . They' re very upset that if a variance is
15 given up there, they want their fences moved back
out to the property line .
16 We have looked and provided to you, and
this is a copy that Miss Klein has, similar
17 condition where beach roads, such as chain link
fences with bushes and so on and so forth. We
18 went around we took pictures, we provided ideas to
Miss Klein and presumably the landscape has
19 pictures of those and other beaches, in no case
was there a six foot fence at any property line .
20 In most cases there was a thickly planted
landscape barrier. Miss Klein' s concerns and
21 reasons for the fence resolve around her personal
concern and priorities .
22 I believe having resided directly across
from that same piece of property for 18 years as a
23 same weekend, year-round resident that there are
no substantiated conditions regarding trash,
24 security, so on and so forth, that we cannot
resolve as a community through the sanitation
25 department or continuing to work with the Southold
Town Police . I do not believe personally that any
March 30, 2006
55
1
2 one resident has a right to barricade out their
problems and make it more of a problem for the
3 rest of us . I agree that we all need to work
these problems . I think it will be better if we
4 do so together.
We think the fence' s impact on the
5 neighbor' s lives is substantial, the negative as
evidenced by the strong protests it has elicited.
6 We believe that Zoning regulations as written has
been developed to protect the greater good of the
7 community and should be followed, and we' re here
today with the full expectations that this Board
8 will follow the existing codes of Southold Town.
There you have it . Thank you. Any questions or
9 questions from my colleague, I ' ll do the best I
can.
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not from me,
thank you.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He' s going to go back
and measure the width of the bramble and the
12 length of the six foot to include the gate .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And how close the
13 bramble is to the existing six foot fence portion
from the rolling gate toward the bluff .
14 MR. BECKTON: When my partner measured
whether the land goes down or not, it was his
15 measurement that the land does not go down that
much. In terms of pushing it back 20 feet, we' re
16 aware that there is some slope in the property,
but from his estimation, it did not go down that
17 far.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, ma' am.
18 MS . NORDEN: Hi, Melanie Norden,
Greenport . Could you explain to me those of you
19 who have spoken about the fence, what the nature
of the compromise is? Why would we need at this
20 point to make a compromise vis-a-vis the bramble?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think it' s a
21 compromise .
MS . NORDEN: When we' re talking about the
22 bramble and where the bramble is located,
essentially it' s a compromise because we have
23 already heard from Jim that if the fence were to
be legal and within the guidelines, would have to
24 have a setback of 57 feet . So if you are thinking
of granting a variance without setting that fence
25 back 57 feet, then we' re talking about a
compromise . And I don' t understand the notion of
March 30 , 2006
56
1
2 the bramble and where that enters in.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Here' s the point .
3 Because we do, when we require landscaping or
plantings and things like that it' s to mitigate
4 from the neighbors, they have a concern, and here
we have a concern. I have no objection, and
5 certainly can understand the reason why she would
like to have a nice high fence there where it is
6 basically now, because that is, everybody admits
is a bad spot . Yet, it is a compromise, and
7 that ' s why we' re here to grant some relief if our
codes don' t seem to take all these things into
8 consideration. Certainly they don' t take corner
lots into consideration that a person has two
9 corner lots, you can' t find that in math, but in
Town code you find that . We' re here for that
10 reason. My thought with moving it back 20 feet
was that she would then not have to maintain what
11 is on the other side of that 20 feet .
MS . NORDEN: She' ll still own that
12 property so why would she not have to maintain
that property?
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She can just let
the scrub that was growing there and the people
14 who wrote what was on there two weeks ago couldn' t
do it again, because they would have to go through
15 these thicket and stuff . It would be a lot less
expensive and it would be a lot easier to
16 maintain.
MS . NORDEN: But also, Jim, with all due
17 respect, you are here to map the law and to
support the law.
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, we' re here --
MS . NORDEN: And in offering injunctive
19 relief, yes, there are problems there, we have all
acknowledged that . Those are the problems that we
20 have to bring to our police department and our
sanitation department . There are problems all
21 over town, but are we really suggesting that
you' re going to offer relief for a problem -- I
22 mean, have you been to the police department as a
zoning board and say we' re planning to adopt or
23 adjust our laws in this case because you can' t do
proper enforcement?
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but you' re
seeing it wrong. You don' t understand the purpose
25 of the Zoning Board, that' s fine, you should go
back and read it in our code . We' re trying to
March 30 , 2006
57
1
2 help a property owner who purchased a lot who
can' t conform.
3 MS . NORDEN: Who can' t conform?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes, they could
4 conform and it would be a hardship. Half of what
she perceives to be her back yard would be fenced
5 off if she wanted a six foot fence . She could put
a four foot fence there and every Tom, Dick and
6 Harry could paint whatever they want there and she
doesn' t have to do a thing; she doesn' t have to
7 maintain it . It could stay there forever, or the
Town can paint it, no, the Town can' t paint it
8 because the Town can' t legally go onto her
property and maintain that . So we would end up as
9 a neighborhood with a billboard of whatever those
people want to say. Quite honestly, I don' t want
10 to look at it that . So we' re not granting any
variance against the law. We' re trying to help
11 this person, which is what the Zoning Board is
here for, to comply and fit in a community because
12 she has a hardship. The hardship is caused by
this Town in considering two front yards, that ' s
13 the hardship.
MS . NORDEN: So if we made the compromise,
14 for example, that Leslie was suggesting --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If we granted a
15 variance .
MS . NORDEN: If we granted a variance to
16 allow a six foot chain link fence with plantings
in front of it, what would the problem be with
17 that? She would essentially achieve what she
wants to achieve, which is the privacy. In ,fact,
18 if she planted privet, it would be almost
impenetrable and it would probably function pretty
19 well there on the bluff and whatever she would do,
cypress would be 15 feet in three years . The
20 chain link would provide all the privacy that she
would want, and it would provide us as a
21 neighborhood, with a wonderful aesthetic barrier
to actually look at and the graffiti would not
22 even remotely be an issue .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s why we proposed
23 it .
MS . NORDEN: Isn' t that something that
24 can' t you propose?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s why we
25 proposed it . However, it' s important to note that
due process is required here and that our
March 30, 2006
58
1
2 intention is not to make a decision now but to
discuss with the neighbors and the applicant and
3 the applicant' s representative all of the variance
strategies we can come up with to see what makes
4 the most sense . We have five balancing criteria
that by law we have to attend to, and I ' m sure you
5 know what they are .
MS . NORDEN: Actually, I don' t .
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They' re right in
the Town code . We' ll give you a copy. But that
7 is what the law requires us to examine . One of
those criteria is impact on the surrounding
8 context . The degree of relief granted is or is
not substantial, there' s a whole series of things,
9 is it self-created, it' s not, and the law requires
us to balance those variables, and we must do so
10 with as much impartiality as we can bring to the
process, which is why we have public hearings, to
11 make, sure everybody' s input is heard and taken
into account . In proposing this alternate, my
12 suggestion was that it gives her the perceived
sense of a physical barrier that you cannot jump
13 over. It provides light and air, and blends in
with landscaping that will be a far more
14 appropriate solution and it will not allow for
graffiti . That doesn' t mean that' s an answer, it
15 means it' s a strategy under discussion with many
others, including every single comment any of you
16 has brought to our attention that is equally
considered in this process .
17 So, what we' re asking for, my suggestion
about the brambles has to do with the fact that
18 that' s what' s natural, that' s what' s always been
there, that' s what wasn' t cut down, and if there
19 was a way to simply encourage the restoration of
the kind of vegetation you've all been used to all
20 along instead of some manicured, contrived
landscape scheme, something that is very much in
21 keeping with the bluff and so on, we might be able
to find some reasonable strategy. But my hope
22 would be that you as a community would find
solutions as you point out that are appropriate to
23 other departments . We don' t have jurisdiction as
police enforcement to handle the problems of
24 traffic down there, that' s for you to deal with.
MS . NORDEN: But I just wonder, we know
25 there' s a hardship, are you taking that into
consideration at all in your decision process?
March 30 , 2006
59
1
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We are required to
by law.
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Definitely. That' s
why she' s here .
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We are also
required to take into account the hardship the
5 community may feel, that' s the balance .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But quite honestly,
6 it' s more the property owner than it is the
community when it comes to things such as a
7 fence .
She is perfectly entitled to have a four
8 foot fence, and the result of that would still be
a problem for the neighborhood. She could put it
9 up there . She could do her own thing, never
maintain it, let it fall down or my offer of
10 moving it back 20 feet, the reason for that was
that she wouldn' t have to spend a lot of money on
11 landscaping, just let it grow back.
MS . NORDEN: It' s going to be a while
12 before that actually grows back. In my memory it
was never six to eight foot high.
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You couldn' t walk
into that five feet, the way it was grown up, and
14 I ' m sure it would not take along for that to grow
back.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They grow pretty fast .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It would just be
16 there . Honestly, it doesn' t make one bit of
difference to me how this turns out, honestly,
17 except by the fact that I 'm a little upset by the
fact that I'm liable to see things changing on
18 that fence . Now it' s coming to the time where
it ' s the worst, it' s spring, graduation' s coming
19 up and that place is going to be rocking. Just
hopefully she' s not out for that because it will
20 drive her crazy. All I was trying to do when I
made that 20 foot suggestion, which is something
21 we do all the time, it' s less for the Town to
maintain. If I see something on the fence and I
22 put in a decision that says you can have to
continuously maintain it, I get on the cell phone
23 and I call Ed Foster, there' s something on the
fence, get going. Now he' s spending hours trying
24 to get something removed from that fence . Then
she' s got to deal with it . My thought was, if you
25 move it back so far and maybe throw something else
in there .
March 30 , 2006
60
1
2 MS . NORDEN: How about the rest of the
fence? That' s not going to be moved back, and
3 graffiti will be all over that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you,
4 you can' t do anything. If it were my fence, if I
had people standing in front of my house looking
5 at what' s going to be on that fence, I' d be
embarrassed, but evidently she' s not or she
6 doesn' t realize it yet .
MS . NORDEN: I'm just saying even if you
7 do decide to move the six foot area back 20 feet,
you' re still going to have the same graffiti
8 problem for the other 70 or more feet all the way
along from where the gate is back down. So it' s
9 not a compromise solution that works for anybody.
It just means we' re going to have half as much
10 graffiti . It doesn' t address any of the basic
security issues . I like the idea of working with
11 some chain link fence and some plantings, either
they can be natural, privet or natural growth, and
12 I think that' s something we could look towards . I
think that would provide the compromise we' re all
13 looking for.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She' s entitled to
14 that .
MS . NORDEN: We wouldn' t be looking at the
15 extended barrier that is so distasteful to so many
of us, it would provide her with greater security
16 with pretty much impenetrable landscape with a
chain link fence on the other side. And the
17 landscape would not have a six foot limitation.
So she could have something 15 or 20 feet there .
18 So I would like to encourage the Board to think
about us as a community and all our needs that
19 might be a compromise for everyone .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You know, I like to
20 have these discussions . We have these discussions
when we make our decisions, believe me, we do . If
21 we did what you wanted and she put a fence -- now
she could just say no, I ' ll put a four foot fence,
22 and guess what, I' ll put the cedar on my and she' s
perfectly entitled to that and then no one gains .
23 MS . NORDEN: No one gains in the six foot
compromise either.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes, they do . She
gains what she wants . She' s asking for something.
25 She went to a lot of trouble, she wants a six foot
fence there . She thinks she gains something from
March 30 , 2006
61
1
2 that .
MS . NORDEN: I understand that . But we
3 then have still have a barrier with graffiti .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We mitigate that by
4 letting that stuff grow back up . I can tell you,
my suggestion, as usual, will not be carried out
5 to the T . I compromise all the time . What Leslie
would like to have is going to be a part of that,
6 and even if it' s moved back 20 feet, I'm sure
there' s going to be something else planted there
7 in between that space that I never conceived, but
she can have any shape or type of fence she wants
8 at four foot, and I would like to avoid that at
all costs . And if she thinks she gains something
9 from having the extra two feet and it' s 20 feet
back, I'm happy with that, and the rest of it, I
10 can' t control .
MS . NORDEN: I understand that .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The Town can' t go
on her property and maintain things and if she
12 doesn' t want to maintain it, she really doesn' t
have to .
13 MS . NORDEN: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you very
14 much.
MR. BECKTON: I just would like all of us
15 not to walk away and say it' s a problem, there' s
drugs . It' s just, we just have to compromise .
16 We' re not as a community going to walk away from
this problem. We are going to continue to attack
17 and address this problem and move it along
further. So I would like not for all of us to
18 say, gee, you' re right, this person has a right to
block this out because it' s just going to become
19 trickled into more of our problem. They see a
fence there, they' re going to come more our way.
20 And we have seen this start to happen since this
fence went up . So I would like to have everyone
21 not walk away saying, oh, that beach road, which
has been thought of that way for a long time . A
22 lot of other beach roads have been cleaned up,
this is one of the last ones to be tackled. But
23 I 've explained to the Board to consider that ,
let' s not forget it' s a problem, we' re going to
24 keep address it . That' s all I want to say.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We will recess this
25 this hearing until some time this afternoon until
2 : 15 . You might mention to her about a chain
March 30 , 2006
62
1
2 link fence .
(See minutes for resolution. )
3 -- -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The Orient Fire
4 District, and let us begin. Mr. Boyd.
MR. BOYD: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman,
5 Members of the Board. Edward Boyd, Southold, New
York representing the Orient Fire District .
6 The application you have before you this
afternoon is to change the location of a
7 telecommunication tower that the Orient Fire
District is going to build. You granted approval
8 of this tower on the 31st of March, 2005 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I just say we
9 approved an antennae, so that there would be
better communications for the Orient Fire
10 District, not a telecommunications tower.
MR. BOYD: Well, I have of course, your
11 decision, and I also have the building permit
issued by the Town of Southold, both of which seem
12 to be for a telecommunications tower. After all,
that' s what the Orient Fire District is going to
13 be doing is using a telecommunications for their
emergency communication. As I say, we have the
14 approval and also we have the building permit
which was issued 22nd of June, 2005 under their
15 permit Number 31215 .
The initial siting the Board of
16 Commissioners proposed to this Board was designed
to minimize the variances that would have to be
17 required. As you all remember, this Board decided
to bifurcate the application of the Orient Fire
18 District and the application that would be made by
various cellular tenants that would be on the
19 tower. Following that bifurcation we did not
change the location of the tower but went ahead
20 with exactly what had been proposed as far as
location, certain setbacks and so forth and so
21 on. However, since the approval was granted by
this Board, there has been a slight change in the
22 make-up of the commissioners of the Orient Fire
District . Two seats have been replaced, new
23 people have taken over and there has been some
rethinking of the location. The rethinking is a
24 result of several factors : Number one, continuing
discussion with members of the community who were
25 not completely pleased with the location of the
tower in the field where it had been approved and
March 30, 2006
63
1
2 hoping that perhaps an alternate location on the
Orient Fire District property could be found.
3 Secondly, when the people who were attempting to
collocate on this tower went to the Planning Board
4 for their initial site plan review, there was a
very definite feel from the architectural review
5 committee and the Planning Board that perhaps a
better location on the property could be located.
6 Thirdly, there was a review of the actual use of
the tower by the fire district and their
7 communications consultant and a location
immediately adjacent to the main firehouse and
8 immediately adjacent to the radio room, which is
located in the main firehouse, which would result
9 in a more efficient use of the property, a shorter
cable run to the antenna, a number of things like
10 like that, all combined together to result in a
decision by the commissioners that they would like
11 to move the tower from the location in the field
to immediately south of the main firehouse . You
12 have the plans for this move in front of you.
The reasons as we stated for this move
13 have on do with the aesthetics and trying to work
with the community as much as possible . In this
14 new location the tower will be partially screened
by the firehouse itself . It will not appear quite
15 as large because it' s sitting directly next to the
firehouse with its big roof . The screening will
16 be provided partially by the firehouse and
partially by an enclosure around the east, west
17 and south, which will abut the firehouse as
well . We have some very nice trees on the south
18 side of the firehouse, those are going to be moved
to form part of the screening. As I mentioned
19 before, there will be much shorter cable runs for
the wires going to the tower which will result in
20 efficiency for the communications of the fire and
police department . And it will concentrate all
21 this activity right next to the fire building
itself rather than having it out to the field in
22 the south and the east .
It' s for all of those reasons that the
23 fire district urges you to approve the change in
location of the previously approved tower to this
24 location immediately south of the firehouse .
If any of the Members of the Board have
25 questions on the application, I ' d be more than
happy to answer them at this time .
March 30 , 2006
64
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at the
3 moment .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I will have
shortly.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Is this going to be
6 a flag pole?
MR. BOYD : It' s a monopole .
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s the same exact
tower?
8 MR. BOYD : Same tower just moved X number
of feet directly south of the firehouse .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Is there going to
be another building?
10 MR. BOYD: There may be another building
to the south of the metal building that exists of
11 the main firehouse, but this does not figure into
this application in any way. This is going to be
12 immediately south of the brick main fire building,
and the only thing it will require in way of
13 change there is using the same curb cut of Taber
Road, swinging the paved driveway down to loop
14 around this enclose sure .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I saw a letter from
15 the Planning Board and they are encouraging you to
do this?
16 MR. BOYD: They are definitely encouraging
us to do this, and the architectural review
17 committee was encouraging the Planning Board to
encourage it . All we' re asking for is a change in
18 the location from the previously approved tower
from the field to immediately south of the
19 firehouse .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Your notice of
20 disapproval does say telecommunications tower.
You were disapproved for that both times . What
21 this Board granted was relief from that
disapproval?
22 MR. BOYD : Right . As I say, all we' re
looking for is the change in location of the
23 tower.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which does make sense .
24 Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Again, no greater or
25 lateral or radial displacement at the top of the
tower?
March 30 , 2006
65
1
2 MR. BOYD : We are not asking for anything
different than what was already approved. We want
3 to take the base of the tower and move it next to
the firehouse and there will be some change in the
4 shape of the enclosure, it will only have to be
three sides now. The north side will be formed by
5 the wall of the firehouse itself, and if you look
at the plan, you' ll see that there is a cut out in
6 there for the pad to have the fire department
dumpster, things of that nature which are
7 necessary, but it' s all the very well spelled out
on the site plan that you have .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Does
anybody in the audience wish to comment on what
9 Mr. Boyd just said? Miss Hopkins?
MS . HOPKINS : My name is Ann Hopkins and
10 I ' m president of the Orient Association, and I
find it very strange to be here again and hearing
11 this discussion of the telecommunications tower
because it was, as Ruth just said, our
12 understanding that what was approved was a fire
department communications tower and that the ZBA
13 very wisely separated these two and now the two
issues of the fire department' s need from cellular
14 communication needs, and now they have been
commingled, and this hearing mentions not only the
15 fire district but Cingular/Nextel and Verizon
Wireless, and I think this is what the community
16 so strongly opposes, a tower that is designed not
for the fire department' s needs chiefly but
17 primarily for cellular tower needs . And I will
just mention that as we have said, the lease that
18 the fire department has signed with Beacon
Wireless is so severely flawed that first is puts
19 the needs of the fire department behind of those
of any of these subtenants of Beacon Wireless ; and
20 second, it opens up the entire community to
liability, which we have spelled out in a recent
21 flyer. I just find it very strange that by just
talking about a telecommunications tower, we' re
22 back to square one .
In a matter of change of location, that
23 makes sense to me, whatever tower we end up with
would be right adjacent to the fire department ,
24 and I speak not only for the Orient Association
but as somebody who looks directly across a few
25 fields at this property. But I think we should go
back to talking about only the fire department' s
March 30 , 2006
66
1
2 needs .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, anybody
3 else right now?
MS . MCNEILLY: I ' m Ellen McNeilly, and am
4 I am chairman of the cell tower committee, because
in fact, what you have in front of you is a cell
5 tower designed by a Beacon Wireless Communications
architect . It is designed for the fire district
6 but in fact its form follows the function of cell
communications, not emergency communications .
7 Emergency communications don' t require something
that has the base diameter nor does it require
8 that height diameter. It is something that could
be a lattice work tower even if it were 90 feet
9 tall, something like they have at the fire
district right now, or even the 120 foot one that
10 they have at the ship yard, which is a lattice
work tower which can handle the communication
11 antenna mounted on. The fact that it is next to
the fire department is, as everyone has pointed
12 out, excellent because of the communication
capacity and the cabling and so on and so forth.
13 What you have here is a cell tower. And nothing
short of that, and not only that, you have a lease
14 that Ann pointed out, that is with a cell company
erector, they' re asking to collocate on a tower
15 that does not exist, that has not been budgeted
for by the Orient Fire District for its own tower.
16 It is a tower that will be erected by the tenant
of the fire district, and has its own subtenant .
17 Now, as a former landlord, I'm very, very sketchy
about subtenants because they can leave you with
18 problems that you do not want and liabilities that
you do not want . So, from the community' s point
19 of view, to have something that is erected by a
tenant because it has not been budgeted for by the
20 fire district itself, there have been no requests
for proposals that have gone out which they are
21 required to have by law, there has been no
competitive bidding on this whatsoever. So, what
22 do we have here? We have a sheep in goat' s
clothing.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
that wants to comment at this time?
24 MS . WAXBERGER: Hi, Freddie Waxberger from
Orient .
25 I just want to remind the Board of a few
obvious things . One is -- and I feel like a
March 30 , 2006
67
1
2 certain right to do this because I participated
with the code committee in drawing up the
3 legislation, and I was also a member of the Scenic
Biway Committee, so I 've had interest in this from
4 the get-go. I was also president of the Orient
Association when the first fire tower came
5 along.
First of all, as far as the zoning code
6 goes, the purpose as stated: Wireless
Communications facilities be located on existing
7 buildings and towers rather than newly constructed
towers . Any wireless communication facility must
8 take into account the aesthetic aspects of the
town, including open vistas, scenic byways and
9 historic districts . That I think is a really
relevant and entirely to the point statement
10 because we' re talking about a block from the
historic district, one of the only two historic
11 districts in Southold. We' re talking about scenic
byway and talking about the open farm vistas .
12 What I don' t understand because I participated in
helping to draw this code up, this is the zoning
13 code, including the special exception may waive or
reduce the criteria in this article to the extent
14 specified below; and A says increase the height of
the proposed tower up to 15 feet over the height
15 allowed by this code or the maximum total height
of no more than 60 feet . So I don' t understand
16 how 90 feet was approved to begin with. To move
on, the other thing that I have mentioned before
17 is that several years ago there was -- actually
it' s about 10 years ago almost -- there was a
18 proposal to build a Bell Atlantic tower on the
Philips property, which is basically one block
19 east of the firehouse, just to the east of Platt
Road. And that proposal was sent out to the Town
20 consultants who came back with a recommendation in
that case for a Type 1 Action, SEQRA, which was in
21 fact passed by the Planning Board, they designated
a Type 1 Action, and the thing is, there' s no real
22 difference here . The location of the monopole as
proposed will result in significant land use and
23 historical and visual impacts, some mitigation is
possible but impacts will remain which cannot be
24 mitigated such as the loss of agricultural vistas
from Platt Road and New York State 25 . Visual
25 impact, this is the most profound importance and
impacts not only and the neighboring community,
March 30 , 2006
68
1
2 whose property values will be severely damaged,
but the quality of the environment to which
3 Southold Town professes to be dedicated as
documented in the master plan and the Scenic
4 Byways Initiative and the acquisition of
development rights in the preservation of farm
5 lands, facilities that may affect district sites
- - this is FCC regulations -- historical resource
6 facilities that may affect district sites,
buildings, structures or objects that are listed
7 or are eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places, Village Lane and the
8 adjoining streets to one block west of the site of
the proposed tower is on the national register and
9 the consultants report sited other houses as well .
So that' s the relevance of SEQRA, and I
10 don' t know whether that' s ZBA or Planning Board
responsibility to ask the consultant' s input on
11 this .
The third thing I want to remind you of is
12 scenic byways designation of the route, and this
was a grant for $55, 000 to develop a model that
13 was accepted, the proposal was accepted by the
state to turn Route 48 between Greenport and
14 Orient Point --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 25 .
15 MS . WAXBERGER: Into a scenic byway, and
having done that and having made that agreement
16 with the state, the Town does have responsibility
to protect the scenic byway to preserve its
17 character, and certainly this is an area in which
the Town has to take some responsibility because
18 that scenic byway designation would never have
been got by the town with whatever benefits the
19 Town gets from that if there had been this tower
or the tower in East Marion.
20 And the fourth thing, just to go very
quickly through these, the Orient community has
21 essentially defeated two proposals historically
going back 15 years for cell towers in Orient and
22 that general area, either the fire department or
the Philips property across from Platt Road. And
23 it seems ironic that we' re at this place now when
this is fast becoming an obsolete technology.
24 Where we are talking about a 30 year contract here
with Mr . Cannucio, where within 10 years it might
25 be global positioning, it might be satellite
usage, the whole business of wireless
March 30 , 2006
69
1
2 communications has become extremely competitive,
companies are buying each other out . I have
3 something here which I took off the internet which
talks about the fact that Sprint and Nextel, third
4 largest wireless carrier in the United States
delivered its fourth quarter results and showed a
5 whopping 55 percent drop in profits because of the
tight competition, the explosion of this
6 technology, the new technology coming in all the
time, it seems like a poor time to pursue this
7 particular initiative and this particular
contract . And I just want to emphasize that it
8 looks to me that what you have before you is a
proposal for a cell tower, it seems to me you' re
9 back where we were a long time ago, when the ZBA
said you' re coming for a fire department tower,
10 the cell tower that has to follow afterwards .
Well, we' re back where we were here . Essentially,
11 this is a cell tower proposal . It' s a proposal
for a cellular tower, and I think it has to be
12 addressed in that light . Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a
13 question? Quite honestly, I am under the
impression that this hearing is concerning the
14 moving of a tower that was already approved by the
ZBA?
15 MS . WAXBERGER: Well, my understanding is
you have before you submissions by cellular
16 carriers .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We have two
17 applications here . Are we having a double hearing
right now, or are we listening to moving this
18 tower to another location per the Planning Board' s
suggestion; is that what we' re hearing right now?
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . That should be
what we' re hearing now.
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So are you for or
against that? Because that' s what this hearing is
21 about now.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll go on to the
22 next one for the tower. Whatever tower comes to
be will be moved next to the firehouse .
23 MS . WAXBERGER: If it' s only about
whatever tower comes to be, I' m in favor of moving
24 it .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . It' s been
25 approved. This hearing right now is just to move
that tower.
March 30 , 2006
70
1
2 MS . WAXBERGER: That was unclear to us .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree . They were
3 printed together. They really should not be have
been.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody have any
more questions about moving the tower or not
5 moving the tower?
MR. MACARTHUR: Hi, my name is Jack
6 MACARTHUR, John MacArthur to some people . What I
would like to address this legal notice, is this
7 letter I received, this legal notice, and it' s
specifically about the moving of the tower from
8 the old location to the new location.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct .
9 MR. MACARTHUR: So I understand that a
tower has been approved, a building permit has
10 been issued and a building inspector came by and
disapproved that because that it violated a --
11 that it didn' t meet a few requirements here in the
Town code?
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, sir. The
notice of disapproval, the second one, states the
13 law that brings them back here because it
describes why they' re here . But we already
14 approved the tower on that property in that one
location and took all that other stuff into
15 consideration, not Nextel, not AT&T, not that part
of it, but just the antennas on the top and it was
16 90 feet, which was a compromise, and now the
Planning Board has asked that it be moved closer.
17 So the fire department didn' t violate anything.
MR. MACARTHUR: I'm just asking a few
18 questions, because I do happen to be involved, I'm
a neighbor.
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You said the fire
department violated something, they' re not
20 violating anything.
MR. MACARTHUR: If a building inspector
21 goes on the site and says something is wrong you
got to fix it .
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But he didn' t .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think the
23 building inspector did that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They applied and
24 found out that they need to come to us for a
variance .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It went to the
Planning Board and the Planning Board through the
March 30 , 2006
71
1
2 architectural review committee, as I understand
it , suggested that they move the facility closer
3 to the firehouse so that the visual impacts would
not be as great and also as Mr. Boyd said would
4 shorten the cable .
MR. MACARTHUR: Okay. Then I'm just
5 reading directly from the legal notice here . Site
plan approval is to move a wireless communication
6 facility is subject to site plan approval . I
understand that' s what we' re doing here, that' s
7 what Mr. Boyd opened up the proceedings here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not really, we are not
8 here to approve a site plan. The site plan review
goes to the Planning Board. If we give the
9 approval here for a variance for them to move the
communications tower right next to the firehouse,
10 then it has to go before the Planning Board again
for site plan approval . We do not grant site plan
11 approval, we just do the variance .
MR. MACARTHUR: In addition to having the
12 site plan approval, it must meet the following
requirements . So there are additional
13 requirements, wireless communication facilities on
telecommunication towers shall require the special
14 exception approval pursuant to this article . And
the last thing -- and I read that as kind of a
15 limit to this exception approval -- and shall not
project higher than ten feet above the average
16 height of a building within 300 feet of the
facility. Now, if I'm standing up in front of you
17 it' s because I' m a little confused and I want to
know if somebody can help me out .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The first part of this
right now we' re just determining if we would grant
19 the variance to have the communications tower
moved closer to the firehouse . I think we' re more
20 or less in agreement to that . The next hearing
will be about the telecommunications tower, in
21 other words, using the communications tower that
the firehouse people want to put on
22 telecommunications whatever they do, facilities .
So right now we' re just that, then we' re going to
23 close that part of the hearing then we will open
the hearing up and hear what the people from the
24 telecommunications people have to say, then you
have every right to get up and speak on that .
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. The gentleman
is concerned about the 10 feet above the building,
March 30 , 2006
72
1
2 but we granted that variance before . We heard all
that testimony, and we compromised. They wanted
3 120 feet, we gave them 90 feet . So they' re not
here for that now. I understand that you' re
4 reading that law that' s what' s bringing you here,
but all of that has been approved. The only thing
5 now was there was some concern about it being out
in the middle of the field. So they decided now
6 to bring it closer to the building. But the
height, I understand that 10 foot, you want people
7 to live by that law --
MR. MACARTHUR: It' s not a question of my
8 wanting -- what is the law and you've already told
me something that you did, that a height variance
9 has been issued.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s the reason
10 why you' re reading that and saying how could it be
90 feet .
11 MR. MACARTHUR: Thank you very much.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think the confusion
12 arises because is that not a separate lot?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. It' s all one
13 lot . It always was .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Boyd, on the
14 plans that I have, I don' t see any elevational
information about the 12 ' by 20' Nextel shelter or
15 the 12 ' by 30 ' Verizon shelter.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s not part of this
16 hearing, Leslie .
MR. BOYD: We are making an application
17 solely for the fire and police department
communications tower.
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that
relationship to the overall compound is not
19 relevant .
MR. BOYD : It' s not my belief today to
20 handle that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to make a
21 motion to close the hearing on the moving of the
tower closer to the firehouse on the Orient Fire
22 District .
(See minutes for resolution. )
23 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next we will go onto
24 the Cingular/Nextel/Verizon Wireless, Number 5805 .
Mr. Ray, how are you?
25 MR. RAY: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman,
Members of the Board. Our application is brought
March 30 , 2006
73
1
2 on behalf of the three wireless telecommunications
carriers, cellular telephone company, now known as
3 New Cingular Wireless, Nextel and Verizon
Wireless . Just a few preliminary remarks, and
4 then I will get into the merits . All three
applicants are licensed by the Federal
5 Communications Commission to operate wireless
telecommunications services here in Suffolk County
6 and throughout much of the United States . Their
services are a benefit to the community
7 particularly in times of emergency for placing
calls to 911 . Last year more than 50 percent of
8 all calls to 911 were placed from mobile
telephones . In order for their systems to
9 operate, they must locate antenna sites in areas
that are determined by their radio frequency
10 engineers . The radio frequency engineers study
the propagation patterns and determine where the
11 sites must be located in order to fulfill their
FCC license requirements to provide reliable
12 service to all of their customers . As the Board
is aware, the Telecommunications Act of 1996
13 states that a local government may not deny an
application based on the environmental effects of
14 radio frequency emissions so long as we show that
our sites operate within the FCC limitations and
15 these sites unequivocally will operate many, many
times lower than the FCC limit .
16 So the real issue before the Board is
whether another issue would preclude us from
17 collocating on an already approved pole .
Now, I agree with Mrs . Waxberger that we
18 should all look at Section 100-160 of the Southold
code because that section says that the preference
19 of the town is that the wireless companies locate
their sites on existing buildings or towers . Now
20 this Board has already approved a tower. The
plans have been approved; the plans that show the
21 tower; they' re marked approved and stamped and
that tower, that pole, has been designed in such a
22 way that it is hollow in the middle and the
antennas can be placed inside . So not only would
23 we be collocating on the pole, but we' re going to
be doing it in a way that is much better in the
24 past where in the past we have had monopoles with
the arms sticking out and the antennas placed on
25 the arms . Here our addition to the fire
district' s pole will be invisible; and you have
March 30 , 2006
74
1
2 already approved the pole, so all we' re doing is
putting something inside . So if the radio
3 frequency emissions issue is not really something
that the Board can consider, aesthetics really is
4 also -- it appears -- from my standpoint seem to
be irrelevant or moot because we are not adding
5 anything to the pole other than inside . The only
visible additions will be the additions of
6 equipment shelters and cabinets behind the
firehouse, and we' re proposing to put substantial
7 landscaping around those shelters and equipment
cabinets so that those driving along Main Road
8 will only see the landscaping. So I believe from
an aesthetics standpoint our application is
9 superb, probably better than any application I ' ve
brought ever before this Board or other boards .
10 It ' s going to be basically an invisible site .
We' ll be locating the antennas inside the pole
11 that you approved, and we' ll be locating the
equipment behind the building surrounded by
12 landscaping.
I brought with me today a number of expert
13 witnesses who have appeared before you a number of
times before . And I have asked them to prepare
14 reports, and they have, and I ' d like to submit the
reports and, of course, they' re available if you
15 have questions .
The first report would be the report of
16 Michael Lynch, he is a real estate appraiser who
has appeared before this Board before, and he has
17 determined that our addition of putting the
antennas inside the pole and putting it behind the
18 firehouse would not have a negative effect on
property values, and I ' d like to submit that to
19 the Board (handing) .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
20 MR. RAY: The second report is the report
of Richard Conway, he' s a radio frequency engineer
21 for the three applicant carriers, and his report
indicates that there is a service gap in the area,
22 and that this would eliminate the service gap in
the vicinity of the proposed site . The third is
23 the planning report prepared by Freudenthal and
Elkowitz, Terry Elkowitz, and it addresses
24 planning issues with respect to our application.
And the' fourth, I think it' s already filed with
25 the Board, but I brought along another copy and
that is the report of Ron Petersen, and his report
March 30 , 2006
75
1
2 states that the site will comply with FCC radio
frequency emission standards .
3 Now, if the Board has any questions of our
experts -- the only expert who is not here is
4 Mr . Petersen, he was here last time but the report
does indicate that the site will operate many
5 times below the FCC standard. Again, we would be
adding nothing visually other than the equipment
6 behind the building, and we are in complete
compliance with the code, which says that we are
7 encouraged to collocate on existing towers or
buildings . The alternative would be for us to
8 find another location in a very small area, very
close to the firehouse to build yet another tower;
9 and the code does state also that they discourage
multiple towers . So I think our proposal is in
10 compliance with the preferences set forth in the
code, and will have just about no effect on this
11 area other than to provide good, reliable service
to the customers of the companies involved.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How wide an area does
this cover?
13 MR. RAY: We have application maps that
were submitted, they should be in your file . I do
14 have the radio frequency engineer here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think if I ' m not
15 mistaken it was basically from the causeway just
down River Road. It' s not a large area .
16 MR. RAY: Each of these carriers has more
than 200 sites in Nassau and Suffolk Counties and
17 there are dozens of more applications pending,
because of the nature of the frequencies and the
18 very low power that these sites operate in, which
is how we comply with the FCC standard, these are
19 very, very low powered sites, not like a radio
station where you have one tower that covers
20 southern New England or New York City and the
metropolitan area, these cover a very small area .
21 So, on the one hand because of the very low power,
they have no effect on health, but on the other
22 hand, because of the low power, we have to locate
these sites very close to each other.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then would it be safe
for me to assume that you would want another tower
24 up by the point, Orient Point?
MR. RAY: I would think at least some of
25 the carriers would, yes, unless this tower were
much taller, and obviously since this tower is
March 30 , 2006
76
1
2 only 90 feet tall, and since the antennas these
companies have to be separated by 10 feet, the
3 third company is fairly low, and even the top one
is lower than they would have liked. So they
4 would have to find something out towards the
point , near the ferry station or somewhere around
5 there .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I ' d like to ask a
question. Yes, I do understand that the radii are
7 quite small for health reasons, and that' s quite
understandable . Also, of course, the next one is
8 in East Marion, and I would like to ask a question
actually with all due respect, I'm concerned about
9 both the safety of the community and it is
important that we have the kind of modern
10 conveniences that many people rely upon, namely
cellular communication, moreover it is true, and
11 we are all aware of the fact that technology is
rapidly changing, and when we are now, say it ' s 10
12 years down the line, confronted with a whole
series of 90 foot towers, I' d like to know what
13 the responsibility of the people who built them
are in terms of the community in terms of
14 decommissioning those towers once they are no
longer adequate and up to date . I don' t want to
15 see the Town or any community burdened with the
removal of those structures and restoration of the
16 land they' re on or the buildings they are on, to
their former states . What is your position, if
17 any, on decommissioning bonds?
MR. RAY: The question you ask is
18 interesting because the first application I
brought before a zoning board on behalf of a
19 wireless carrier was in 1988 . That was the
question that was asked, they said in five or
20 seven years this technology will be obsolete,
satellites will be covering. And I said, gee, I
21 don' t know the future, but it doesn' t seem that
way. And I 'm more convinced than ever that that' s
22 not going to happen. The lease that has been
written requires the carriers to remove everything
23 if the site is no longer needed.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It does do that?
24 MR. RAY: Yes . So each carrier is
responsible for removing their hardware and
25 software should the site not be needed.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But not the pole
March 30 , 2006
77
1
2 itself?
MR. RAY: The pole --
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Belongs to the fire
department . And you are building the tower or is
4 the fire department building the tower?
MR. RAY: I believe Beacon would be
5 building the tower on behalf of the fire district .
The carriers are not building the tower, no .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the design of
the tower, the two antennas, the two whips we' ll
7 refer to on either side, are those for the
communication of the fire department?
8 MR. RAY: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Have you seen in
9 your experience -- and please, I have no objection
to this tower, but I go back to the situation that
10 Miss Waxberger had mentioned in the issue of
visibility and coming out here you passed by the
11 present tower that exists at Penny Lumber, and
that' s a flag pole . Have you seen in your
12 experience the ability to concentrate a whip in
the stem of a flag pole?
13 MR. RAY: I'm not an engineer. I have
represented carriers in coapplications with fire
14 departments all across Long Island, and that' s
always the issue, and I have not in my experience,
15 seen a way where the fire district is able to
completely conceal their antennas also .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t have any
17 questions but I see Bruno' s here from the Planning
Board, maybe he could give some information on how
18 the Planning Board came to request moving that
tower.
19 MR. LAPLATIER: My name is Victor
LaPlatier, I 'm a site plan reviewer. What was
20 your question?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The Planning Board
21 basically suggested the moving of this tower. Of
course that hearing' s not open right now, but I ' d
22 like to hear your comments .
MR. LAPLATIER: We went out to the site --
23 staff -- we heard from members of the fire
department, commissioners, and we were talking to
24 Mr. Ray and company, the Planning Board was quite
upset about the previous location of the tower,
25 offered a number of and heard a number of
alternatives proposed. This one is the latest
March 30 , 2006
78
1
2 iteration that' s come before you. We, the
Planning Board, believe and it is the best so far
3 and it mitigates to a great extent many of the
Planning Board' s concerns . We believe with the
4 tower in its relocated position, the old tower
coming down, the landscaping and the shrinkage of
5 the equipment area, the Planning Board' s level of
comfort is much higher with this alternative . It
6 has opined yet about the collocated antenna in as
much as the location has not been resolved. We
7 believe it' s a much better alternative .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Do you believe
8 there' s a better alternative shy of not having the
tower?
9 MR. LAPLATIER: We haven' t seen one, and
we don' t feel we' re in the position to design
10 that . We think that the discussions that have
gone on have moved this to a place that' s much
11 better; it' s shielded by the existing building; it
doesn' t interfere with current or future
12 activities of the fire department; the traffic
flow around it will be modified, but it doesn' t
13 seem to violate any of the fire department
activities and it provides sufficient access by
14 the communications people to get to their own
equipment without interfering with fire department
15 activities . At one time there was talk about
putting the equipment in the fire department
16 buildings, either in the basement or somewhere
else, but that didn' t work out to be a very
17 practical solution from what we were told. So
this alternative seems to answer everybody' s
18 questions and issues about where it' s going to be .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The buildings, the
19 accessory buildings they will need, you don' t
object to that either, I'm assuming?
20 MR. LAPLATIER: You' re talking about the
equipment buildings?
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes .
MR. LAPLATIER: No . They' re part and
22 parcel, of the antenna operation, but they have
been reduced in size quite a bit, they have been
23 clustered much closer to the tower, they have been
fenced in and they will be landscaped to your
24 satisfaction and to the Planning Board, and as was
mentioned some of the trees and landscaping that' s
25 there will be moved to accommodate it and some of
new stuff will be planted. So we think it' s a
March 30 , 2006
79
1
2 safe, secure and much less visible location from
just about every angle than the first proposal .
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you
this, as far as the landscaping is concerned
4 because we delve into that sometimes and I think
sometimes it bumps into the Planning Board. We
5 end up opposed, you would screen this according to
the Town code, basically. You look out, you say
6 this would be the best possible way to screen
these things, put a tree here, put a plant there;
7 am I right?
MR. LAPLATIER: Yes . Well, the code is
8 always our primary guide and there' s always some
discretion involved based on the site, but
9 generally we try to always get up to the code
standards .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . We said put
a 40 foot tree somewhere, would that be practical?
11 MR. LAPLATIER: You could say that, I
wouldn' t want to speak for the Board. I don' t
12 know 40 feet is the right height, certainly
adequate screening would be the standard in as
13 much as there will be a fence around it for
security purposes so adequate screening would be
14 critical .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But the screens
15 would be more towards the building as opposed to
screen the tower.
16 MR. LAPLATIER: Well, the building will
shield it on one edge, I believe, then three other
17 edges and the parking area surrounding that site .
So whatever seems to be reasonable, the applicant
18 will be proposing both to you and to us a fairly
extensive landscape plan, which we haven' t
19 reviewed in depth yet, but they know our direction
on this . They have been guided by our work
20 sessions and our discussions . So they know that
we need a very dense landscape barrier.
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But in particular,
the buildings, not the tower --
22 MR. LAPLATIER: Well, the equipment
compound, height of that tower - -
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Try to mitigate the
height of the tower.
24 MR. LAPLATIER: Well, the height will
never disappear. It' s just mitigated to some
25 extent by the roof itself and the height of the
existing firehouse, you can' t mitigate the rest .
March 30 , 2006
80
1
2 We know it' s roughly only 20 feet taller than the
existing antenna in a kind of sleeker design by
3 putting it . So the overall point of view by
putting it as part of the building and landscaping
4 it adequately, it more or less blends in better
than having it way out in the middle of the field.
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I do see on your
current site plan a proposal that includes
6 inkberry and red cedar as a landscape plan, which
should provide reasonable coverage if it' s double
7 row in particular, but that' s just around the
compound, which is in fact required by the code .
8 There was a 2004 study done by an engineering firm
Nelson and Pope that suggests other potential
9 visually mitigating conditions that could be
accomplished through additional kinds of landscape
10 strategies that would at least help to some extent
screen the tower from the important visual
11 corridor of the scenic byway along 25 or 48 . If
it' s 300 feet back from that road, an
12 approximately 20 foot high mature tree, desiduous
in particular rather than evergreen would provide
13 seasonal screening from that depth back, the
suggestion is more desiduous rather than evergreen
14 because what' s very important to preserve the open
vistas, and if you begin to put in lines of
15 evergreens that will not accomplish that, it will
create a visual barrier and will not preserve the
16 agricultural quality of those open vistas . So in
future, I think at the very least some additional
17 consideration beyond the compound towards ways of
mitigating the severe and rather extensive visual
18 impact of the height of that tower can be
accomplished with some cooperation, and I ' d like
19 to suggest that this be part of this dialogue at
the very least .
20 One other question, to what extent will
the carriers' and the subtenants' equipment impact
21 the equipment that the Orient Fire Department will
be using? Will you be upgrading their equipment;
22 will that be up to the fire department? Where are
the priorities because I'm sure the community is
23 primarily concerned that the fire department has
an upgraded communications capacity for the health
24 and safety of our community.
MR. RAY: I 'm not aware of any agreement
25 between the carriers and the fire department that
would obligate the carriers to help maintain the
March 30 , 2006
81
1
2 fire district' s equipment . We are obviously
obligated to maintain our own equipment and
3 continue to remotely on a 24 hour basis, but I 'm
not aware of any agreementibetween the carriers,
4 and I don' t believe there i,s one .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the fire
5 department is responsible for paying for,
installing and maintaining .for their own equipment
6 on this pole?
MR. RAY: I believe so .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: , I have no questions .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Ray.
Do you have any furthers information?
10 MR. RAY: That would be our presentation,
as I say, there are expert witnesses here if there
11 are more particular questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Who would like to
12 speak? Miss McNeilly, you may go first .
MS . MCNEILLY: Again, Ellen McNeilly. I'm
13 kind of amused by this in away, it seems to me
that it was my testimony before the Architectural
14 Review Board that got the tower moved from the
field to the building, which in fact, we do
15 support . We support a tower next to the building
for all the reasons of security and safety that we
16 have talked about . The question relative to the
antennas hugging the tower, they have to be
17 separated by 10 feet; they can be separated 10
feet vertically but because the cell companies are
18 below they have to be separated horizontally and
at the top . They' re using low radio frequencies
19 in order to maintain the EFRPs relative to safety
considerations . As a resulting that, they are
20 enjoined by the nature of the lease with Beacon
from interfering -- the fire , department is
21 enjoined from interfering with any of the radio
signals from the cell companies . So therefore, if
22 their upgraded equipment interferes radio
frequency-wise with any of the cell companies,
23 they could be sued, the fire district . Don' t
think this hasn' t happened, because it has with
24 Verizon and the police department right across
the causeway.
25 Again, the issue is they have a building
permit to build a tower. You have granted a
March 30 , 2006
82
1
2 variance for 90 feet, fine . They have a permit to
build a tower, they have not done so . They could
3 solve this question very readily if they had done
so, but they have not . So I suppose to borrow a
4 phrase from one of our former presidents, the
issue depends on what the meaning of "existing
5 tower" is; there is no tower. There has been no
request for proposals, as I stated before . They
6 have permission to collocate on existing sites .
There is no existing tower. There is only a
7 permit to build a tower. Let' s be very clear on
that . So, if that' s the case, since there is no
8 existing tower, what are we talking about? We' re
talking about this particular tower, built
9 apparently by a tenant of the fire district with a
lease that the community is very distrustful of
10 because of many reviews that our attorneys have
given that may or may not represent a problem for
11 their tax exemption, which I know Mr. Boyd
disagrees with, but there has been case law and we
12 asked the fire commissioners directly if they
would check with the controller of the state of
13 New York to issue an opinion on this whether or
not it would violate their tax exempt status and
14 they point blank refused to do it . So there are
issues with a commercial tower on fire district
15 property. We have no issue with an emergency
communications tower on fire district property,
16 preferably against the building, preferably in a
more discreet form. We have seen a proposal for a
17 tower that is 90 feet tall and 28 inches at the
base, two feet at the top, not this four foot at
18 the base and 31 inches at the top. So there are a
lot of different things to consider here, when
19 you' re talking about an existing tower, let one
exist, and let them go through the bidding process
20 for building it that they have permission to do, a
variance to make a tower of 90 foot height, let
21 that happen and then let' s have an application for
collocation.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Waxberger?
MS . WAXBERGER: I was going to address
23 more or less the same issue . I felt a little bit
like we' re on the wrong side of the looking glass
24 here . The idea of talking about putting wireless
facilities on an existing tower which doesn' t
25 exist because it' s the very tower that' s before
you for consideration about its moving a tower
March 30 , 2006
83
1
2 that hasn' t been built; it doesn' t exist . So it' s
not putting something on an existing tewer. When
3 you talk about not making any greater impact on
the environment by putting the equipment there,
4 no, what' s making the impact on the environment is
the tower. And the tower doesn' t have to look
5 that way, this tower is specifically designed to
carry this cellular equipment, which is why it
6 looks the way it does, so let' s not get into Alice
in Wonderland here, let' s talk about things that
7 do exist or don' t exist .
The other thing I wanted to comment on
8 Miss Weisman' s question before, that there is no
responsibility to move the tower because the tower
9 is the fire department property but it' s the tower
that makes the visual, negative impact . And if
10 that tower ceases to be functioning or useful as a
cellular tower, all it means that the income to
11 the fire department that is promised will
disappear and we' ll be stuck with the tower
12 because it ' s carrying the fire department
antenna. So those are the two things I wanted to
13 say.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anyone
14 else? Miss Hopkins?
MS . HOPKINS : I suppose we might all speak
15 again. I' m Ann Hopkins of the Orient Association,
and what I said before in the wrong hearing
16 certainly applies . What struck me in Mr. Ray' s
comments now, is the fact that he' s not aware of
17 any agreement between the carriers and the Orient
Fire Department and therefore this doesn' t get the
18 Orient Fire Department one step further towards
what they have claimed for all these several years
19 is their vital need to upgrade their equipment .
All it gets them is money, which I'm sure they' re
20 looking forward to. But not only are the carriers
and this tower, which does not exist and which is
21 designed for cellular communication, not for the
fire department' s needs, not only does it not get
22 them upgraded equipment, if 'they upgrade their
equipment and it interferes with cellular
23 communication they will be worse off . So again, I
reiterate, from the point of view of the Orient
24 community, this is a bad thing to do. Let' s let
the tower be built for the fire department and
25 then have the cellular communications people come
back. I assume that they have explored the
March 30 , 2006
84
1
2 possibility of collocating on the antenna across
the road in the church, it' s probably not tall
3 enough, is what they would argue but perhaps
technology will evolve so that they can have
4 smaller antenna lower and another one out at the
point .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ann, Sprint already
has --
6 MS . HOPKINS : Yes, I know. And I was the
moderator. So why do they need to apply for one
7 across the road. Anyway, I just want to reiterate
from the point of view from the community, this
8 seems like a bad deal because it doesn' t help the
fire department get the equipment they need, and
9 it sticks us all with a very bad lease .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael .
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Let me get clear
about this, this confusion about getting
11 permission to build onto the existing tower which
has not been built, whether that does remain a
12 problem or if this is kind of a technical glitch
with no substance . The fire department has
13 permission to build its communications tower for
its own purposes . They are obviously free not to
14 build that if they do not want that . When you get
a building permit you get a permit to build, you
15 don' t get a promise that you will build if you do
get it . Now, is there a concern that the fire
16 department somehow might not actually build its
communications part, but merely allow the tower to
17 be built for the purpose of renting out space to
the telecommunications company? That is a bizarre
18 scenario, but I suppose it is technically
possible . Can someone respond to that and then I
19 have another question.
MR. RAY: I will respond. I 'm not the
20 leasing attorney, Mr. Boyd represents the fire
district, perhaps he can respond.
21 MR. BOYD: I think you best described it
as a bizarre situation. No, there' s no chance
22 that the fire district is not going to locate its
antenna on the high point of the tower. That' s
23 the reason our application is before you. We need
the height in order to get coverage . We need more
24 height than you granted us, but as has been
described, it was a compromise at 90 feet . The
25 fire district would much rather have the 120 feet
i
that we initially applied for so we could be
March 30, 2006
85
1
2 assured of having our coverage to the furthest
reaches of the district . But there' s not a chance
3 that the fire district will not locate its
antennas there, and the upgrade of the fire
4 department equipment is going to be handled by the
fire district as has been done in the past . The
5 frequencies that we are using have no effect
whatsoever on the frequencies that are to be used
6 by Mr. Ray' s people . There will not be any
interference there either at the 46 megahertz
7 level, the 155 megahertz level of the police
department or the 450 megahertz for our new high
8 band for which we also have licenses .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then my follow-up
9 question, I think this is probably more directed
at Mr. Ray, no one would have any problem with the
10 approval to the wireless companies be conditioned
on the fire department actually building its
11 communication tower. It may sound trivial, but --
MR. RAY: If the Zoning Board condition
12 were to be that the tower would have to exist, of
course, that goes without saying.
13 I would like to bring up Richard Conway
very briefly because there have been a number of
14 questions about interference and Mr. Boyd handled
the question very well, but I' d like to have
15 Mr . Conroy just address in a little bit more
detail as to the possibility of interference
16 between the antennas for the carriers and the fire
district and police department antennas .
17 Mr. Conway.
MR. CONWAY: Members of the Board, my name
18 is Richard Conway. I 'm senior radio frequency
engineer representing the applicants . With regard
19 to interference, there' s been some discussion
about that . There would not be any occurrence of
20 interference . Each of the carriers operate at
their own frequencies . They' re licensed by the
21 FCC. There are different bands between 150
megahertz up to 1900 megahertz and as was pointed
22 out by Mr. Boyd, the fire department and police
department systems operate at 46 megahertz, 150
23 megahertz and 450 megahertz . These systems are
designed to operate and operate together on the
24 same towers and not interfere with one another
therefore there would not be any occurrence of
25 interference .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Excuse me, that is
March 30 , 2006
86
1
2 a condition of their license that the FCC approves
the fact that those frequencies will not
3 interfere, has power rating, so and so.
MR. CONWAY: That' s correct . The FCC
4 defines each frequency and power ratings, as you
pointed out . And each carrier and license holder
5 operates their own system on their own frequency
and not to interfere with other users of other
6 licensed frequencies and lands .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : There was a case
7 pointed out here in Connecticut concerning a
police department, that' s if I. am correct, I may
8 not be, that may have had more to do with the
power of that antenna and not the frequency of
9 that antenna?
MR. CONWAY: That' s correct . They have
10 power levels not to be exceeded by FCC standards
and then there' s just a general reallocation of
11 frequencies being done by the FCC other bands to
provide additional services for public safety use
12 and provide additional interference protection.
Current licenses provide that protection.
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The power of that
antenna, the height that it' s at is well within
14 the limits of not interfering with the cell tower.
MR. CONWAY: That' s correct .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: May I ask to the
extent -- I ' m not sure you could represent the
16 fire department' s equipment, I don' t know -- given
equipment that they presumably are going to
17 install at the top of this monopole, what increase
in communications coverage will the Orient Fire
18 Department have relative to the size of the
community it serves?
19 MR. CONWAY: I haven' t designed their
system, so I couldn' t say what increase they had,
20 I would have to see what they had previously, but
coverage is a function of height and power. It' s
21 plainly as simply said as that . As it is pointed
out, the higher they go on the tower the more area
22 they are going to cover. the police and fire
systems operate what is known as dispatch systems,
23 or dispatch-type systems, where a dispatcher
transfers out to the radio units, whether it' s
24 police and fire, emergency service people out in
the fields, and it' s typically done on a single
25 site and solution. So that single site is
typically responsible for providing coverage for
March 30 , 2006
87
1
2 the entire area. The main difference between a
dispatch type system and the cellular type systems
3 is the type of usage and capacity that goes on in
the cellular type system. There' s no dispatch and
4 uses to talk in basically back and forth between
the towers which support coverage and capacity,
5 and therefore, coverage from a cell tower is much
smaller area than what would be from a dispatch
6 type system.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Thank you.
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a question
for Mr. Boyd. The reason for the upgrading of the
8 radios, there are I believe two, you' re using one
type of frequency and you would like to come up to
9 standards with what' s required now?
MR. BOYD: Talking fire department, fire
10 district communications, we are presently using
46-46 megahertz for our dispatch, and 46-34 for
11 our sector communications . Both of those have
proven to be woefully inadequate in the Orient
12 Fire District . I just heard an aside that they' re
25 years old. I will go further to say that we
13 have found that those frequencies are woefully
inadequate in all fire districts . And fire
14 districts are in the process of changing their
communications over to communications in the 450
15 megahertz range . This has ,been done in Cutchogue
and in Mattituck already on the north fork, East
16 Marion and Orient and Southold already have
licenses to go into the 450 megahertz range; 450
17 megahertz is being used in 'a number of south shore
fire departments already. This tower will support
18 an antenna in the 450 megahertz range as well as
the existing 46 megahertz range and the existing
19 154 , 155 used by the police department . So there
will be three public service antennas on the tower
20 giving you vastly improved communications . For
reasons that I can go into 'if you have the time
21 and interest 46-46 as dispatch and 46-34 as a
sector frequency are not going to be going away
22 completely. We will not be able to transfer
everything over to the 450 ,megahertz
23 range . However, we will be, able to transfer most
of our sector communications to that and through
24 various implements, devices known as pyramids and
so forth, we will be able to do some transmitting
25 on 450 which will then be seconded back for
redispatch on 46-46 frequency. This is the stuff
March 30 , 2006
88
1
2 that Mr. Scheibel went into. I know just a little
bit about it, as I say, just enough to be a little
3 bit dangerous because my long-standing
relationship with the fire department, I know what
4 we use and what we designed, and so forth and so
on. But I can give you an ;overview of it, but the
5 real technical part of it, I feel much more
confident in having somebody else . I guess to
6 answer your question, yes, we are upgrading the
communications in the Orient Fire District, an
7 improvement in the 46 megahertz equipment that we
have, and also the installation of stuff in the
8 450 megahertz range, which will give us hopefully
communications to the furthest reaches of the
9 district . I don' t think we' re going to be able to
solve the Plum Island problem with the 90 foot
10 level, but that was a compromise and we' ll do the
best we can.
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : What about mutual
aid?
12 MR. BOYD: We went through a three hour
meeting with Southold chiefs last night about this
13 point, changing our mutual aid dispatchers and
what frequencies we' re going to use . It' s going
14 to become very interesting because there' s a
disaster drill scheduled for the 23rd of April at
15 Cutchogue school, and one of the big questions
that we have, what frequencies are we going to use
16 with Cutchogue and Mattituck already on the high,
the rest of us working on the 46-34 sector
17 frequency, some have applied for and have their
licenses, but don' t have their equipment on board
18 yet . It ought to be very, very interesting. But
mutual aid will be for the foreseeable future on
19 the county mutual aid frequency, which exists at
46 megahertz range, 46-48 I believe . We have now
20 portable radios that have six different
frequencies, six different 'sector frequencies for
21 the county and we will use those to communicate
with the adjacent fire departments until we settle
22 upon one or more frequencies in the 450 range,
which are common to the departments . That ' s
23 coming but it hasn' t come yet . I must admit that
East Hampton Town is far ahead of Southold Town in
24 terms of coordination between the departments and
coordination in their radio frequencies . I don' t
25 think that' s part of our concern here today. But
it is being worked on. Did' that answer your
March 30, 2006
89
1
2 question?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: With the benefits
3 of the new frequency that this town will have --
MR. BOYD: The benefits of the new
4 frequency will allow us to talk to Orient people,
East Marion people without any problem whatever.
5 As far as talking to Greenport, Mattituck,
Southold and Cutchogue, that is a question of
6 proliferation of various frequencies that each
department or each district has . We' re hoping to
7 come up with one or two common frequencies on the
450 range that is shared by the departments, but
8 we have not settled on that yet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you have a relay
9 system; does that work?
MR. BOYD : Unbelievably expensive, and
10 that' s what it comes down to. I have heard all
sorts of different prices attached to the East
11 Hampton system, many of millions of dollars, and
we' re not in that league .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have a rather
impertinent question to ask: Why haven' t you
13 built the tower yourselves, the fire department ;
and on my second part is, if we deny this cellular
14 tower, then will the fire department build the
tower?
15 MR. BOYD: The fire department will build
the tower, and it has not been built because there
16 was the degree of uncertainty about the location.
It was never, shall we say, completely endorsed by
17 everyone to have the tower in the field. And
there was a change in the board of commissioners,
18 when Mr. Hicks moved out of area, his position was
taken by Scott Harris and there was a slow change
19 in the feeling of the board as to the best
location of the tower and when the Planning Board
20 and the Architectural Review Committee got
involved in it, and I think , even some input
21 informally from the Zoning Board of Appeals, it
became more apparent that we ought to give very
22 serious consideration to moving the tower to a
different location, and it' s going to work out
23 better. There' s no question about that . You all
remember the reason we put the tower in the field
24 in the first place was to limit the number of
variances and the types of variance we would have
25 to go to . If we help not been dealing with that,
we might very well have come up with this location
March 30 , 2006
90
1
2 in the beginning.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But the tower will be
3 built no matter what?
MR. BOYD : Yes, and then we have to square
4 away if there is any future expansion of the fire
house it is not going to be to the south, it would
5 be adding bays to the east, that was a concern but
it has been addressed.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One more question,
7 sir, does the fire department have within its
current budget the money appropriated to purchase
8 and install its own updated equipment on a tower?
MR. BOYD: Some of the upgraded equipment .
9 It depends how much has gone into whether we can
take care of the 450 megahertz at the same time as
10 upgrading the 46 megahertz frequency. I am not
conversant with the budget to that extent, I 'm
11 sorry. But it certainly can be done . We' re not
talking about huge sums of money here . It' s not
12 something that' s going to break the bank.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
13 MS . MCNEILLY: If I' can address Miss
Weisman' s last question. The annual budgets for
14 the fire district show no monies for upgrade of
radio communications nor the building of the
15 towers .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think we can
16 get into that . I don' t think the Zoning Board has
jurisdiction.
17 MS . MCNEILLY: It was just a response to
her question.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. Miss Hopkins?
MS . HOPKINS : I just want to make terribly
19 clear that the Orient community, nothing would
make us happier to hear that the fire department
20 was building its own tower, as Mr. Simon, and if
it could accommodate cell companies afterwards in
21 a suitable fashion, that would be fine too . But
we want the fire department to build a tower, we
22 want all of this put out for bid, including the
upgrades . I understand that it has not yet been
23 done, and if there' s money needed, the citizens of
Orient would pay for it .
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Miss Hopkins, could
I ask you a question? Why would you be opposed to
25 financing this from the cell money?
MS . HOPKINS : Because of this terrible
March 30 , 2006
91
1
2 lease, and if I did submit to Ruth a copy so that
it would be in the records, but I'm perfectly
3 happy to send you one .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What I'm seeing is,
4 hey, they' re going to get a� lot of money for this
tower, and that' s how they' re going to build it,
5 it ' s not going to cost the taxpayer any money.
Then I hear you say that you want them to spend
6 the money first and then let the cell towers go on
there anyway.
7 MS . HOPKINS : We would pay for it but
because the lease is so terrible and because the
8 tower as designed now is designed by the cell
agency, Beacon Wireless, for their purposes;
9 whereas, others have said, if the fire department
were in charge it could be different and more
10 attractive .
MS . WAXBERGER: I think just to clarify as
11 we' ve said again and again, we' re 100 percent
behind the fire department having what it needs
12 for its communications and this could have been
done a long time ago without this cellular thing.
13 The problem is the process . If the fire
department had identified its needs saying, okay,
14 we need to improve our communications, we need a
tower, put it out to bid, come to the community
15 saying we need a bond, this is what we need to do,
proceed to do what they need to do, it could have
16 been done ages ago.
The thing is, part of the issue having to
17 do with the lease, is it sort of feels like to me
like a shell game or slight of hand, I mean, whose
18 tower is it, who is building it, who' s proposing
it, all of this has been sort of shuffled in a way
19 that creates a great deal of unclarity. A typical
piece of the unclarity is this thing about who is
20 responsible for taking the tower down when it
becomes obsolete . Now the cellular carriers say
21 they don' t have responsibility for it . We don' t
know if Beacon Wireless has assumed responsibility
22 for it . What it looks to me, though, is it' s
being left to the fire department to be
23 responsible for it . It' s a ' tower that' s designed
to be a cellular tower; that' s why it looks the
24 way it does . It could look differently if it were
only a communications tower or built by the fire
25 department to take one or two wireless facilities .
They didn' t initiate it . Mr. Cannucio initiated
March 30 , 2006
92
1
2 it . He brought in a plan, which is a cellular
tower, and if the fire department is left with the
3 responsibility of taking it down, then it becomes
a financial burden on our community, obviously,
4 we' re the taxpayers . So, I think that if it is
approved in its present state, at least Beacon or
5 a wireless company should be responsible for
bonding it so that when it becomes obsolete, it
6 will be their responsibility to take it down.
MR. RAY: May I respond? Thank you. I
7 find it somewhat ironic listening to the comments
of those who just spoke, my experience has been in
8 many cases throughout Long Island that a fire
district erects the tower and then the carriers
9 come along and they read the code and it says we
encourage you to collocate on the tower; and then
10 they come up with perhaps not the most beautiful
designs with antennas coming out on arms, or in
11 many cases having to replace the tower that is
already there because the tower does not have the
12 the capacity to support additional antennas . This
application was somewhat unique in that it was
13 progressive . It looked towards the future instead
of having the fire district build a tower that
14 would only support its own antennas and then the
carriers come along later on and read your code
15 and say you have to go on the existing tower and
have to redesign it, perhaps take it down, put up
16 a new one or come up with a design that may not be
very attractive . What was done here was with an
17 eye to the future, the pole was designed so that
the antennas could be put inside . Why that upsets
18 the community, I don' t know because otherwise if
the community had its way, the tower would be
19 built, and I would be here before the Board asking
to collocate on the tower and the antennas would
20 all be visible, and I think the community would be
much more upset about that . What we've tried to
21 do is we've tried to work with an eye as making
this as visually unobtrusive, as possible, working
22 with the community not against it . I also don' t
believe the terms of the lease arrangements are
23 really an appropriate issue before the Zoning
Board. What really is appropriate before the
24 Zoning Board seems to me is aesthetics, property
values, planning issues, and issues like that .
25 And here we' re proposing antennas inside a pole .
We have shown that that will not affect property
March 30 , 2006
93
1
2 values; and we will comply almost with FCC
standards . So it seems tome that the almost side
3 show about who' s building the tower and whether
it' s economically appropriate is not something
4 that should be heard before the Board, nor is it
appropriate for the Board to consider in rendering
5 its decision. So I wanted to say that . Thank
you.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
that wishes to speak? Any member of the Board?
7 Yes, sir?
MR. CANNUCIO: My name is Vincent
8 Cannucio, the President of Beacon Wireless
Management . I would request a five or ten minute
9 break so I can speak with my attorney to provide
some additional information that he might want to
10 share with you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right . We' ll take
11 a five minute break, and we' ll go back to the
Klein fence . Yes, sir?
12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I wanted to put on
the record that you would accept alternative
13 relief, this way she would not reapply, there are
no more submissions once the hearings are closed.
14 I think one of her letters said that she would be
bound by whatever.
15 MR. ORIENTALE : Yes .
AUDIENCE MEMBER: But the only thing what
16 I ' m saying is like we talked about earlier, I
believe the community would' not like to see is
17 this fence just cut down to four feet . They would
like to see possibly something set back to make it
18 aesthetically pleasing. My concern is that she
doesn' t have to abide by that, she could always
19 just option of (inaudible) .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes, she could
20 comply with the code, yes . She always has that as
an option.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to make a
resolution closing the Klein decision.
22 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Back to the
Cingular/Nextel/Verizon Wireless application.
24 MR. RAY: I wanted to make one last
comment, I know there was much discussion about
25 what would happen if the technology changed and
the carriers no longer needed the tower. I ' m not
March 30 , 2006
94
1
2 sure that' s relevant to this hearing. But, I have
looked into the matter, and I have learned that in
3 the event the carriers no longer need the tower,
that the fire district may choose to keep the
4 tower or they may, they have the option, to have
Mr. Cannucio at his expense remove the tower.
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That is formally in
the lease agreement?
6 MR. RAY: Yes . Other than that I have
nothing further to say. Thank you.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Miss McNeilly,
let ' s wrap this up now.
8 MS . MCNEILLY: I have one final comment .
I specifically asked our attorney at one point ,
9 does the fire district have to comply with
competitive bidding requirements, that is to say
10 general rules of the law Number 103 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That again, this is
11 not before us; that' s not within our jurisdiction.
That ' s between you and the commissioners . We
12 can' t get into that .
-MS . MCNEILLY: We' re talking about
13 erecting the tower and who did it . Okay. Thank
you.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If no one else wishes
to comment, I will make a motion to close the
15 hearing, reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
16 -------------------------------------------- -----
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
17 for Mr. Aliano on Duck Pond Road in Cutchogue .
MS . MOORE : Thank you, Patricia Moore for
18 Mr. Aliano . I have a few clean-up items and then
Tom Cramer is going to respond to certain
19 documents that you have in your file .
The first thing I want to point out to the
20 Board is that in reviewing the LWRP, the law,
Chapter 95, I want to point out to the Board that
21 area variances that the Board is being asked to
review are considered minor actions and not
22 subject to Chapter 95 . Specifically it says :
Granting of individual setback and lot line
23 variances except in relation to regulated natural
features -- which we do not have -- bulkhead,
24 which we do not have or other shoreline defense
structures .
25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Bluff is a
regulated natural feature
March 30 , 2006
95
1
2 MS . MOORE : Yes, except in regulated
natural feature . We are not in the bluff . We are
3 setback from the bluff .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re still on the
4 bluff .
MS . MOORE : No, I ' ll let Tom respond to I
5 guess, your analysis of where the bluff is .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think some of the
6 people from the Department of State will argue
with you because we have checked with them.
7 MS . MOORE : Well, we would professionally
agree to disagree with them. Peconic Surveyors
8 went out and we have a stamped original survey,
they went out back to the field, I have
9 highlighted the lines because they' re a little on
the light side . In orange we show where the
10 coastal erosion line is; in yellow we identify
where the edge of clearing is, because, again, on
11 the site it may not be so apparent . I ' ll give
that to you so you have it in front of you as Tom
12 discusses the written submissions .
MR. CRAMER: Tom Cramer, Cramer Consulting
13 Group, offices at 54 North Country Road, Miller
Place . Pat had asked me to go through and review
14 the various letters that were received in
relationship to this application, and I ' ll just
15 run through them quickly. The first one was the
LWRP consistency review prepared by Mark Terry and
16 was dated March 3 , 2006 . So that' s the revision
date, I guess he had submitted a previous one .
17 As Pat has said, the variances aren' t part
of the review process, they' re excluded from the
18 review process, minor variances such as this, with
the exception of those whether it' s a regulated
19 activity or not, as presented and as shown on the
plans, we are set back from the bluff . The bluff
20 is defined within -- it' s the steep slope abutting
water surfaces or abutting a beach, and set back
21 25 feet from the crest, from the top of the bluff .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Aren' t you
22 seeking a variance from the setback from the
bluff, though?
23 MR. CRAMER: Yes, because it' s another
section of the code . But as far as the bluff is
24 defined, a bluff is defined as the steep slope
going down to the beach, the seaward side of the
25 bluff would be where the toe of the bluff meets
the beach.
March 30 , 2006
96
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is the bluff on
somebody else' s property?
3 MR. CRAMER: No, it' s on our property.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You are
4 seeking a variance from the setback to the bluff .
The consistency law says that certain variances
5 are exempt except in relationship to regulated
natural features .
6 MR. CRAMER: We' re not disturbing the
bluff .
7 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But you' re
seeking a variance from the setback to the bluff .
8 I ' m going to tell you now that it' s my legal
opinion, and the Board can choose to agree or
9 disagree with it, that it is subject to
consistency review.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
MR. CRAMER: I did provide a review to the
11 consistency report, which I will present to you,
however, there is no activity taking place in the
12 bluff itself as defined by the bluff .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I understand,
13 that may be . J
MR. CRAMER: There are a number of
14 statements made initially in the letter that are
incorrect that should be addressed. The first one
15 as far as he talks continuously through the
document about concrete retaining walls . There
16 are no concrete retaining walls on the site; they
have never been proposed. These have always been
17 timber crib retaining walls that has been proposed
throughout the project, and that' s shown on all
18 the plans and there' s a detail for that . In
addition he says we' re proposing a setback of 42
19 feet from the top of the bluff, which is
incorrect . The original plan that was approved
20 that the Trustees had approve had a 42 foot
setback; that has been revised and we are
21 providing a 50 foot setback to the house at this
point . So we have eliminated it . The footings
22 are shown on the survey, the footings that were
installed for the original project, they will be
23 left in place, but the new house will be set at 50
foot . So that' s a statement that was made that is
24 incorrect .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Can I ask a
25 question? I see a 42 foot on the map that' s
before us . It' s not identifying what that is . So
March 30 , 2006
97
1
2 it looks like a 42 foot setback.
MR. CRAMER: The dotted lines in here,
3 that 42 goes to that dotted line .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What is that one
4 dotted line?
MR. CRAMER: The old footings .
5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But it doesn' t say
that .
6 MR. CRAMER: Yes, it does . Existing
footings .
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It doesn' t say
"old" footings . It shows a different line if you
8 look very very closely, see, this 42 line here?
MR. CRAMER: It goes to the footings .
9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It doesn' t show
where it stops . There' s a dotted line here, and
10 there' s another dotted line .
MR. CRAMER: This dotted line goes to the
11 footings .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What is that other
12 dotted line?
MR. CRAMER: Contour.
13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What is that
contour; do you know what that is?
14 MR. CRAMER: 64 -- That' s the 62 foot
contour. It' s right there on the top of the
15 bluff .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How does it
16 connect?
MR. CRAMER: Right there on the top of the
17 bluff .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They' re so close I
18 can' t tell, I 'm sorry.
MR. CRAMER: This is the 42 foot line . If
19 you follow back from here, this line comes back to
here (indicating) . This is the 62 foot contour.
20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : See the way these
two lines are drawn, they meet, they join, they
21 merge together. This looks like a contour line
here . So that footing is on a contour line?
22 MR. CRAMER: Yes .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s what I was
23 wondering.
MR. CRAMER: The proposed, the new
24 building will be at the 50 foot setback line . The
42 is where the building was, originally approved
25 and when we had the building permit and
construction started and the footings were put in.
March 30, 2006
98
1
2 There was four policies that were talked
about as far as being inconsistent with. The
3 first policy that was mentioned was standard 4 . 1,
which was minimize loss of human life and
4 structures from flooding and coastal hazards . The
proposed activity meets this standard. Policy 41,
5 40 . 1A1 states that new development that is not
water department should be 'located as far as away
6 as the coastal hazard area as practical . We have
moved a house back. All these structures are
7 outside of the coastal erosion hazard area on the
proposed plan. Originally what we had a permit
8 from the Trustees showed a portion of the
retaining wall for the sanitary system within the
9 coastal erosion hazard area. That' s why we had to
get the permit . That has been redesigned and all
10 activities outside the coastal erosion hazard area
at this point, and the house is moved and located
11 as far to the south of the lot as possible . The
width of the house has been reduced, again,
12 removing it further away from the edge of the
bluff . So we have done as practical, we've moved
13 the house back to be able to accommodate that .
Also in the letter it says it' s unclear as
14 to what exactly the term "bluff" means in the
report by the engineer. However, if you look at
15 the engineer' s report, he makes it very clear as
far as what he' s talking about . He says I
16 inspected a bluff fronting on Long Island Sound.
That' s in the engineer' s report, and as I said,
17 there is only one bluff on this property. One
bluff is the area of steep slopes that runs east
18 and west between Glen Court and Duck Road. It' s
the steep slope that faces Long Island Sound.
19 There are other steep sections of slopes on the
property, however, those are not bluffs as defined
20 in the Town code under the coastal erosion hazard
area, and also the wetlands ,law, neither one of
21 those address as they all talk about steep slope
areas facing water adjacent to a beach. So the
22 other areas, even through this consistency report,
he' s constantly mixing up the steep slopes with
23 the bluff area .
So it is very clear ,as far as what is
24 bluff on the site and what the engineer' s report
said. As I stated, there are no proposed
25 activities on the bluff within the coastal erosion
hazard area .
March 30, 2006
99
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even during
construction?
3 MR. CRAMER: Even during construction.
You see on the survey that Mrs . Moore presented
4 to you at this point there has been no clearing in
there, all the clearing will take place outside of
5 that area . There' s no need as far as around the
house to clear anything more, and we've pulled
6 back the sanitary system so there will be no need
to clear within the coastal zone, certainly not to
7 put any structures in there . Which is how this
policy refers to is structures . I' ll provide the
8 Board with a copy of my reports .
Mr. Terry also suggests erosion control
9 methods as well as planting on the slopes of
greater than 15 percent . This has been proposed,
10 it ' s been made part of the record, we've prepared
the erosion/sediment control plan which, which we
11 submitted to the Board last meeting, we also have
a planting plan that was part of your record, that
12 would all be made part of the application. So we
are complying with that section.
13 Also, there are several comments about the
extent of erosion on the area. What I did was
14 obtain the aerial photos from 1976 through 2000
and attached those to the back of my letter,
15 copies of those . And then using the computers I
overlaid the approximate edge of the bluff, I
16 overlaid the years, and you can see that the
erosion lane on the top of the bluff remained
17 fairly consistent throughout that period of over
30 years . There has been moving back, but not as
18 significant as some areas that I've seen where you
have wasting up to 30, 40 feet . This area in
19 particular appears to be relatively stable . In
addition, the bulkheads at the bottom I guess the
20 first time the bulkhead to the west appeared was
1988 . And the bulkhead to the east on my
21 illustration here appeared in 1993 . These
bulkheads still remain pretty much at the toe of
22 the bluff . In other areas of the north shore of
Long Island, I 've seen many cases where bulkheads
23 were built during this period and erosion has
taken place adjacent to them and the bulkheads are
24 are sticking out . So these are still at the
essentially the toe of the bluff . So it doesn' t
25 appear that there' s a great deal of erosion taking
place . If you look at the houses, the existing
March 30 , 2006
100
1
2 houses to the west of this site, the lawns in the
back of them appear to be pretty much consistent
3 with. the previous photos of previous years . So
although the bluff is eroding, it' s not a
4 significant erosion as to be expected in other
locations . In part I would attribute this to the
5 shallow water offshore as well as the rocks and
debris that is in the shoreline that would affect
6 the wave engineer as it comes ashore that probably
cuts down on the amount of erosion. But there is
7 erosion, and later I' ll speak to that as far as I
have some photos that just 'even the past year show
8 what' s happened.
The next policy that was talked about is
9 standard policy 5, which is protect and improve
water quality and supply in the town of Southold.
10 This policy deals with drinking water standards .
And it talks about providing groundwater for human
11 consumption for drinking purposes . The
groundwater on this particular site is flowing
12 north, so any impacts that do occur on this site
would not affect drinking water, because it would
13 be discharged immediately into Long Island Sound.
However, be that as it may, we have received
14 Suffolk County Department of Health Services
approval for these . Suffolk County standards are
15 based on the study for preservation of
groundwater, so we comply with that . Part of
16 this recommendation saying we don' t meet this
policy, which is why it' s unclear why he even
17 brought up this policy. But he suggested using
nonfertilizer dependent species, reducing down on
18 the amount of fertilization. The planting plans
we have provided for this site do use
19 indigenous species, and they' re not species that
do use much fertilization. They' re bayberries and
20 and things like that that we' re proposing to be
used on the site . So even though this policy
21 isn' t relevant, we' re in accordance with his
recommendation.
22 There was a recommendation that trees be
placed in the area on top of' the sanitary system.
23 This recommendation is inappropriate . If you
place trees on top of it what will happen is the
24 tree roots will eventually intercept and impact
upon the sanitary system reducing its efficiency,
25 and causing it to fail .
We've shown a lawn area in there . We' re
March 30 , 2006
101
1
2 not showing irrigation. So we' re not proposing or
feel it' s at all appropriate to locate trees on
3 top of the sanitary system as was suggested.
Policy standard 6 , protection and
4 restoration of the ecological quality throughout
the town of Southold. In the letter it' s stated
5 that the site is mostly cleared of vegetation
including areas within the coastal erosion hazard
6 area . This is not correct . The survey that we
presented to you was laid out in the field to
'7 reflect the clearing that did take place on the
site . Only 26 percent of the site has been
8 cleared. So it' s certainly not most of the
vegetation being cleared on the site . Only 26
9 percent of it has been cleared. None of that
clearing has taken place within the coastal
10 erosion hazard area.
He states that he' s not able to comment on
11 the effectiveness and success of the plan because
he doesn' t know the slopes that would exist post
12 construction and the erosion control methods that
would be imposed. The plans that we presented to
13 the Board clearly show the elevation of the walls
and the bottom elevation of the walls and the
14 slopes can be easily figured out from that . In
fact, the areas that are other than where the
15 sanitary system goes, which will be set in about
eight percent, the areas below the retaining walls
16 will be essentially the slopes that was there
previous to construction. So the retaining walls
17 are being constructed and the slope is going to
remain at the same slope as what was there
18 previously. That was wooded in the past, the
landscaping and plant materials were showing would
19 be able to stabilize in there . And, again, these
plant materials were chosen because they' re
20 indigenous, their ability to withstand coastal
environment as well as low fertilization and low
21 requirements . So they would survive quite nicely
on this site . Again, throughout this section he
22 continues to make reference to the slope, the
eastern side of the property being bluff . Again,
23 as I said before this is not a bluff, it' s a steep
slope area, which has been addressed through the
24 use of retaining walls and a configuration of the
house . He asked for a revegetation plan and that
25 has been previously submitted to the Board, and we
also have presented to the Board the erosion
March 30 , 2006
102
1
2 sediment control plans which addresses the various
methods that would be utilized during the
3 construction.
Policy 6 . 3 refers specifically to the
4 protection and restoration ,of tidal and freshwater
wetlands . There are no tidal wetlands on the
5 property, nor are there freshwater wetlands .
There is tidal waters on the property below the
6 mean high water, we' re not going into that . That
will not change .
7 He makes also reference to Chapter 37 on
under this policy, which is really irrelevant to
8 this particular policy, that 37 feel deals with
the coastal erosion hazard area, which has nothing
9 to do with the wetlands themselves . But, again,
the bluff is defined within Chapter 97, which I
10 stated before it' s very specific as far as how it
is, and in this particular case, what they
11 consider the bluff would also coincide with the
coastal erosion boundary being 25 foot back from
12 the crest of the bluff .
Policy 9 . 2 is protect and provide public
13 visual access from the coastal lands and water
from public sites and transportation routes where
14 physically practical . Mr. Terry states that
visual access from Glen Road, the private road
15 will be impaired because of construction of the
residence, which is not the case . Attached to the
16 end of the report that I've given the Board shows
the site how it was before any clearing took
17 place . There was no visual access from that
cul-de-sac at the end. It was wooded at the end.
18 You couldn' t see the shoreline and even during the
winter, which this photo was taken, I guess it was
19 taken in March, when we had the Trustees hearings,
you can see the amount of vegetation there, even
20 though you could look through and see a filtered
view of the water, with any foliage on there you
21 wouldn' t see anything. The photo below it shows
the site from approximately the same location as
22 the photo taken last year, and with this, with the
clearing that has taken place, we have in fact
23 improved the visual quality, , if you consider that,
because now you can look through where it was
24 cleared and you can see the water. The house
itself will be located to the right of this photo
25 so in actuality, once the project is completed the
house would not be in a direct line, but you would
March 30 , 2006
103
1
2 be able to look out past and see the tops of the
water where before you wouldn' t be able to. The
3 only place where you could see the water before
the construction was down at the bottom of the
4 site on Duck Pond Road. That will still remain,
there' s-been no changes to that area so there' s
5 still the visual ability to look up to drive up to
the end and look out at the water.
6 There' s references made to the need for a
visual analysis, view shed analysis to be able to
7 determine whether this is going to have an impact
on the standard or not; which in my opinion is not
8 at all the necessary, and that it' s just a way to
try to prolong the process at the applicant' s
9 expense .
Clearly from the photos that' s shown and
10 considering the previous conditions and what' s
going to happen after the site is developed, you
11 can clearly see how this in fact will probably
improve the visual quality from Glen Court .
12 I guess I should stress that right now the
site has been cleared, and top soil has been
13 stockpiled on the site . There are steep slopes on
the site and they' re unvegetated because of the
14 construction taking place . I' d ask this Board to
make a decision as quickly as possible one way or
15 another so this can be corrected. We' re heading
into the spring season, and any types of rains
16 it ' s going to impact the client' s property and
possibly erosion down. . There has been erosion
17 protection measures that have been in place
consistently. I have visited the site several
18 times, and I have not seen indications of any
erosion coming through the silt fence or the hay
19 bales at present . However, that is likely not to
continue for long if we have the proper storm, we
20 could have significant impact . So I ' d ask the
Board to close the hearing as soon as possible and
21 render a decision one way or another.
The second letter was from the soil and
22 water conversation district dated February 27,
2006 . Again, there are couple comments in there
23 that are not true . It first starts out saying
that the project was stopped because of the house
24 foundation was within the coastal erosion hazard
area, which is not true . The project was stopped
25 because of the need to obtain a variance further
Board for the 100 foot setback from the edge of
March 30 , 2006
104
1
2 the bluff . It wasn' t stopped because of the
foundation being within the coastal erosion hazard
3 area. In fact, we did receive a permit from the
Trustees to locate a section of the retaining wall
4 within the coastal erosion hazard area. Again,
that has been modified, the plans, so that' s no
5 longer within the coastal erosion hazard area, in
fact, there has not been any clearing within the
6 coastal erosion hazard area as reflected on the
survey that Miss Moore has presented to you.
7 Secondly, she talks about the bluff being
partially vegetated and appearing to have
8 significant erosion problems . Again, I provided
the Board with the copies of the aerial photos
9 from the past 30 years as well as the overlay we
did to illustrate that although it is eroding,
10 it ' s not what we would consider significant
erosion.
11 Also, if you look at the last page of my
comment letter on that, there are two photos that
12 shows the bluff looking to the west from Duck Pond
Road, the top photo is from July, 2005 , and it
13 shows it during the summer months with the
vegetation over part of it, and the other sections
14 that are eroded, or without vegetation. The one
below it shows, that was just taken just this
15 month and although there' s no foliage on it and
the grass is not green it' s tan or brown, you can
16 clearly see that the vegetation' s still there in
the same spot, that not a great deal of erosion
17 has taken place . At the toe of the bluff there is
some beach grass that has grown in, a portion of
18 that has eroded away through winter storms, and
has cut away maybe about two foot high, and that' s
19 set way, way away from the edge of the bluff, from
the toe of the bluff and you see the lower
20 right-hand corner, where it' s maybe a foot, two
foot high, where the bluff has eroded, where the
21 dune grass has eroded, and this is one of the
reasons, beneficial aspects, of having a dune in
22 front of it the beach grass does hold the sand
particles in place .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Cramer, we would
maybe partially agree with you that the top of the
24 bluff, there is a lip, but it is being gouged
out . We were just down there on Friday and our
25 own engineer said it had eroded further from when
he had been down there several weeks ago, coming
March 30 , 2006
105
1
2 down the bluff .
MR. CRAMER: I have been out there over
3 the past year.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t know that
4 we' re looking at the same photos because between
last summer and March 2006 , there looks to be a
5 lot of erosion from the greenery from the top of
the upper picture to the lower picture .
6 MR. CRAMER: Well, yes, if you look at the
upper picture, it' s green because it' s the summer.
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I see barren ground
going almost to the top in the lower picture .
8 MR. CRAMER: There' s barren ground on both
of them.
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But it doesn' t go as
far in the upper picture as it does in the lower
10 picture .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s because
11 there' s green stuff over the top of it .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re saying that
12 green stuff in the upper picture has all gone away
all by itself because of the change in the season?
13 MR. CRAMER: The grass is still there,
it ' s a lighter tan. It' s dormant . This is a
14 photo taken during the winter. If you look close
at it, the photo, it' s kind of light tan,
15 greenish-tan, that' s really the beach grass .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Almost to the top?
16 MR. CRAMER: The lower picture shows the
beach grass beach.
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On the bottom, yes .
I ' m talking about near the top of the bluff .
18 MR. CRAMER: Near the top of the bluff,
both pictures show exactly the same bare soil . We
19 can go look at it in a few months .
MR. CRAMER: If you look out there again
20 because of the time of year, you don' t get the
drastic contrast because the grasses during the
21 summer are green, during the winter they' re brown.
So they tend to blend in. If you look closely at
22 the same photos the grasses are essentially at the
same spot .
23 MR. CRAMER: There' s talk about a gully
being formed from either concentrated flow or from
24 hydrostatic pressure from groundwater seeps . I
took a look at that; it' s not from a groundwater
25 seep. There is overland flow, and apparently it' s
coming from the top of the adjoining property
March 30, 2006
106
1
2 owner. Their lawn pitches all towards
Mr. Aliano' s property.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I will agree with you
on that . He stopped filling the bulkhead, he
4 stopped the vegetation, and he does have a gully
coming down.
5 MR. CRAMER: The letter also goes on to
talk about the need to comply with the New York
6 State DEC State Pollution Discharge Elimination
System, which is SPDES, general permits GP0201,
7 which has been done . The silt fencing has been
installed; it' s been part of the project since the
8 beginning as well as staked hay bales . An erosion
and sediment control plan was prepared. We
9 submitted a copy of those to you at the last
meeting. And a notice of intent has been filed
10 with the DEC in Albany, all as required under the
statute .
11 There is also a great deal of discussion
within the letter about reforming the bluff and
12 regrading the bluff, really from an academic
standpoint, it' s a good thing, it' s what could be
13 done as far as reducing the angle of repose,
planting it, regrading it . Again, that' s from an
14 academic standpoint . In reality, doing something
like this on this particular site there' s not
15 enough room to do that and whether we could get
permits from the various involved agencies, I
16 doubt it very much. Again, she talks about
stabilizing the toe of the bluff, we' re not
17 proposing that, we' re not proposing any activity
on the toe of the bluff .
18 The last letter that was received was an
email from the property to the west of the site .
19 There were suggestions made, note the writer was
in opposition to it, Mr. John J. Kallas, who is
20 immediately to the west of the site . He is in
opposition to the application. He makes four
21 points . One of them being that the developer can
build a house closer to Duck Pond Lane and away
22 from the bluff and access it from Duck Pond Lane .
That is not the case . Essentially the way the
23 site lays out, the width of the bluff is pretty
much consistent down, whether it' s on the top or
24 on the bottom approximately the same setback from
the bluff . Also members of the staff and
25 Mr. Terry, and his recommendations has suggested
even moving the house further to the west to bring
March 30, 2006
107
1
2 it up onto the flatter portion of the site . So
this would be in direct contraindication of what
3 would be the best location for it and putting it
down there would require additional grading.
4 It also states the variance would result
in a driveway being located off of Glen Court,
5 which is true whether there' s a variance or not,
the driveway is proposed to be off of Glen Court .
6 This lot was created as part of the subdivision
that created Glen Court . This is where the
7 driveway, where the access to this lot was
shown.
8 It also talks about potential traffic
impacts related to a single-family house on the
9 cul-de-sac . The cul-de-sac is a Town maintained
road. It' s Town spec . There are approximately
10 six houses on the cul-de-sac right now that uses
their driveways to it . Certainly, one more house
11 would not have any significant impact on the
roadway itself .
12 It also states that proposed setback will
affect the character of the neighborhood in the
13 area because it' s immediately adjacent to the
bluff . In fact, the proposed house is set back
14 further than all the houses to the west, including
the author' s home itself . The house we' re
15 proposing would be set back further from the edge
of the bluff than all the other homes in the area.
16 As I presented before, while the bluff is eroding,
the amount of the erosion does not appear to be as
17 significant as what' s being said based on the
interpretation of the aerial photos .
18 There are finally two suggestions stated,
that the traffic study should be done, an erosion
19 study should be conducted on the site . Again,
there is no need for a traffic study, a
20 single-family house on a cul-de-sac like this is
not going to have a significant impact or any
21 impact whatsoever. The only erosion that' s
occurring is from the author' s property itself,
22 which as the Chair noted, is causing erosion to my
client' s property in that they' re allowing
23 overland flow to erode off a .section of my
client' s property.
24 If the Board has any questions, I' d be
glad to try to answer. But again, I ask the Board
25 to close the hearing and render a decision one way
or another so the situation out there can be
March 30 , 2006
108
1
2 remedied, so it can be stabilized, and we can move
on. Otherwise, there will be significant impacts
3 if it continues in the present state with the
extremely steep slopes and the stockpile of top
4 soil .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you accept
5 alternate relief?
MS . MOORE : We' re all here to listen.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm just asking if you
would.
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes or no?
MS . MOORE. We' re always interested as
8 long as we can discuss it . What doesn' t often
work is alternate relief that doesn' t have any
9 opportunity for discussion.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Then if the Board
10 denies it . Alternative relief, you' re saying it
is not open to discussion right now?
11 MS . MOORE : That' s the opposite of what I
said. Alternate relief is always something we
12 have to discuss . It' s something that we should
exchange, and I have Mr. Aliano here, the owner of
13 the property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re not ready to .
14 We' re just asking.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me just throw
15 something at you. You've got a 35' by 40 ' house;
can you settle for a 30 ' by 45' house?
16 MR. ALIANO : Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So it could be a 55
foot setback.
18 MS . MOORE : At this point we cover the
footings .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The new building
is a square box, it' s not going to have any
20 cut-outs?
MR. CRAMER: 30' by 45' we can do.
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is the reason,
I'm not sure this is a good idea, why the whole
22 house couldn' t be further to the west? Maybe
nothing could be gained by that, toward Glen
23 Court?
MS . MOORE : We have no objection to moving
24 it as close as the Board wants . I applied for a
variance so we could apply for alternative relief .
25 The location came at 30 because that was the
footprint we were working with originally, but
March 30 , 2006
109
1
2 certainly we can move away and towards Glen Court .
Its makes sense because this is actually a side
3 yard, it' s more equivalent to a side yard than a
front yard.
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If the Board came
back with a denial with alternative relief, which
5 involved a smaller footprint somewhat displaced,
say to the west, whether that would be something
6 that you wouldn' t want to even read. We can' t
discuss -- we have to discuss it in two weeks .
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I have to say the
reason I asked is I 'm not sure that the Board is
8 ready yet, and they may need more time . So since
you' re not willing to close the hearing subject to
9 possibly accepting whatever that alternative is
that there may have to be an adjournment so that
10 it can be discussed at a later time .
MS . MOORE : Now I understand. What I
11 would prefer is if the Board could discuss
individually what your preferences would be is
12 fine, then you could deliberate, but we do need to
get to a resolution. If you ask can we take 30 by
13 45 , yes . Can you take 30 by 45 but move it over
to Glen Court, yes . If there' s another
14 suggestion, we' ll entertain it, and then we' ll
leave it to you to decide among yourselves where
15 you would like to position it . But I think we
want to have a discussion.
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The immediate
question is should we keep the hearing open so we
17 can meet again and think about some of these
things, or close the hearing now and do what we
18 think is appropriate .
MS . MOORE : Is there something that you
19 need?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we all need to
20 go down and have a site visit ourselves . We've
gone down individually, but not as a group .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would not
participate in that . I believe we got a memo that
22 said we really shouldn' t be doing that; that we
should be conducting all our business in public .
23 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You can do
site visits .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, the Town attorney
says we can.
25 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: You make
factual observements and you don' t discuss what
March 30 , 2006
110
1
2 you' re going to do.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If the result of
3 that is a change that has not been discussed in
public, I don' t believe that you can legally do
4 that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, then we come back
5 and discuss it here .
MS . MOORE : I'm not arguing that, yes, you
6 can do a site visit . I think what Mr. Dinizio is
suggesting is that you will obviously discuss
7 alternatives there on site, but it won' t be in a
public hearing session.
8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You shouldn' t
discuss -- you can not do that .
9 MS . MOORE : But the reality is it should
be at a public meeting.
10 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right . If
you' re going to discuss what you want to do, that
11 needs to be public . No matter if you did it at
McDonalds or --
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you gentlemen have
anything you want to say?
13 MR. KALLAS : John Kallas . I 'm actually
the owner of the house with my father immediately
14 to the west . We've lived there for about 18 years
now, and for us it' s a place of enormous beauty
15 for us . Not only the bluff for us, it' s also the
V that comes down, which is kind of one of the
16 rarer points that you see on Long Island Sound.
We have natural concerns . We have experienced the
17 erosion. We put in the bulkhead shortly after we
moved in. We have seen a fair amount of erosion
18 through the years that we have been there, and
aside from the bulkhead, it' s been hard to
19 control . It' s a continuing concern of ours
because we don' t know how fragile the area can be
20 with another house .
The other point I want to make is our
21 objection is also to the driveway. All these
houses have a Duck Pond Road address . It' s not
22 one house that' s going to impact the cul-de-sac .
There' s four or five houses going to be built in
23 that area. And at least one more has the access
to the cul-de-sac by virtue of the driveway. So
24 for us, the driveway that a house next to it,
there' s no frontage associated with it . When you
25 go see it, the driveway' s pretty much going to
come in right through a point on the property
March 30 , 2006
111
1
2 that' s made . So that' s a concern of ours . I
don' t know if we would be happy, to be honest with
3 you, if the house was relocated to the west any
more because right now it' s 25 to 30 feet, maybe a
4 little bit more between where the house is
situated to the property line .
5 What we would like, to be frank with you,
is if the house would be closer to Duck Pond Road.
6 There' s another house that' s just been erected on
Duck Pond Road that' s just next to . So to the
7 extent that' s an option, I think that' s what we
would prefer, that' s where we come out on
8 this . Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I comment? My
9 concern is what Mr. Cramer said and what I
observed down there, and knowing that now it is
10 April, that in probably two weeks we' re going to
be standing knee-deep in mud down there . If we
11 have a thought -- I 'm talking to the Board right
now -- in our mind about how we would like this
12 project to look, we should discuss that today and
make a decision. I don' t care what it is if you
13 deny it or not, but at least give these people an
opportunity to hear what we have in our mind, and
14 comment on that and make a decision. If we don' t
make a decision today we' re into May, everything,
15 all the damage has been done, the flowers are out
and we have a balding hill for the summer, which
16 includes in the fall dust and whatever else comes
along. I just encourage everybody on the Board,
17 if they have something to say if they have
something on their mind, let' s come to it, let' s
18 make a decision; we can close this hearing and be
done with it . They can go on and do what they
19 need to do.
MR. KALLAS : I'm Jerry Kallas, I own the
20 house for the last 18 years . I can tell you how
much the erosion is because I have three flag
21 poles by the bluff . When I built the flag poles
eight feet from the end of the bluff . Now, I
22 could say it' s only six feet . So with the 20
years there, we lost about two feet .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s about right .
MR. KALLAS : Another thing bothers me is
24 the driveway, I don' t want to stop, it' s his
property, he can do anything he wants . But in
25 order to have a driveway attach to my property and
every other house that has 100 feet frontage or
March 30 , 2006
112
1
2 more and has a driveway, I think it' s going to be
a city not a village anymore .
3 MS . MOORE : If I could respond to your
comment about the driveway, the contractors just
4 pointed out, we have 45 feet road frontage on Glen
Court ; we have no problem with having the driveway
5 hug the east side rather than the west side, so it
creates more of a setback. We have 45 feet, a
6 driveway has to be 15 I believe . We' ll move it
away from his property. We' re not trying to
7 create a difficulty for him. We have the room and
that' s not a problem. I think that we don' t have
8 slopes there . I just want to make sure we don' t
have any sloping problems . We' re trying to work
9 through the process, and certainly if you put a
condition that the driveway be more on the right
10 side of Glen Court than the left side or south
side versus north side, that' s not a problem.
11 MR. KALLAS : But you have another driveway
there, you have two driveways .
12 MS . MOORE : No, it' s a different property,
different entrance .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just to say that we
have a couple more reports that we have asked for
14 that have not come in yet, and we' re going to be
in the process of reviewing them. So I would like
15 to keep this open until April 27th.
MS . MOORE : Could you tell us which
16 reports you' re waiting for?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm waiting for reports
17 from the Department of State and another report
from the Soil and Water Conservation people .
18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We had forwarded
Mr. Cramer' s plan to Soil and Water, the erosion
19 sediment control plans, they' re reviewing that and
responding also.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And I have people from
the coastal resources division from the Department
21 of State that have looked at the site, and I need
to get their report too. So until that time I
22 really don' t want to make a decision.
MR. CRAMER: As you pointed out, we have a
23 situation here --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know you have a
24 situation, but the situation is self-created,
sorry.
25 MR. CRAMER: It wasn' t self-created. The
Town of Southold issued a building permit .
March 30 , 2006
113
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In error.
MR. CRAMER: Apparently in error, but that
3 was not any of our doings . We submitted the
application, they approved it . It was unknown as
4 far as the need to get this variance but indeed
they did approve it, and the permit was issued and
5 the construction started in reliance of that
permit and foundations were put in reliance of
6 that permit .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine, Mr. Cramer, but
7 two wrongs don' t make a right .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the issue is if
8 it' s not your fault that there was a confusion or
misunderstanding of this, it isn' t at all clear
9 that the bluff should be a victim of a possible
error that the Building Department made . Our job
10 is to protect the bluff and the area and the
environment, not to simply protect the applicant
11 alone because of errors that are not the
applicant' s fault .
12 MR. CRAMER: We are outside of the bluff
area . We have pulled the house back from there .
13 There was suggestions made to further reduce the
size of the house, that would increase the setback
14 from the bluff . We' re in agreement; we would be
willing to go along with that . We have no problem
15 with that . At this point if the Board would like,
we have the reduction in the size of the house
16 which has now increased it to 55 foot setback to
the edge of the bluff . We have located the house
17 as far as we can to the south on the property.
The house is quite a bit smaller than what it was
18 originally. We have now increased it from 42
feet, now we' re at 55 feet . Sliding it to the
19 west, that won' t create any additional setback for
it .
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: These are important
considerations, which we intend to consider, but
21 what we' re not going to do is to rush into
something because of the unfortunate delay. You
22 may be absolutely right . We may wind up
vindicating everything you said. But we' re not
23 going to decide now because you said so .
MR. CRAMER: I realize you' re going to
24 decide when you' re going to decide . It ' s my
service to my client .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We will try to do this
as expeditiously as possible .
March 30 , 2006
114
1
2 MR. CRAMER: Because again, right now that
situation is that there are stockpiled soils that
3 have not been graded, and it poses a significant
hazard not only to the environment, but also to my
4 client' s property. If this continues to erode
he' s going to lose property.
5 MS . MOORE : If I may make one point . If
we' re discussing where the house is ultimately
6 going to go, why we stopped when we did is that we
didn' t want to excavate a sanitary system and
7 start putting up the walls given the situation we
were in. However, if the Board is prepared to
8 allow us to proceed, put the sanitary system in,
put the retaining walls in their place, then at
9 least we can get rid of the stockpiled material
and start stabilizing the property. Where we
10 ultimately put the foundation I don' t think will
make that much of a difference whether you move it
11 five feet this way, five feet whichever way, the
sanitary and retaining walls they' re pretty much
12 staying where they are . At least we will address
some of the immediacy of the material that is
13 there . That' s one possible -- at least
stabilization to our property. At least if we
14 have a majority of the Board that is ultimately
going to decide where this house is going to go .
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just to reply, it' s
my understanding that the work stopped because
16 there was a stop work order, until we could review
everything that needed to be reviewed so we could
17 make a decision on the basis of the corrected
circumstances, and that' s what we' re trying to do .
18 MS . MOORE : Actually the Building
Department was given the circumstances at the
19 time, and they were prepared to allow us put the
retaining walls and deal with the sanitary. We
20 chose to stop when we did, we didn' t want to
aggravate the circumstances by continuation of
21 work before coming to this Board. So it was our
decision to stop at that time and do nothing
22 further. But the sanitary and the retaining walls
is not a Building Department building permit
23 process . It is something that is independent . We
have the permit from the Health Department, and we
24 have the retaining wall from the Trustees at the
time, which is now not even necessary. Chuck was
25 present and spoke to the Building Department, so
he can tell you exactly what they told him.
March 30 , 2006
115
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don' t have the
Building Department here to refute it .
3 MS . MOORE : In fairness to my client,
we' re allowed to create a record.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So then next time
we' ll bring the Building Department in and go back
5 and forth some more, Pat .
MS . MOORE : Madam Chairman, I already know
6 how you feel about this, but I need to speak to
the rest of the Board as well, thank you.
7 MR. DALTON: John Dalton, 21 Sea Cliff
Lane, Miller Place . On January 5th Ed Forrester
8 came out to the site to give us a stop work order.
I spoke to him about the concerns of the property,
9 and is he agreed the same thing as far as we
started. He gave us the okay to put the footings
10 in because we had the pump trucks and the concrete
forms already put in place . He said call me in
11 the morning, and I can give you more detail . And
I had a phone call from a fellow named Mr. Damon I
12 believe .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Damon Rallis .
13 MR. DALTON: Yes . And he said I have to
put a stop work order on it . Once you strip your
14 footings you can' t go on your property. You can' t
do any more construction. I told him the way the
15 property is, in the condition it is now, it' s
almost the worst thing to do is to put a stop work
16 order on it . I have all the soil, I have a hole
dug, I have top soil on the bottom of the cliff,
17 the wetter it gets, the heavier it gets, the more
it' s going to erode . He said there' s nothing that
18 he can do about it . He said if you want you can
put the septic system in and continuing doing your
19 retaining walls . That is very costly job to do .
The retaining walls on that site are over
20 $100 , 000 . It' s not fair to us to put retaining
walls in and a septic system that we can' t put a
21 house on. And that' s where we are right now.
We' re into April, there' s a tremendous amount of
22 dirt because we have a nine foot basement going in
this house because we had to go nine feet to get
23 into good material, which we' re in good material .
You have all that weight on top of that bluff,
24 more rain we get, we have been lucky it' s been dry
in March. There' s only one place it' s going to
25 go .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: After all, that is
March 30 , 2006
116
1
2 why we' re here to try to mitigate that, and I
think you' re absolutely right, you' re not going to
3 invest $100 , 000 in a piece of land that' s going to
stay there and never be used. So we are here
4 basically just to grant you a footprint of what we
think is necessary. Certainly you' re going to get
5 something. I think we as a Board should grant it
sooner rather than later based on the
6 environmental catastrophe that could happen if we
wait until the rainy season.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Could I ask you to
approach and note on this plan for me, I believe
8 I ' m reading it correctly, but I ' d like to know
precisely where your proposed septic system is
9 located along the septic system.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We can' t hear you
10 on the record.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What were you saying?
11 We can' t hear anything.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: For the record,
12 what I was asking was to confirm the location of
the septic system to the east and its relationship
13 to the footprint of the proposed house and the
retaining walls . And they just confirmed that it
14 is on this map. With the square feet noted at S-T
and L-P, septic tank and leaching pool .
15 MR. CRAMER: Septic tank and the LP is the
leaching pool . And the E is the expansion pool,
16 the expansion pool will not be put in. I doubt
it' s even necessary, but it' s part of the code, we
17 have to provide it . Given the soils in the area
that they' re all sand, you' ll probably never have
18 to install that . In fact, I've never had run into
a case where anybody has to install it on Long
19 Island. The reason why the retaining walls are
there is that the Health Department requires a
20 flat surface about the sanitary system. One
retaining wall drops it down, the other retaining
21 wall brings it up, so we have a flat surface for
the sanitary system. If it wasn' t for the Health
22 Department requirements, we could have left the
existing slope the way it is and not have to do
23 these retaining walls, but the retaining walls are
necessary just for the sanitary system.
24 MS . MOORE: One more comment I have,
Mr. Goehringer --
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to
discuss something, and we were discussing
March 30, 2006
117
1
2 something too. Unfortunately, Miss Moore, I have
to leave, and that' s the reason I was making that
3 discussion, and my back is killing me so I 'm
standing at this particular point . I feel very
4 badly about this situation, but there' s nothing I
can do about it at this particular time .
5 MS . MOORE : All I was going to suggest is
if we could resolve the location today.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
MS . MOORE . Just hear me out . If you get
7 comments from these other agencies with respect to
certain plantings or whatever, and you want to
8 supplement our planting plan because really that' s
what we' re talking about from these agencies might
9 be whether our planting plan is adequate or not .
You also could provide for inspection after
10 construction, within a six month, year window,
whatever you prefer, and see to make sure
11 everything is stable as we have assured this Board
that' s in our best interest as well . So we' re
12 trying to work with you, we' re just trying to move
this along so we don' t have a situation where we
13 have created, where we' re in an emergency.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Are you waiving
14 your reply to their submissions that they give,
you' re waiving everything then? The Board wants
15 it to be part of 'the discussion.
MS . MOORE : We don' t know how long it ' s
16 going to take for them to respond.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to adjourn
17 to April 27th to 2 : 20 p .m. and hopefully we will
have everything resolved.
18 MR. CRAMER: Recognizing you that will
extend it, but there are other things that may
19 make you feel more comfortable . In the past in
other towns I've worked in in situations like
20 this, we could put up a bond that makes sure that
if there is problems, that it is restored within a
21 certain amount of time, not that the bond would go
on forever, but say two years, to allow for things
22 to become stabilized, if they don' t we' d have to
do it, otherwise the bond could be called in. We
23 could certainly work out anything like that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We will take that into
24 consideration. I make a motion to adjourn.
(See minutes for resolution. )
25 (Time ended: 3 : 56 p.m. )
March 30 , 2006
118
1
2
3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
4
5 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
6 State of New York, do hereby certify:
7 THAT the within transcript is a true record of
8 the testimony given.
9 I further certify that I am not related by
10 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
11 action; and
12 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
13 of this matter.
14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
15 hand this 30th day of March, 2006 .
16
17
18
19
Y `
Florence V. Wiles
20 RECEIVO
21 3,yS ?k
22 JUL 1 1 2 06
0
23 . .
S 'gjj"id J('wa clerk
24
25
March 30 , 2006