HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/30/2006 Hearing 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
3
4 --------- -----------------------------------X
5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D
6
7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S
8
9 ----------------------------------------- ----X
Southold Town Hall
10 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
11
November 30, 2006
12 9 : 30 a.m.
13 Board Members Present
14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
15 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
16 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member
17 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
18 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
19 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
20 KIERAN CORCORAN, .Assistant Town. Attorney
21
22
23 ORIGINAL
24
25
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is our regularly
scheduled Board meeting of November 30 , 2006 . I ' d
3 like a motion saying all our following
applications have no effect on the environment .
4 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is
5 for Mr: Frank Mele; is there someone here to speak
on this? Good morning.
6 MR. MELE : Good morning.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Tell us what you want
7 to do.
MR. MELE : We' re proposing to install a
8 swimming pool in my side rear yard of my residence
located at 305 Gardiners Lane in Southold.
9 Propose to install an oval pool,
kidney-shaped to be less than 16 by 32 feet .
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that pool then,
you say it' s kidney-shaped, that differs then from
11 the indication you have on the survey which you
submitted, which is the rectangular shape that is
12 16' by 32 ' ?
MR. MELE : Right . I was advised by the
13 building department to submit plans for a
rectangular shape that is 16' by 321 , I will keep
14 it kidney-shaped within that square .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s fine .
15 MR. MELE : I have seven copies of the
plans .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, thank you. So
your problem is it' s part in the side yard and
17 part in the front yard?
MR. MELE : Yes, over by that corner.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, we were all
there . I don' t have any problem with it, but,
19 Jerry, any problem?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. The day I
20 was there, Shamrock was taking a huge tree down.
No objections .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I can see
22 that' s the only possible place to locate . You
have a shed and a gravel drive on the other side
23 of your property next to ,your neighbor.
MR. MELE : The way my yard is situated
24 with my patio and sliding door, it all faces that
side of the yard.
25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right . It' s
heavily treed already.
November 30, 2006
3
1
2 MR. MELE: And I will continue the
arborvitaes .
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Along Gardiners?
MR. MELE : Along Gardiners .
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. I have no
questions .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You say you have a
6 deck and the rest of your house is kind of skewed
towards that side; is that the living quarters?
7 MR. MELE : Yes, exactly.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And your other side
8 yard' s kind of between the car and the boat over
there?
9 MR. MELE : And cesspools are located right
there, and exactly behind my residence in that
10 narrow portion of my rear yard, there' s no room.
I have a septic tank and one cesspool there .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there any
reason why it can' t go any closer to the house?
12 MR. MELE : Right now the plan shows about
20 feet off the house, anything closer to that I
13 think also will fence it within itself and
anything close to the house by the time you put
14 pavers around it --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s nothing
15 that impedes you from putting it closer to the
house other than what?
16 MR. MELE : That I don' t want it that close
to the house .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s a good reason.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay.
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand it is a
corner lot with technically two front yards, but
19 if you had wanted to put the pool on the other
side of the house it would still be in the side
20 yard because the lot is not deep enough to allow `a
swimming pool behind the house, right?
21 MR. MELE : Right .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the issue isn' t so
22 much that it' s on the Custer Avenue side but
there' s no other place . I don' t recall, are there
23 trees between where the pool will be and Custer
Avenue?
24 MR. MELE : There' s trees there now.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s a screen of
25 arborvitaes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But no big trees .
November 30 , 2006
4
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t have a
problem. This is a case where the requirement to
3 put the pool behind the house is strained, makes
it very difficult, in fact, the property isn' t
4 deep enough for that . And this is an exception
not because it' s a corner lot but simply because
5 the lot is wider than it is deep .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going to keep
6 the pool open, you' re not going to try and roof it
in?
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We can put in all
the normal stuff, it' s not going to be covered,
8 just putting pavers, no deck
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about dry
wells?
10 MR. MELE : I already installed one, I have
for my two gutters, I have a half inch one for the
11 backwash.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where are you going to
12 keep the mechanicals?
MR. MELE : Right alongside the house . I
13 put new pavers down right alongside the house
where the swimming pool, the pump and filter will
14 go.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, is there anyone
15 in the audience that wishes to comment on this
application?
16 (See minutes for resolution. )
------------------------------------------------------
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for
the Reinertsens on Arrowhead Lane in Peconic .
18 They wish to build anew home . Hi, would you like
to tell us what you want to do?
19 MR. REINERTSEN: We want to build a new
house on the lot we have and the lot is very long
20 and not that deep. We would like to get some
relief on the front and rear yards . We also would
21 like to have a swimming pool in a side yard rather
than the rear yard.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Most of the lots by you
are fairly squared off because I rode down there .
23 MR. REINERTSEN: They' re all fairly long
and narrow, and they were originally subdivided in
24 half acres and then in 163 , an associate wanted
everybody to build on an acre by two lot --
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question?
November 30 , 2006
5
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, go ahead, Jerry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
3 nature of the cabana; what will it have in it ;
what will it be designed to do?
4 MR. REINERTSEN: It' s not going to be
designed for living, one thing. It' s just going
5 to be a bathroom so the kids can go in and throw
their towels and change their wet suits and maybe
6 we' ll have an outside shower and inside shower to
facilitate the pool so everybody doesn' t run
7 through our house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Outside shower would be
8 better. Outside shower is what we would require .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We usually
9 require the bathroom door to be open to the
outside of the building.
10 MR. REINERTSEN: It' s just a place --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it' s. fine with you
11 if we put that into our decision?
MR. REINERTSEN: Yes .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any heat at all?
MR. REINERTSEN: In the cabana?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
MR. REINERTSEN: But I don' t want to have
14 to drain the water in the fall .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: My only question is
16 how you would feel about the possibility of simply
setting it back a little bit further from the
17 road.
MR. REINERTSEN: Rear yard?
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes .
MR. REINERTSEN: I have no problem with
19 that at all .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because you don' t
20 have much of a rear yard, you' re not going to be
able to put anything back there?
21 MR. REINERTSEN: We have no problem with
that at all . The only reason we sited it where it
22 is sited is because some of our neighbors were
concerned about having the pool and the noise and
23 what have you, and we had the house sited by the
architect, and the house is designed to have the
24 living spaces that way, the pool facilities, the
living spaces, and when we clear trees to put the
25 pool in, we' re also looking to have solar photo
panes on the roof for electricity and that would
November 30 , 2006
6
1
2 also be part of it .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You would be
3 hard-pressed to get enough sun for those . I hope
you have central heat on top of that, that' s
4 ancillary.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie, how far would
5 you want them to move back?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you have
6 nothing but bramble back there . You have a fence,
like a split-rail .
7 MR. REINERTSEN: Farm back there .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Nice view for you,
8 but you' re going to have to clear those brambles
for construction. I want to thank you for one
9 thing, for having it so carefully staked out, it
was very clear.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Pathways were
11 fairly easy to access . Sometimes when you go onto
a virgin site it' s very difficult to figure out
12 how to relate a plan to what you' re seeing on the
actual ground.
13 MR. REINERTSEN: We didn' t realize how bad
it was and my surveyor came back and said I can' t
14 even hack my way into it . Take a chainsaw and
take down a few of the older trees that are going
15 to fall down anyway.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So how far back,
16 Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just make a
17 comment?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Jimmy wants to
18 comment .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The reason is it
19 goes to that . Because when I looked at it, I was
wondering if you couldn' t just take the cabana and
20 put it on the other side of the pool on the 45
foot side?
21 MR. REINERTSEN: On the short side?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Behind it .
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just take the
cabana and it looks like an accessory structure
23 and just take it and move it to the other side,
exactly the same just flip it; is that a
24 possibility?
MR. REINERTSEN: I don' t have a problem,
25 the only thing I thought of was a blind issue .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In fact, there
November 30 , 2006
7
1
2 would be less impact on the street if the pool was
in front . You can screen it with landscaping,
3 things like that, and it won' t look like there' s
another structure there .
4 MR. REINERTSEN: We also were constrained,
by the way, the surveyor made this house sort of
5 to the center to the left, which makes us closer
to our neighbors . We did not particularly want to
6 skew our house to the left and what have you, but
felt that we were staying within that 35 foot
7 envelope . If the Board doesn' t have a problem, we
would be happy to slide our whole thing to the
8 right, to center it more and to give more relief
to our neighbors and maybe more of a sound block
9 as well . But I don' t know what you allow within
the envelope .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would be a little
skeptical of that, you may have to reapply.
11 MR. REINERTSEN: I don' t want to get into
that .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You wouldn' t have
to if you just took the cabana and put. it on the
13 other side . We' re looking to minimize the amount
of relief we' re going to grant .
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And also minimize
the cost and time for you.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then you might have to
have a separate dry well for the backwash and
16 pool .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I can tell you
17 from experience, after they take in all the roof,
the size of the dry wells, what it turns out to
18 be, it' s huge, so they shouldn' t have too much
trouble with sharing it .
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They will have
plenty of room.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My concern is
21 consistent with the other ones that are raised.
As the cabana, for example, is situated right now,
22 it' s not much farther from the street than the
main house . So not only is it in the side yard,
23 it' s practically right up against the front yard
and if both .the pool and the cabana could be moved
24 closer to the rear, or if the cabana could be put
on the other side of the pool, then there would be
25 less of a feeling that we've got two buildings
facing the road which are about the same distance,
November 30 , 2006
8
1
2 maybe a cabana on one side, as Jim said, another
accessory building. So I certainly would not like
3 to see the cabana stay exactly where it is . You
seem to express a great deal of flexibility on
4 this and I 'm sure we can work something out .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There also has
5 to be some sort of idea of a landscaping plan that
you intend to put in front of the pool, at that
6 point it would have been in front of the cabana
but now in front of the pool, that would have
7 shielded this pool from the road anyway.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And from your
8 neighbors .
MR. REINERTSEN: We were thinking about an
9 arbovitae buffer.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As long as it' s
10 maintained so it doesn' t die .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll put all that in.
11 Is there anyone else in this audience that wishes
to comment on this application? Yes, sir.
12 MR. MCNAB : Hello, I'm Glen McNab. I ' m
the resident directly across the street from this
13 property and my wife Yvonne and I are here to
support this application. We have a similar
14 situation, and you folks were gracious enough to
grant us a variance several years ago with the
15 depth concerns, because as you mentioned, as you
go south on Arrowhead Lane, the properties do
16 get --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Shorter.
17 MR. MCNAB : -- shorter in road frontage
and deeper in depth. And people at the north end
18 like myself, the properties starts out at 110 feet
and then 400 feet and only goes to about 130 . So
19 three or four years ago, we were before this Board
and you folks, as I mentioned, granted us a
20 variance for front and rear setback relief and
also a side yard pool, so I hope that would be
21 extended to these folks as well .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anyone
22 else?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
23 MR. MURPHY: We' re the Murphys, Jim
Murphy, and this is my wife Linda. We have the
24 plot, the house directly south of the Reinertsens .
We object to the pool, the location of the pool .
25 I don' t have any objections to the 35 feet instead
of 50 feet on the back, we think that' s a fair
November 30 , 2006
9
1
2 request on their part, and other people got that,
so we have no concern about that . We' re concerned
3 about the location of the pool . There is
something on the books here that you can' t have a
4 side yard pool without getting a variance, so
we' re here to express our concern about that, and
5 I did give to John in a phone call last week, that
we' re concerned about the noise . As it' s set up
6 now it will be 50 feet from our property line and
there is no -- there could be pool parties at 2 : 00
7 in the morning, we can' t control that .
MR. MURPHY: We' re not saying they' re
8 going to have it at 2 : 00 in the morning, but all
our bedrooms are located on the side closest to
9 their pool, the north side .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How far are you from
10 the line?
MR. MURPHY: I don' t know.
11 MRS . MURPHY: I'm sorry, we don' t know
that, but we bought the property originally for
12 peace and quiet . We back onto a vineyard. All
our bedrooms are located on that side of the
13 house, so we did request in speaking to the
Reinertsens that maybe they could flip it and put
14 the pool on the other side and the cabana on the
other side because that' s a vacant lot on that
15 side, and my husband right now is under treatment
and he needs to have peace and quiet . We' re
16 worried about the pool . We' re very worried about
the noise factor, the factor of a pump .
17 MR. MURPHY: I expressed to John that
would he reconsider the location of the pool, and
18 that' s how basically we left our phone
conversation. I did draw up a letter for the
19 Board and also a copy for the Reinertsens, and
we' re also worried that with the pool there there
20 is a risk factor, and we' re worried about resale
value and marketability of our house, obviously
21 some day -- hopefully not so soon -- we' ll be
looking to sell our house, and I think people who
22 come and see a pool next door may be turned
off . I don' t know how many people, 10 percent, 40
23 percent, I don' t know. I don' t have statistics,
but people with a lot of children, oh, there' s a
24 pool, I 'm not interested, let' s find something
else . And of course there' s the noise and the
25 risk. We' ll have grandchildren some day, and I
just am frightened by where are the kids . I 'm
November 30 , 2006
10
1
2 sure there will be fences .
MRS . MURPHY: Yes, but children, kids
3 climb fences, children do climb fences . And with
the McNabs, they have it between their two
4 structures . They do not have it on, a side, near a
neighbor. Ours, it will be on our side, and my
5 main concern is we always go out there to relax,
to sleep late, so do our sons, our relatives and
6 friends, and we' re worried about the noise factor,
and I just wanted to show you this (handing) .
7 MR. MURPHY: We' re looking for an
alternative to putting the pool near our property,
8 it' s in violation of the code . Would you have any
objections to putting it on the north side? John
9 and Angela don' t have a deep property, I
understand that .
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say
something?
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have .to tell
12 you that in my experience on this Board, and I
certainly accept your concerns, but we are usually
13 dealing with 10 or 15 feet, not 50 feet . That was
specifically why I asked these applicants for a
14 specific landscaping plan, and I think that may be
an issue that you may want to come up with.
15 Secondly, there may be a consideration
that you may want to consider running this pool
16 the opposite way as opposed to across the
frontage, maybe the opposite way, putting it a
17 little bit closer to the house, putting the cabana
exactly where it is and actually holding the
18 entire landscaping plan all the way back the way
back to the vineyard piece in the back, and I
19 assure you that if you do that you probably would
mitigate 50 percent of the noise to anybody. I
20 don' t care if it' s the very nice people across the
street or these very nice people, but, you know
21 you are monopolizing the major portion of an
entire side yard by the nature of that pool . And
22 of course, we know that the pavers have to go
around it so that' s three feet more or more
23 depending upon what you do, and then the fence
around that, and so on and so forth, yes, the pool
24 itself is within 50 feet, that- may be another
consideration that I would suggest to you.
25 MR. REINERTSEN: Putting the cabana on the
other side it' s not a problem on for us but as far
November 30 , 2006
11
1
2 as noise, I just want to say to the Murphys what I
said before, we live in the city, we are very
3 cognizant of noise, we live within shaking-hand
distance of neighbors to us, and all our homes are
4 very close . Pools don'.t make noise, people do,
and as far as we' re concerned, even whether we
5 have a pool or didn' t, we would have our patio on
that side . It' s the way our house is sited and
6 barbeques, people, parties, dogs, volleyball,
there' s always something. We' re interested in
7 being good neighbors not bad neighbors . You are
not acrimonious about this, we just have an
8 opinion, and I think the Board gave us good
suggestions and if that makes it better for
9 him --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It puts it at 70
10 feet then?
MR. REINERTSEN: Yes . And as far as Jim
11 goes, I know he doesn' t know exactly where his
house is, but I paced it and it' s not exactly but
12 it' s probably about 100 feet from the property
line .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There would be a
landscaping buffer and moreover there is one way a
14 pool makes noise and that' s with pumping
equipment . One thing we can suggest is that the
15 noise that that equipment makes will be abated by
two things, one is the most distant location
16 feasible from your property and the other thing is
to make sure it' s housed in a sound proof case,
17 both of those things will insure that the birds
are heard and the pool is not .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And all those things,
all those recommendations in fact, they will be
19 very specific . In our decision we might even ask
to come and inspect when it' s been completed.
20 MR. REINERTSEN: If we turn the pool 90
degrees, will we move closer to the back fence?
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re going to
have to .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, it will be closer
to the back fence .
23 MR. MURPHY: Are the applicants able to
move it to within 10 feet of the back? I don' t
24 want to be ridiculous asking these questions .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, if you
25 leave the thing at the exact same location that
it' s in and the cabana in the area where it is
November 30 , 200,6
12
1
2 now, it' s 20 feet into that, so it' s 25 feet .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s going to be a
3 25 foot rear yard setback.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re going to
4 take another -
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 20 off .
5 MR. MURPHY: More than 50 feet from our
property.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 70 feet .
MR. MURPHY: 70 .
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: By the way, that is
exceptionally far from a side yard boundary. Most
8 pools as accessory structures are far closer to
the edge of the structure .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I make a
comment?
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : If you attach the
ill pool to the house, you wouldn' t even need a
variance for that . If you enclose the pool to the
12 house, you wouldn' t need a variance . And you
should know that, that they can go within 25 feet
13 of their property.
MRS . MURPHY: I'm sorry, we don' t know
14 that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
15 MRS . MURPHY: Could you say that again?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : What I 'm saying to
16 you is, they' re asking for an accessory structure
in the side yard. If they make it a principal
17 structure, if they cover it up with a house, they
incorporate it into the house, they don' t even
18 need a variance for the pool .
MRS . MURPHY: It would still be an outdoor
19 structure?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. It could be
20 covered and still be considered principal . What
I 'm sayings to you is, you' re getting a lot from
21 your neighbor through us at 50 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 70 feet .
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : If they didn' t have
the cabana --
23 MRS . MURPHY: The Town rule is you' re not
supposed to have a pool in the side yard.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They can come to us
for relief, that' s the rule . The rule is you
25 can' t, by right, build an accessory structure in
the side yard unless you have some hardship,
November 30, 2006
13
1
2 that' s the rule . It' s not illegal to do it .
We' re not granting them the legality, we' re just
3 saying, look, here' s your lot, narrow, although
it' s long, the house should be commensurate with
4 the size of the lot . They could build a bungalow
if they wanted to . They could take the pool and
5 put , it within 10 feet of your side yard, if they
so choose and still be perfectly legal without
6 even getting a variance if they lessened their
'back yard of the house; all of that comes into
7 consideration for us . So, I mean, I just want to
point out to you that you' re gaining a lot from
8 your neighbor' s consideration because he could be
creative -- and we've seen creativity on this
9 Board to the point where neighbors never talk to
each other again. So I hear what you' re saying.
10 MRS . MURPHY: I think the reason why is
because the structure' s not built yet, whereas the
11 other man came for his pool and his structure' s
already built, that' s our thought . None of these
12 have been built yet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you' re 170 feet
13 away from a pool, unless the wind is blowing in
the right direction and if they' re fairly quiet ,
14 you' re not going to hear much of anything, I can
just tell you from our own experience .
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I mean, I would
take the 50 feet and if you just walk around and
16 put the cabana -- if you just swapped it around
and put the cabana between his yard and your pool,
17 you created yourself a nice little zone there .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don' t have any
18 problem with leaving the pool the way it is, but
if they want to rotate it that' s fine too .
19 MR. MURPHY: I'm worried about noise at
2 : 00 in the morning, jack hammers going, while
20 they' re building.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It will be noisy
21 for a while, I know that, I work in the industry.
MRS . MURPHY: We' re just saying is there a
22 way, let' s say they happen to rent their house or
friends or whatever, that- is our concern. Their
23 children will be growing and that was our concern.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : All that could
24 still happen, you know you could do that too . I
just kind of want to point out to you that he' s
25 being a really great neighbor.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you for your
November 30 , 2006
14
1
2 comment . I think someone else has something to
say. Thank you very much, we appreciate it . Yes,
3 sir?
MR. WALDMAN: Howard Waldman, I live at
4 4760 Indian Neck Lane, soon to be at 95 Arrowhead
thanks to the Board. Anyway, I ' d like to say I
5 hope you grant to these kind folks what you did
for me, the setbacks and all that . As far as the
6 pool' s concerned, I lived in Southold before, in
the Hamlet of Laurel, we had a pool within 50 foot
7 of our neighbors, and there is a noise ordinance
in the Town of Southold, I think it' s either 10 : 00
8 or 11 : 00 .
CHAIRWOMAN` OLIVA: No, we don' t have
9 that . I wish we did, unfortunately -- but if
there' s too much noise, you just call the police
10 and report a disturbance and they do come and ask
the people to quiet down.
11 MR. WALDMAN: But like I said, I 've lived
in areas with pools before and we never had a
12 problem in the Town of Southold. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
13 anyone else that wishes to comment on this
application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
14 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. ) .
15 ------------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
16 Berit Lalli on Narrow River Road. What would you
like to tell us?
17 MS . LALLI : I have a house on River Road
that was our summer house 25 years ago, so what
18 I 'm asking for is an addition porch and sunroom.
The porch is only 18 feet wide, and I would like
19 to widen and I would like to add another 14 to
make it more of a room.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So in other words, Mrs .
Lalli, you want to build over the existing deck,
21 but widen the deck and make another story?
MS . LALLI : Exactly.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not another story, but
at least another addition to the room that is
23 already there .
MS . LALLI : I want to enclose the bottom
24 deck, move it out .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Will you be
25 redoing -- isn' t there a side entry there?
MS . LALLI : Yes, I have a back entry and
November 30 , 2006
15
1
2 I 'm going to use that .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you' re
3 eliminating that side entry so you' re going to
enclose it and make it a little bit bigger, so you
4 have enough room to put some furniture in it .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a couple of
5 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Michael .
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The rear part of the
house, farthest from the road is only one story;
7 is that being used for living space?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. That back end of
8 your house isn' t being used as living space, just
by your deck?
9 MS . LALLI : I have a bedroom in the back
there .
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, because my
understanding was at the time that was built -- it
11 was probably before you were there -- that was
built with the condition that it not be living
12 space, so the house has in effect expanded to the
rear.
13 MS . LALLI : No . It was the garage that
they said could not be used as living space and it
14 is a garage .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the part of your
15 house where the bedroom is was always living
space?
16 MS . LALLI : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The one problem is
17 looking at the road, River Road, the house is
already, the front of the house is already
18 nonconforming and is in fact closer to the road
than the surrounding houses and you want to expand
19 another four feet towards the road with your new
deck. That is perhaps the main issue before us .
20 Do you have another alternative as to how you
could increase your living space?
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That lot is so
misshapen.
22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a trapezoid.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a very difficult
23 lot to build anything on.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You would still
a
24 have a 24 foot setback from Narrow River Road.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have to grant
25 some sort of alternative relief .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a reasonable
November 30 , 2006
16
1
2 place to locate an addition as far as I 'm
concerned. It doesn' t have any additional visual
3 impact on anything that I can see .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a lot across
4 the street .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And next door.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And next door.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What will the
6 setbacks be to the side lot? It' s drawn but it
doesn' t say what the setbacks .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which lot?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The lot from the
8 corner from the proposed addition to the side yard
to the property line to the right .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If it' s 16 to the
garage, this looks a little bit longer.
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The way this is
drawn you can' t tell . If this was in scale -- it
11 looks like it might be 18 feet . You know, it' s
going to be close to 16 feet, probably more like
12 18 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you know I
kind of like to look at it as the house is
14 existing there, and if they could move the house
and make it so you could actually build this 'and
15 not need a variance, it would be very costly. So
I think that' s your hardship, but that' s only me .
16 So, if all we' re talking about is an addition of
four feet on a piece of property that already
17 exists, and the setbacks already exists, I have no
problem whatsoever. Would there be any way, are
18 you going to extend the deck also above this, is
that going to be an additional four feet?
19 MR. LALLI : I think I would expand it to
four feet but that doesn' t make any difference . I
20 don' t know how it would look. I think it' s more
aesthetic if you extend the deck.
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So it' s going to be
12 feet on top and 12 feet underneath.
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not going to
be buried in the house, you' re going to see this
23 deck, which you' re going to see already, you' re
just going to extend it four feet . I have no
24 objection to that .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no further
25 questions or objections .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
November 30 , 2006
17
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further
questions .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the
audience wish to comment on this application? If
4 not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
5 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
Mr. Melnick on Private Road #3 in Southold, who
7 wishes to make another story above . Good morning,
Mr. Melnick.
8 MR. MELNICK: Do you want me to address
the envelopes?
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, go ahead.
MR. MELNICK: One of my neighbors is
10 deceased and that' s still the name that' s on the
tax rolls, however, her daughter lives in the
11 other adjacent property which we did, and I
believe has also inherited that property, and we
12 sent a mailing to the daughter as well, which she
responded.
13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank you for doing
that .
14 MR. MELNICK: You mentioned the second
story.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a one and-a-half
story to a full story?
16 MR. MELNICK: Right . And this line of my
house is about a wall, so the use of the floor
17 space is very limited on the existing second
floor, so we' re looking to raise the walls . We' re
18 not .looking to build out on the second story,
we' re using the existing, that' s what we' re
19 looking to do .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re also looking to
20 do a one-story addition on that; is that the east
side or the north side?
21 MR. MELNICK: On the east side of the
house we' re looking for a 9 by 12 addition, and I
22 think I did get a letter from you that you have
amended the need for a variance on November 9th to
23 eliminate the need for a rear yard setback, but
just to explain, the existing house now the
24 setback is 13 feet . This construction we wish to
do is going to be set back 15 feet, so we' re
25 actually encroaching less than the existing
house . So all of our construction is going to be
November 30, 2006
18
1
2 then on the other side, the front yard setback, we
have an existing 50 foot wide right of way that my
3 neighbors are six houses that don' t live on the
water, and that' s where they can walk through my
4 property to access the water.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s all grassed in.
5 MR. MELNICK: I enclosed pictures, it' s
all grassed lawn.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We know.
MR. MELNICK: We' re not looking to
7 encroach on that, we' re not looking to change that
because on that side that' s all we' re doing is
8 changing that one and-a-half story to two
stories .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just let me reiterate,
you' re proposing the one-story addition on the
10 side there, the 9 by 12 , then you' re proposing a
second-story addition to either you want to call
11 it the rear of the house or the middle of the
house there?
12 MR. MELNICK: That second-story addition
again, is not changing the. footprint of the
13 house . On that other side now there' s not a
bathroom. Since we' re raising the roof on that
14 end of the house, we' re going to put a bathroom
above that existing bathroom that' s there on the
15 first floor, so the plumbing goes through the
bathroom.
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just filling in
basically.
17 MR. MELNICK: And the two ends of my house
the way they' re built, you have to go down the
18 stairs and then up the other staircase to get to
the other end of my house . So by doing that,
19 you' ll actually walk straight through and be able
to access both ends and use the bathroom on both
20 ends of the house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going to lose
21 all that good exercise you were getting.
MR. MELNICK: Yes . I have a kayak.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, looking at
23 the notice of disapproval and it doesn' t make any
sense to me . It should be turned down because of
24 Walz , are you going to increase that setback you
have now? Are you tearing this house down?
25 MR. MELNICK: No. Are you talking about
the second floor?
November 30 , 2006
19
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. I'm talking
about you have a house there, with walls, pictures
3 hanging on the walls, and you have windows, and
they' re going to stay.
4 MR. MELNICK: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe just take the
5 roof off and raise it up. So you' re not
increasing the degree of nonconformity?
6 MR. MELNICK: Not at all .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you are .
7 MR. MELNICK: Talking about on the second
floor?
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes .
MR. MELNICK: But we' re keeping all our
9 construction within the existing footprint of the
house on the second floor.
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I am just wondering
why Walz doesn' t apply.
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It does apply.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It wasn' t put
12 in.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It wasn' t put in.
13 That' s nothing you need to worry about .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, quite honestly,
14 it is something you need to worry about .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not in his
15 disapproval .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Because the notice
16 of disapproval, the way I read it, you don' t need
a variance . Okay, that' s the way I read this
17 notice of disapproval .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If I could explain
18 it a little bit because the Building Department
explained it to me at the staff level .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On the map, you' ll
20 see that the addition that they' re proposing, the
second story is less than 75 feet from the
21 bulkhead, so they felt that was an extension of a
nonconforming setback, not only from the bulkhead
22 but from the front yard setback, which is adjacent
to that right of way, and they did leave the Walz
23 reference out of the notice of disapproval, you
are correct, but I know they meant it to be in
24 there . So we can have them correct the
disapproval .
25 MR. MELNICK: How does that effect my --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It doesn' t , legally.
November 30 , 2006
20
1
2 The failure to mention Walz is only --
MR. MELNICK: Okay.
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The Walz decision
was made, basically what it says is when you
4 already have something that' s nonconforming, if
you change it in any way we have to check to see
5 if you' re increasing the degree of nonconformity.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The fact that Walz is
6 not cited in the notice of disapproval has no
bearing at all on the legal question of justifying
7 the disapproval; in other words, it doesn' t matter
that Walz isn' t mentioned, it' s still Walz that' s
8 being applied.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s just paperwork.
9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s written
reference to an interpretation that was done about
10 four years ago.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
11 audience that wishes to comment on this
application?
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s my
application and I haven' t had a chance to
13 comment .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm sorry.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm a little
unclear about this 25 feet . When I look at the
15 tax map, Mr. Melnick, they' re showing a 50 foot
lot, you have title to the other 25 feet and
16 there' s a right of way over that 25 feet?
MR. MELNICK: You mean of the 50 feet?
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s no
question that the house is on 50 feet . The
18 question is, the other 25 feet, which is to the
west of your property, which you' re saying is now
19 50 feet because the other 25 feet is on another
piece of property.
20 MR. MELNICK: It' s on my neighbor' s
property. I have title, I believe it' s 25 and 50
21 feet .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of that 25 feet,
22 that 25 feet that' s shown on this survey, six
people have a right of way over it; is that
23 correct?
MR. MELNICK: To the best of my knowledge
24 it' s that private road that it goes on, there' s
like 10 houses that 'are there, half of us are on
25 the water, the other half aren' t . So it' s a right
of way, I 'm not clear how many of them have right
November 30 , 2006
21
1
2 of way, but we' re all neighbors and nobody says
anything.
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand.
When we talk addition towards the water from one
4 and-a-half stories to two stories, what is the
height of the ridge going to be? What is it now,
5 and what is it going to be later?
MR. MELNICK: Right now I believe the
6 height, the existing height now, we' re adding
seven and-a-half feet of height I believe through
7 the whole thing where the architect -- there are
elevations on the plans . It' s going to be almost
8 the exact same height as the existing house as
well . One end of my 'house is already taller.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, the back end.
MR. MELNICK: We' re not looking to do that
10 part of the house, that is going to even the two
houses . It' s going to be a foot higher when it' s
11 done .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What are we
12 going to do with the water runoff from these
rather steep roofs?
13 MR. MELNICK: . We' re going to put -- we' ll
put that on the survey -- dry wells and put
14 gutters .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have soil
15 established enough to take that retainance; it' s
relatively sandy underneath?
16 MR. MELNICK: Yes . And it' s all city
water. When they did the city water there, they
17 actually had to brace it because it was all
sand.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then the dry wells
should really be as close to the back end of your
19 house as possible .
MR. MELNICK: I believe the surveyor made
20 reference to the architect .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the
21 questions that was not asked, and I 'm not playing
devil' s advocate here, this is a decision that I
22 have to write for the Board to make a
determination, is there any particular reason why
23 you chose to take the entire existing front
portion of this house -- when I say front, I 'm
24 talking about toward the water -- and you do not
choose to do a total fill in and maybe cut into
25 that roof a little bit? In other words, you' re
actually taking something and you' re severing it
November 30 , 2006
22
1
2 . and you' re bringing it up another story.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it' s a half
3 story.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, it' s a
4 half story but it' s not usable now?
MR. MELNICK: It is usable, you just have
5 to be very short to use it . And I mean, there' s
bedrooms up there, all we' re doing is making --
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you don' t hit your
head.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' re creating a
code compliant ceiling interior.
8 MR. MELNICK: So we don' t bang our heads
on the ceiling.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I wouldn' t have
any objection but it' s within 29 feet of the
10 water.
. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But it' s existing how
11 many years?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not going to
12 have any visual impact greater than what' s there .
It' s going to give them livable space on the
13 inside in a more generous way.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on. They' re
14 taking what they have, a bedroom in this location,
what' s to prevent them from just taking that
15 bedroom and raising it up and putting another
bedroom right underneath it? And that' s what it
16 looks like this house is going to be .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don' t understand
17 what you' re saying.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re used to
18 ducking your head and doing your living in that
area right now, and it looks to me like you' re
19 just taking that roof and adding another eight
feet underneath it .
20 MR. MELNICK: The reason the roof is going
the same is we want to keep the look of the house
21 the same .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s fine .
22 MR. MELNICK: That' s the only reason that
is going to be that way. That area is going to be
23 used for more of the staircase going up, we' re
going to make a drop-down staircase there .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a connected
ridge, that' s all .
25 MR. MELNICK: We don' t want to change the
overall look of the house, that' s why we bought
November 30 , 2006
23
1
2 the house .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just need you
3 to supply us, Mr. Melnick, with the existing
height, what it would be and the present height .
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have it here, 18
feet and 26 feet .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s 18 feet now
and then it' s going to be 26 feet ; is that to the
6 ridge?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s to the ridge
7 according to this plan.
MR. MELNICK: On the architect' s drawing
8 that you have, he did the average grade
calculation.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you please
do me a favor, check that and make sure that' s all
10 correct so when we' re dealing with this on the
14th I have the best possible figures so that
11 there are no change in those figures because they
will be .couched within this decision.
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They' re all here .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay?
13 MR. MELNICK: Okay. We' re not looking to
change anything from these drawings .
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' ll say no access
to the attic .
15 MR. MELNICK: Other than this drop-down
staircase .
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' ll say that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
17 audience that wishes to comment on this
application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
18 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
19 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
20 Michael Flynn on Soundview Avenue in
Southold. Mr. Flynn, how are you today? What can
21 we do for you?
MR. FLYNN: I would like to put an
22 extension on my house . It' s a small ranch. The
original house was on a large piece of property.
23 It was divided up ' 25 , I took possession of it in
1976 , they divided up the properties . The house
24 is now between 11 and 10 feet from the property
lines, I ' d like to put the extension on the back
25 of the house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re keeping
November 30 , 2006
24
1
2 basically the same, a little bit, eight inches
more . I don' t have a problem. Michael?
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No problems .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No problems .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience
6 wishes to comment on this application? If not,
I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
7 reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
8 MR. FLYNN: On the mailings, I sent out
six, I only got three cards back, one is from my
9 neighbor across the street, who is a seasonal
person and I sent it to their address in Brooklyn.
10 The other one is my neighbor and I have no idea.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: . Okay.
11 - ------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the
12 Omans . Who is here to represent them?
MR. LARK: Richard Lark.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Lark?
MR. LARK: Richard lark, Main Road
14 Cutchogue, New York, for the applicants . To start
with, I ' ll hand up the affidavits of signed
15 postings .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank you.
16 MR. LARK: The applicants, Henry and
Christina Oman, as well as their daughter Carol,
17 which is the purpose of this hearing, are present
and so if the Board later on has any questions,
18 they' re available here to answer them.
The applicant is requesting an area
19 variance in order to divide their property into
two lots . Proposed Lot 1 will contain as it does
20 today, the applicant' s house with no changes .
Proposed Lot 2 will be gifted to the applicant ' s
21 daughter Carol so she can build a house for
herself . And the proposed building envelope is
22 more or less supported by the Planning Board you
have in front of you as part of their
23 application.
Before we get started, I need to give you
24 two updates for the record when we started -- and
the building inspector quoted the reason for the
25 variance was Article 3 , 100-32 , that' s been
changed to Article 3 , 280 Section 14, but there' s
November 30 , 2006
25
1
2 been no change in the content because it refers to
the bulk schedule as affects this application.
3 Also, since the application there' s been another
change in the community, the Suffolk County Water
4 Authority has put down a water line running the
length of the Main Road all the way up to Bridge
5 Lane connecting up on the dual highway, Route 48 .
So there is now public water accessible to this
6 lot . The reason I mention that is if it is
approved and the Planning Board subdivision is
7 approved, there will be no difficulty with the
health department in obtaining building
8 permits . So those are the two basic changes .
The applicants prior to the commencement
9 of this process did go to the Planning Board to
discuss the subdivision of the lot and the reasons
10 for it . Originally, the applicants had submitted
to the Planning Board what we recall as a flag
11 lot, but the Planning Board came back with the
application as it' s before you, as they felt that
12 a more traditional type of lot split or
subdivision would be more in conformity with this
13 rural neighbor on Bridge Lane . And they felt it
would be more fitting and in fact recently the
14 Planning Board had written you a lengthy letter on
October 26th explaining their position, which is
15 in support of this application. My only comment
in bringing it up is that when I go to the
16 property as I have many types, it' s my feeling
that the proposed building envelope on proposed
17 Lot 2 could be set back maybe another 15 or 20
feet to the east . I think that would be more
18 conforming especially when you look at the aerials
and can see the irregularities of the front yard
19 setback of all the homes that were built there on
Bridge Lane . They all vary a little bit and it
20 would not be inconsistent with this
neighborhood.
21 As stated previously, this application
here is to go forward with the Planning Board, the
22 Planning Board set out three area variance, the
first one is size, the relation in this
23 neighborhood is 80 , 000 square feet, and when I
show you the subdivision map., just about every lot
24 on Bridge Lane, at least 90 percent of them are
all nonconforming lots . But be that as it may,
25 the zoning requirement is 80 , 000 . Lot 1 will be
40 , 002 square feet, and Lot 2 will be 31, 314 . The
November 30 , 2006
26
1
2 other requirement in the zoning is 175 feet of lot
width, Lot 1 will be 140 and Lot 2 is proposed to
3 be 90 and the other variance is that the proposed
Lot 1, would be side yards presently and the
4 zoning district is 20 feet on one side totaling
45 . Lot 1 has 30 feet on one side but proposed to
5 be 16 , which is a four foot variance but it still
would have 46 feet total side yards . Lot 2 would
6 conform with 25 on one side and 35 on the other.
To issue the area variance, the Board has
7 to consider the five mandatory factors as set
forth in the state statute . However, in applying
8 the factors the Board has to gauge in the
balancing test, which, of course, as the Board is
9 aware is the benefit to the applicant, versus any
detriment to the neighborhood. And I submit to
10 you that when you go to the property and you look
at the overall situation, that this is a rural
11 environment, a rural residential environment that
we' re dealing with here, and applying the five
12 factors, I believe the Board can find that there
is no detriment to the health, safety and welfare
13 to this neighborhood by adding this one house,
which would be the net effect of granting the
14 application and getting the subdivision from the
Planning Board.
15 If the variance is granted, then the
applicant' s benefit is they get their
16 long-standing wish being able to gift the property
to their daughter so she can build a house . The
17 other benefit is the daughter will be able to
remain in town in her own house, which as we know
18 due to the inflationary nature and everything else
for a young person it' s very difficult to own and
19 build a lot here under the present situation.
I gave in the application because it came
20 up in the application process, three affidavits
which set forth the history of the property,
21 unless the Board has some questions on that, I
won' t dwell on that as part of this application
22 this morning. I think they' re pretty thorough in
explaining what the situation is there today and
23 how we got there since the late 1960s .
On the five factors, just briefly
24 commenting, the undesirable change to the
neighborhood, I believe a visit to the property
25 will speak for itself . You have a mini version of
all the properties along the easterly side of
November 30 , 2006
27
1
2 Bridge Lane that -- and I think this is probably
the reason why the Planning Board, you have the
3 smaller version of Ismar Acres . The point is
south of the railroad tracks as the Planning Board
4 pointed out, why they wanted the subdivision done
this way this is in conformity with all the lots
5 pretty much with the relative size and the
dimensions, the rectangular shapes of them
6 all . They basically run from the railroad south
41 to 42 , 000 square feet, and they_all have a lot
7 width of 130 to 135 . So that puts this thing
pretty much in harmony, and that' s what I think
8 the Planning Board was trying to look for was
creating a harmony with this application.
9 The second factor, the benefit sought
could be achieved by another manner. To achieve a
10 subdivision on the property, we would have to have
the variances, otherwise the Planning Board can' t
11 proceed because the Planning Board' s perception,
this Board, with the zoning what it is and R80 ,
12 can legalize the property so that they can proceed
with the application. Is the application as
13 requested for a variance before you substantial?
Conceded, if you consider them in a vacuum it is
14 in relationship to the deviation of the R80
requirements in the bulk schedule . There' s no
15 question about that . But when you apply the
balancing test and consider how it would fit into
16 the neighborhood because the neighborhood in and
of itself is basically nonconforming, and I have
17 here to show -- you have it but it' s not in
color -- we' re existing Lot 5 (indicating) . You
18 can take that lot in that area when you stack up
with all the- lots on the easterly side of the
19 road, this thing fits right in so it' s not
substantial when you do it in relationship to the
20 whole neighborhood. And the reason for that is
obviously the neighborhood is basically
21 nonconforming except for the farm field on either
side on both sides of the road, both behind this
22 property where, the development rights have been
sold and across the way where the vineyards are,
23 those development rights have been sold, and that
was a factor I think the Planning Board was
24 considering; there' s not going to be any
substantial development there of new homes of any
25 kind except for the one or two vacant lots that
remain. So the creation of this one, they felt
November 30 , 2006
28
1
2 with this one they felt with the next factor would
not have any adverse effect on the physical or
3 environmental conditions of the neighborhood, and
the pluses I added, now we have public water.
4 The last factor, was it self-created. The
answer is obviously yes, because they waited too
5 long. If they had initially after they built
their home had gone for the subdivision, we
6 wouldn' t be here . Now, the only opposition that
was submitted was the letter from the neighbor to
7 the east, Bedell, and it' s unfortunate that
they' re not here today because when I read this
8 letter and when I went back and revisited the
property and stood on the rear line at the
9 property line, I had tremendous difficulty in even
seeing their winery complex with their fancy deck
10 and their fancy tasting room and everything. The
main reason is not the interference of the grape
11 vine, it was the topography. I found myself some
10 to 12 feet lower than they are and even if you
12 had a Hubble telescope, they could not see this
property from the tasting room or the deck or
13 anything. So I find this letter highly
disingenuous . It was just interesting to me to
14 note that here they are on agricultural land with
a commercial venture and they' re objecting to
15 something of a residential quality next door, and
I submit that that letter is disingenuous and
16 probably should be disregarded overall .
I won' t take any more time but in summary,
17 when you put the five factors and put the
balancing test to it, I respectfully request that
18 the Board could, without any difficulty, grant the
variance . Now, if you have any questions of
19 Mr. and Mrs . Oman or myself, feel free to ask. .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have several
questions . First of all, it may be that starting
21 with the Bedell letter going backwards to forward,
it may be disingenous to talk about the view from
22 their place, but it' s also disingenous to suggest
that there' s something irregular about them having
23 a tasting room in a commercial area since that is
a legitimate well-established use of a vineyard.
24 As you know, it' s well established. But more
important than that, I 'm concerned about what may
25 be a bit disingenous to keep referring to the
neighborhood, whereas in fact, as I understand
November 30 , 2006
29
1
2 this, you' re really talking about one corner of
the neighborhood, namely the part to the north,
3 but not to the south, which is two acre zoning and
maintaining that which was not part of the
4 subdivision, not to mention what' s on the other
side of the road. So what I see here the
5 neighborhood argument, which is not your only
argument, does depend on comparison with the
6 houses that were in the approved subdivision,
which the Omans might very well try to join early
7 on. But in effect it looks as though it' s a
changing of the original zoning line which
8 occurred, which that subdivision was granted,
namely on the south part it' s two acre zoning,
9 including the Oman' s house and in the north it' s
one acre zoning not including the Oman' s
10 house . So what I think you' re asking for is if
only that zoning line had been drawn two acres to
11 the south then the. Omans would not really have a
problem. But there is one more problem and that
12 is the house just to the south of the Omans is
very much like theirs, it' s one house on what is
13 nearly two acres . And what is to stop them from
then deciding that they want to subdivide their
14 property so they can put yet another house on the
east side of Ridge Lane? It looks as though we' re
15 going on kind of a slippery slope toward undoing
the R80 zoning and turning it into de facto R40
16 zoning.
MR. LARK: To answer your question, I
17 can' t speak for the neighbor to the south, but the
zoning, when the Ismar Acres was granted, it was
18 all R40 over there and the zoning went in later,
therefore creating the nonconformity. As to the
19 property across the street to the west, that' s
part of the Pugliese situation over there and all
20 the development rights have been sold. So there' s
going to be no further development on the westerly
21 side, basically from the Main Road all the way to
the railroad tracks . Of course there is a
22 residential component north of the railroad
tracks, but south of the railroad tracks that
23 cannot be developed as well as to the east . So
what happened is the zoning, when they went to
24 R80 , they did a blanket of the whole area and just
incorporated everything from basically from the
25 dual highway all the way to the main road. So
that explains that . As to the question to the
November 30, 2006
30
1
2 neighbor to the south, I have no comment on
that .
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . But the R80
when the upzoning to R80 occurred, the previously
4 approved subdivision was essentially carved out of
that .
5 MR. LARK: No, it' s not that subdivision
is R80 as we speak.
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Was it approved as a
subdivision after it was R80?
7 MR. LARK: Before the zoning was upgraded.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Exactly what I 'm
8 saying, it may be R80, but it' s nonconforming and
. they might as well have said that' s R40 . They
9 could have called it R20 if they wanted to or R200
because they were not going to interfere with this
10 subdivision, which is essentially grandfathered
with the reestablishment of the zoning law, okay,
11 fine .
. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions?
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Lark, it' s
my understanding that both the properties
13 surrounding this, not to be redundant, is all
involved in the development rights?
14 MR. LARK: Yes, both on the east, the rear
yard, as well as across the street to the west ,
15 all the development rights have been sold.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Including the
16 piece that' s just southeast of this?
MR. LARK: Yes .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And across the street
here?
18 MR. LARK: Yes, definitely across the
street .
19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Mr. Lark, the
number on here, this number 5, is that a county
20 tax map number?
MR. LARK: I believe it is . To answer
21 your question, yes, it is .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, it' s number
22 five shown as 1 . 6 acres .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIcVA: Leslie?
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no
questions .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I did already.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have a
November 30 , 2006
31
1
2 question. I just read Chris DeGregorio' s sworn
statement here . It looks to me like they created
3 two lots there . There was an intention at one
point to make three, but they never did.
4 MR. LARK: Going back when I did the
history on it, which you have those affidavits, it
5 was proposed at three lots but the seller wouldn' t
do anything, you had to buy it as-is . So
6 Mr. DeGregorio and Mr. Oman, who is also here,
bought it and rather than go for the expense of
7 the subdivision to do it in three lots .
Mr. Terry, which was his power at the time, said
8 you can cut it in half and I will give you
building permits on either because it conforms
9 with the zoning, and you' re larger than the
existing zoning, and your proposed house conforms
10 to the zoning. That' s how the building inspector
did it in those days . They did not require to
11 come back. Technically speaking, if you read the
law, even then as it is now, you have to go to the
12 Planning Board. You wouldn' t go to the Board of
Appeals, of course, but you would go to the
13 Planning Board to get a subdivision. Things were
a little simpler in those days . Late ' 60s, early
14 ' 70s .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . But I mean,
15 in any case if they had three lots at that time,
it would have been conforming.
16 MR. LARK: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They decided for
17 whatever reason not to.
MR. LARK: Expense, money.
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Separate deeds for
two lots but never separate deeds for three lots?
19 MR. LARK: That' s correct, that' s what
happens .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In reference to the
letter from Bedell, he' s talking about screening,
21 and I couldn' t make heads or tails whether or not
that screening was on his property or the
22 applicant' s property.
MR. LARK: The irony is you stand on this
23 property at the property line, you can' t see it .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But I mean the
24 screening that he' s talking about that he didn' t
want these trees taken down.
25 MR. LARK: They' re on our property.
They' re all cherry trees . A lot of them have been
November 30 , 2006
32
1
2 choked out with the vines and everything in the
back if you go back there, but probably should be
3 cleaned up a little bit . But those trees are on
our property that was a potato farm before it was
4 a vineyard and that was the property line and the
trees just grew up there .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Because I got from
the letter that he was maintaining a buffer
6 between the residence .
MR. LARK: No, no, no, not at all .
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: . And you were going
to tear it down.
8 MR. LARK: Not the case, that' s why it' s
disingenuous . That is not the case .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you did say at the
back end of Mr. Oman' s property there is like a
10 drop off, the elevation drops off .
MR. LARK: Yes, ma' am.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: About how far, three
feet, six feet?
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not six.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Three?
13 MR. LARK: There is a dip there, and if
you notice that' s not farm; that' s where he has
14 his irrigation well and stuff like that,
traditionally when the potatoes were there because
15 it' s a little different land there .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else on the
16 Board have any questions? Does anybody in the
audience wish to speak on this application? Yes,
17 ma' am?
MS . PETER: Good morning, I'm the Oman' s
18 neighbor to the south, I'm that other piece of
property that was never subdivided. I have no
19 objection to what the Omans are requesting. I do,
however, find it difficult to understand Bedell
20 rejecting. Because they recently put on a big
extension, and no one in the neighborhood had any
21 objection to it . We welcome them, they keep their
property beautiful, but they also have parties on
22 Saturday nights, the music is relatively loud.
It' s wonderful, it' s a commercial-type
23 establishment, but we live in a residential area,
and I think we would like the same consideration
24 that we give them.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Could we have your
25 name for the record, please, ma' am?
MS . PETER: Patricia Peter.
November 30 , 2006
33
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much.
Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on this
3 application?
MS . OMAN: My name is Carol Oman, I 'm the
4 daughter. Just for the record, obviously it' s
hard to afford land in Southold town, and I have
5 applied for the affordable housing but was just
over the limit as far as income . So having no
6 other options, we' re requesting this .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, anybody
7 else?
MS . OMAN: I'm Christina Oman. The only
8 thing that I would ask as a mother, her father and
I would ask that you find favorably in this
9 because it' s our daughter and her future, and we
have two .children who live in the area, and we
10 would like to stay here, and this is, the only way
she can do it . It' s just too expensive and we had
11 the property years ago and never anticipated any
of this . And we just hope that this goes through.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much.
MS . OMAN: Thank you.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there are no other
questions from the audience, I' ll make a motion to
14 close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
15 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the
Rozenbaums for the farm stand in East
17 Marion. Miss Wickham.
MS . WICKHAM': Abigail Wickham, good
18 afternoon. I am here on behalf of the Rozenbaums
in connection with their application for a farm
19 stand on the Main Road in East Marion.
I have a lot of material to cover. I
20 would first like to give you, however, a brief
overview of the farming operation that this farm
21 stand is intended to support . The lavendar farm
has been in existence for about 15 years . At this
22 point, they have six acres out of the 17 in
production. They are planning on adding two acres
23 next year, and there would be an anticipation of a
gradual expansion of that over the years to come
24 in the lavendar production.
One of the interesting things about this
25 operation is that there are no pesticides, there
is no spraying, which is a very unique thing in
November 30 , 2006
34
1
�2 the farming business, and a very beneficial thing
in the farming business . Further, there is
3 virtually no farming equipment utilized in this
agricultural production. You don' t have tractors
4 and noisy machinery operating at all hours of the
day. So that is also a very important aspect,
5 when you have a small farm in a residential
neighborhood.
6 The basic operation -- as you know,
farming out here is extremely difficult, and a
7 small farm of this nature which was preserved as
part of a residential district really has to find
8 a niche in order to be commercially successful,
and this niche is something that they have found
9 that will work very well, and it needs a farm
stand outlet to enable them to take advantage of
10 their retail sales of produce from the farm. The
reason for that is that basically their season is
11 extremely short . Their wholesale season is pretty
much 30 days from the late June, beginning July to
12 the end of July, that' s when the fresh lavendar is
in full production, and is harvested in order to
13 be able to sustain a wholesale trade . Thirty days
is a very short season for any business .
14 Their primary retail business is also July
and to some extent August, where they have
15 sufficient crops and customers in order to be able
to sustain a fairly active operation. Their
16 season begins in May, very, very, slowly, picks up
slightly in June, until the last weekend in June,
17 and then July is their main season. August is
closed down a bit, but it is still fairly active .
18 September slows down and by October, even November
they can stretch it fine but it' s very, very
19 mild. So it' s pretty much impossible to operate a
business on a 30 to 60 day year, and the proposed
20 farm stand will help them extend that and make
their farming operation considerably easier as
21 I ' ll explain in a minute .
I think in order to prove their case, I
22 have to first of all dispel some misperception
about this operation. One of them is that this is
23 not going to be a farm stand, it' s going to be a
gift shop, and I think that' s based on the design
24 that was given to the Town. It looks like a fancy
little gift shop, however, the reason it was
25 designed as an attractive structure is two basic
reasons . Number one is in consideration of the
November 30 , 2006
35
1
2 residential community primarily, the Gardiner' s
Bay Estates subdivision, they did want to design
3 it so that at that entryway to their subdivision
on Cedar Lane, it would be an attractive building
4 and we actually have a letter, which I believe you
have in your file from the president of that
5 association indicating that is the type of design
that they would feel would be appropriate to their
6 neighborhood. The second thing is -- and this is
extremely important and I have also given you
7 literature on that -- is that lavendar sales as a
niche farming operation has a very particular look
8 to it . It' s kind of a cottagey appearance that
customers who are specifically interested in that
9 business like to see are accustomed to seeing.
You will see it throughout the county where
10 there' s a lavendar farm have a cottagey-type set
up, and that' s why it was designed that way. And
11 I don' t see anything in the code that specifically
says how a farm stand is supposed to look. It
12 doesn' t say it has to be attractive or
unattractive . It has to have certain criteria
13 that are very specific and that' s why we' re here .
So the question is, is this a farm stand.
14 There are two code sections that we have
to look at . The first is 100-13 of the Town Code
15 which defines a farm stand, the sole purpose is
that it must be for retail sale of produce grown
16 by the owner of the property on a Southold town
farm. This is in fact grown on the same farm,
17 it' s not elsewhere in Southold town. The
Rozenbaums are here today. I had them bring up a
18 sampling of the products that they do sell . Right
now as you know they' re in a tent for a couple of
19 months; it' s very difficult . This is all produce
that is grown on the farm. It' s specifically
20 includes, which they didn' t bring, 15 varieties of
potted lavendar plants . I didn' t have them dig
21 them out of the ground today, but they do actually
sell actual lavendar plants . In June through
22 August, primarily, as I said July, but late June,
heavily in July and a slightly smaller, secondary
23 bloom in August, they have fresh cut lavendar,
which is in particular, you can buy by the pound
24 or smaller containers . They also sell dried
lavendar bunches, which are there on the
25 table . Handmade lavendar sachets that are made by
them, those are on the tray there; handmade
November 30 , 2006
36
1
2 lavendar wands, she tells me they' re little basket
things that are made with the lavendar plants .
3 Handmade lavendar soap, and oil, which is from the
presses, and this is all within the definition of
4 farm products and the code in the ag and markets .
They also sell bottled honey from the bee hives on
5 their fields . So the bees from their fields
that' s agriculture production, and also bees wax
6 from the bee hives, also located on the farm. So,
as you can see, that' s a fairly broad range of
7 products, and they don' t need in order to sustain
themselves to get into the knickknacks and the
8 glass wear, and the t-shirts, and the cameras and
all that stuff that gift shops need to sell . They
9 have a very broad attractive range of products
right off the farm that their clientele is looking
10 for, and that they can sell there . That' s what a
farm stand is; that' s what they' re intending to
11 use it for. And that' s what they' re intending to
use it for.
12 I will say if there' s any concern on the
part of anyone that that building go beyond that
13 use that' s an enforcement issue . You have got a
lot of people down there that are going to be
14 keeping an eye on them, and I 'm sure that they
will be very interested if someone decides to
15 expand beyond what is allowed. So the use is
appropriate .
16 Another requirement is that the building
be one story or less -- it is . It may be roofed,
17 but it must be less than 1, 000 square feet and it
is . This particular building is actually less
18 than 700 square feet . The footprint is I believe
980 square feet and that is because there is a
19 porch that again is intended to convey that
cottagey look but the actual interior space is
20 less than 700 square feet . It is not insulated,
and it is not going to have any mechanical heating
21 and cooling, another requirement .
The question that we must simply look at
22 today is whether it is open to the weather on at
least one side . Originally, as you know, it was
23 designed to have French doors on three sides and
it was designed to be insulated and that was in
24 order to not heat it but to keep the building
warmer for those May and October days, that has
25 been eliminated. There will be no insulation,
and we have eliminated the French doors on the
November 30 , 2006
37
1
2 north and south sides and proposed garage doors,
which would be open during the open hours of the
3 business . So they are completely open on two
sides . If the weather is inclement, they can
4 close one of those sides depending on whether the
storm is coming from the south or the north, but
5 the other side can remain open away from the
direction of the wind.
6 When the ZBA first got this application
and this was prior to the imposition of the garage
7 doors, I received a memo from you in August of 105
that said, please furnish the following
8 information: "Overhead doors on one side of the
structure if only a farm stand is proposed. " So I
9 think it was the intention that that would
constitute a farm stand. Unfortunately, for some
10 reason I'm not clear on, the zoning department has
issued in its approval of that it says, "The
11 garage door aspect does not constitute open on one
side . " And I am very confused by that for a
12 couple of reasons . Number one, we have a number
of farm stands in Southold town that have exactly
13 that configuration. The ones I can think of off
the top of my head are Wickham' s Group Farm on the
14 Main Road in Cutchogue . Krupski' s farm stand on
the Main Road in Peconic; Wisznofski' s farm stand
15 up on Route 48 in Peconic, and most. particularly
the one that we see very recently opened the
16 building department is the Krup farm stand
in Peconic, which has a CO updated October 105,
17 which was right around this whole time this
discussion was occurring, and it contains garage
18 doors on the north side, and while there are two
garage doors, they are configured so that only one
19 can be opened at a time .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where is this?
20 MS . WICKHAM: On the south side of Route
, 48 .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, I think I
know. Right .
22 MS . WICKHAM: So I think it' s pretty clear
that the intention of a farm stand law, the farm
23 stands law is that a garage door that opens on one
side of the building should be sufficient .
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: May I ask a question
at this point?
25 MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there access to
November 30 , 2006
38
1
2 the farm stand when the garage doors are both
closed?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there another door
that customers would be using?
4 MS . WICKHAM: They proposed the French
doors .
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No, at the moment ; in
other words, can the farm stand be open when the
6 garage doors are closed?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes, on the farm stand?
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No, on this one?
8 MS . WICKHAM: On this one also, yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There is another
9 entrance?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes, and again that was part
10 of the original French door design, which would
now be only on the --
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One can certainly
12 argue that these are garage doors, but they
typically look more like barn doors because they
13 slide horizontally rather than being overhead.
But there are plenty of examples of windowed areas
14 with pull-down shutters . I don' t think the issue
is so much the design.
15 MS . WICKHAM: All the farm stands I
mentioned have other doors . All of. the farm
16 stands other than that one I mentioned have
overhead garage' doors .
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Let me clarify my
question. Would it be reasonable that they would
18 be conducting business with the farm stand open
while all those garage doors were closed, or would
19 they depend on having at least one of those doors
open as access for customers?
20 MS . WICKHAM: Well, they would want them
open for two reasons . Number one, they face the
. 21 parking lot, people driving along the Main Road
would be able to see it, see what was in there,
22 get right in, and then if they walked in, the
north door being open so they can see the farm.
23 Because when that thing blooms it' s very
dramatic .
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My suggestion is that
behind the rule of having at least one side open
25 is that that would be the way people got into the
stand, and so in other words, the fact that the
November 30 , 2006
39
1
2 garage doors are ordinarily open as a way that
people come in, just as in Wickham' s farm stand,
3 suggests that it probably is not correctly
characterized merely as a closed side of a
4 building but as a side which is primarily open
except when the farm stand is closed.
5 MS . WICKHAM: The side where the garage
doors would be would be the ones where the parking
6 area is .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . I 'm trying to
7 think of a way of how to interpret this in a way
other than the way the building department has .
8 It' s not a wall because in fact it' s a primary
entranceway, and only incidentally is it a garage
9 door, and only then when the farm stand is closed.
And I think that' s the point that intrigues me as
10 a matter of this interpretation that you raised.
MS . WICKHAM: And the, only reason that it
11 is not completely open all the way is because you
need some wall space or utility. If I could
12 continue .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Please .
13 MS . WICKHAM: The need for a farm stand on
this property is, as I mentioned, in order to
14 enable them to operate their farm on the location,
now they' re operating from a tent which beyond the
15 weather problem and beyond the hours that they can
be open has a number of other implications .
16 There' s absolutely no security. They can' t lock
it up at night . So what they' re doing is they' re
17 basically packing up all their stuff from their
home in Southold every morning, bringing it .down
18 there, unpacking it and then at night, packing it
up and taking it home, and that' s just crazy. You
19 can' t run a farm that way. Everyone knows that
farming is a dawn to dusk operation anyway. They
20 don' t have any space in the tent for drying their
lavendar or making their honey, which would be
21 conducted in the basement . There is no bathroom
for their employee, there is a bathroom proposed
22 here for employee only. Again that' s an
enforcement and you can make that a condition.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where will the bathroom
be located?
24 MS . WICKHAM: It will be in the
basement .
25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s strictly a
sink and toilet as drawn anyway.
November 30 , 2006
40
1
2 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, half bath. There' s no
shower. Right now without electric, without phone
3 you have -- you can' t have credit cards, a real
cash register, lighting when the hours change, so
4 it' s been very, very difficult for them to operate
under these conditions .
5 Also, I think it' s important to understand
that the Planning Board, had they reviewed this
6 subdivision, and when it was sponsored by the
Peconic Land Trust in order to get this large
7 amount of acreage preserved under the county farm
land program. . They clearly set this parcel out as
8 a farm parcel . The filed map designates it as a
building area. The letter from the Peconic Land
9 Trust which you have indicates that this portion
was held out specifically for a farm stand. And
10 this parcel where the building area would be is
noted on the filed map, and it is also noted that
11 it can never be separated from the farm. It
always has to be together, so there' s no way it
12 can be subdivided out or used outside of the
farming operation.
13 One of the big concerns that I know the
Board has and I know the neighborhood has is
14 obviously parking and traffic . We have first of
all, on the map, proposed eight spaces . What will
15 happen here is if this Board approves the
application it has to go to the Planning Board
16 either under Article 47, which governs farm stands
to review parking, or if there is some mechanism
17 for which they have to go to site plan approval,
we would be prepared to do that, but we have been
18 to the Planning Board work session twice with this
proposal, they don' t have a formal application
19 because we don' t know under which provision it
would go, but there was no major comment or
20 problem about it . We have written to and received
approval from the Suffolk County Farmland
21 Commission to add if necessary five spaces for
parking on the farmland portion if it' s required
22 by the Planning Board. It would have to be an
impervious surface, we would obviously not want
23 farmland taken up by parking, but it' s there if.
the Planning Board rules that it' s necessary.
24 There has been a lot of concern about the
traffic itself . We know that most of the traffic
25 is caused by factors other than this particular
farm stand. It' s caused by the ferry, it' s caused
November 30 , 2006
41
1
2 by the day traffic, it' s caused by all the houses
in the neighborhood, visitors, Krups farm stand
3 across the street, a whole lot of uses, and I
don' t think it' s fair to say just because this may
4 have a few cars that you can' t do it because
there' s .already too much traffic in the area. I
5 will go through with you briefly what we expect
the traffic to be based on what has happened. But
6 primarily they have found that the traffic here is
primarily eastbound, people that visit their shop
7 primarily come eastbound. They' re coming from
Greenport or they' re coming out from the city, and
8 they' re continuing along their way along the north
fork. They' re going to the ferry, a lot of people
9 do stop on the way to the ferry in order to visit
this shop and what they do then they will be
10 turning a right-hand turn into the shop and then
they will be making a right-hand turn out . They
11 won' t have to deal with turning left across the
incoming traffic that is westbound. Mr. Rozenbaum
12 recalls only one accident in the past few years
that he has been here . If there are other
13 accidents that were mentioned by the neighbors in
their correspondence, they were I believe further
14 down the street or not related to this particular
immediate area.
15 In terms of the actual parking, this is
based on their history of having been there
16 several years, the maximum number of cars at one
time, they find -- I'm going to go month by
17 month -- in May very low volume, during the
weekdays maybe one or two cars at a time, weekend
18 two or three cars at a time max; Memorial Day they
may have four or five cars that' s the maximum at
19 any one time . In June it' s basically the same as
May although the last weekend in June it does pick
20 up again weather dependent because the fresh
lavendar is coming into bloom. There they may
21 have five to six cars max at any one time . In
July they have a peak season, their weekday car
22 max will probably be about three on weekends, five
maybe seven, and on Fourth of ' July they can have
23 anywhere from six to eight cars at a time and he
did say that that area is full . I would comment
24 that if every single business in Southold town has
to have adequate parking for Fourth of July cars,
25 we would be one parking lot . I mean, that' s just
a fact that you have got to get by that day.
November 30 , 2006
42
1
2 August again, the volume drops back down to more
like a June type of volume and in September more
3 like a May volume, so it' s just that one
particular season.
4 I stress before I stop the fact that
Gardiner' s Bay did at the hearing on the
5 subdivision oppose the access being off Cedar
Lane, and for that reason a private drive was
6 created at the subdivision. I don' t think it' s
fair now that they say they don' t want the traffic
7 at all, and if they don' t want it on their
property it' s got to be on the private road. I do
8 want to address the front yard setback issues
because that is one of the major aspects of this
9 variance and we are actually asking two front yard
setbacks . One is rather a technical one I think,
10 the Cedar Lane side . Again, the Planning Board
has required and the Rozenbaums understand and are
11 guided by the fact that access from the farm stand
will not be on Cedar Lane . So that is really a
12 technical variance . I'm a little embarrassed that
it was the Planning Board that pointed out that
13 the zoning is not a C but R40 . I took it right
off the notice of disapproval is AC, but that
14 means that our front yard setback should be 50
feet, and we are under that, but again on the
15 Cedar Lane side, you have an attractive building.
Yes, it' s close to the road, but it is attractive,
16 it' s a separate entrance as required by the
Gardiner' s Bay subdivision and beyond that, while
17 you will have the building up close to Cedar Lane
in the front, you have this huge undeveloped
18 frontage which will have no buildings at all going
back along the farm. So I think when you do your
19 balancing that is certainly a benefit to the
applicant as opposed to a detriment to the
20 neighborhood. The insufficient front yard on the
other side, which is on the private road is a
21 front yard insufficiency as their private, own
usage . It' s only for the private stand and those
22 two homes on the side that will be affected, the
homes in the back. This is not a visability
23 problem because you' re not going to have a large
number of homeowners going back. Also there are
24 adjoining properties along the Main Road there
that have very narrow frontages and really are
25 similarly situated in terms of the narrowness of
that particular lot configuration. The Main Road
November 30 , 2006
43
1
2 setback I think is important ; that far exceeds the
requirement of the front yard setback, that will
3 not be a variance .
The configuration of the property includes
4 the use of that portion of the property in any
conforming way, so the applicant really has no
5 choice but to request the variances in order to
get to use that property at all, and access,
6 whether you locate it on the ° farm, would be the
same if you put up a basically small farm
7 building. Any traffic that' s going to come in for
that farm is going to come out there .
8 We would appreciate, if you have any
comments on the design or the method of which the
9 building is configured, we would be happy to
accept them, but we would like to ask that you
10 balance the fact that they can have a farm stand,
which was understood when the property was divided
11 and the development rights sold they basically
can' t operate their farm, so we' re outweighing
12 that detriment as opposed to the neighborhood
detriment which ended up with 12 to 13 acres of
13 preserved land and really a beautiful, beautiful
setting which they can drive through on Cedar
14 Lane .
I would be glad to answer any questions
15 that you might have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On your right of way,
16 it says proposed right of way, but distance is a
10 foot drive by the stand.
17 MS . WICKHAM: Talking about the setback?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, talking about the
18 right of way.
MS . WICKHAM: The right of way width is --
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is 10 foot by the
stand.
20 MS . WICKHAM: Is 25 feet . Again, I think
the Planning Board in its review will have --
21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What is the answer
on that?
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: . 10 foot .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : 10 foot for the
23 traffic lane and 25 feet for the easement?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How will that right
of way be used other than for access to parking
25 spaces? I see it continues around, swings around
the edge of the properties that front Main Road,
November 30 , 2006
44
1
2 residential properties.
MS . WICKHAM: There are two residential
3 lots that will be served by that particular
driveway as well . One is Lot 1 and the other is
4 another lot that was sold separately. With the
assistance of our supervisor, the Rozenbaums have
5 requested that this property be put in an
agricultural district, and they have requested
6 that the whole property including those two
residential lots be included.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right now I see
that it' s used for parking essentially, there' s a
8 stockade fence, and there' s signs .that say
parking, parking, parking along the back side of
9 that fence . There is no right of way, there's
just property.
10 MS . WICKHAM: There' s a right of way that
goes to those houses .
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right . I 'm just
wondering whether there' s equipment going to be
12 driven back and forth, whether irrigation is going
to be brought in through that right of way.
13 MS . WICKHAM: There' s a drip irrigation
system. As I mentioned, there' s not a lot of farm
14 traffic for equipment, but that is where it would
have to exit .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you have the tax
map? I don' t have the information that shows the
16 other --
MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Could you approach?
I have to write this . Oh, I've got it .
18 MS . WICKHAM: This is the farm, 28 . 6 and
28 . 5 .
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is the
residential lot for which you need the right of
20 way?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes . And this piece too,
21 this is a separate lot . This part of the farm
can' t be subdivided, this can be sold off .
22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 28 . 5 cannot be sold
off and 28 . 3 can.
23 MR. STEEL: Greg Steel . In the process of
construction, just to let you know, the reason we
24 are getting certainly worried with all the glass
doors and so on is because of all the new codes
25 and partially open structures and stuff like that
is high winds coming through will be able to hold
November 30 , 2006
45
1
2 down this building. Once the air gets inside it
has a tendency to lift up . So every time we
3 reduce, if we ever had a hurricane, farm stands
would probably be the first thing we lose in this
4 area because if they' re open, they definitely will
catch the air. So our thinking was the east
5 elevation, when we originally designed this, we
had three French doors on the side, two French on
6 the north side, and two large garage doors on the
south side, and we changed that to open two sides,
7 both north and south to keep the open feeling but
with insurance and stuff like that now, any
8 building we build we have to be able to lock it up
in order to protect it from the high winds . So
9 the big thing is locking up everything at night is
such a large task so therefore we tried to design
10 this building in order to fit into the community
and not really look like it' s -- I mean, the days
11 of a derelict looking farm stand I think would
cause more problems with neighbors than something
12 that' s clean and tidy. And a large concern is if
you put it outside on an open air place you have a
13 large chance of the air itself tossing it around.
So if there' s any questions whatever.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is
anticipated upstairs?
15 MS . WICKHAM: Probably they will hang
lavendar.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it' s a cathedral
ceiling.
17 MR. STEEL: Another thing, when you' re
selling products like this, a lot of times people
18 look at it with natural lighting, so when you
enclose the place it' s dark and you put artificial
19 light in, people looking at plants and flowers,
you' re not really seeing their correct. color
20 unless you have natural lighting, and that' s
another reason --
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The purpose for the
dormers .
22 MR. STEEL: To locate doors to let in
natural lighting.
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How are you
treating the interior walls?
24 MR. STEEL: Right now they' re just
exposed. We may end up putting a permanent roof
25 board on the inside and because when we put the
exterior siding on you' re going to have nails
November 30 , 2006
46
1
2 coming through. So more than likely we' ll do like
a wainscott just to make it safe . And just on the
3 walls have racks and shelves to display the
different types of fragrance and stuff like that .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm confused by the
whole thing, quite honestly. It' s been amended to
6 the extent that everybody' s kind of happy. It
looks to me in looking at the survey that you' ll
7 be entering this from the opposite side of the
Main Road?
8 MS . WICKHAM: There will be some parking
on the Main Road side, and which will be the south
9 side and there also will be parking on the other
side, so people could enter from either side, but
10 the object is to be able to walk in, and be able
to walk in to get into the stand through the open
11 garage doors and then look out the other way.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But the open garage
12 doors are on what side?
MS . WICKHAM: Two sides .
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The Main Road side,
MS . WI.CKHAM: And the Main Road -- and the
14 farm side, the north side .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: On the site plan
15 everything that' s dotted . is that meant to be
gravel; was that the skirt off of Cedar and the
16 Main Road that you' ll be entering, or are you
entering and exiting through the proposed right of
17 way?
MS . WICKHAM: Entering and exiting through
18 the proposed right of way; that dotting will be
landscaping, lawn area.
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you' re entering
and exiting strictly through that right of way on
20 this proposed site plan; has the Planning Board
seen this site plan?
21 MS . WICKHAM: They have .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But you have no
22 formal application?
MS . WICKHAM: We have no formal
23 application because it depends on 47, but they
have seen it . They are the ones tha.t, imposed the
24 25 foot right of way, when they did the
subdivision. They are the ones that imposed the
25 revisions on no access in and out of Cedar Lane
for the farm land.
November 30 , 2006
47
' 1
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the C and Rs on
the property are from the Planning Board?
3 MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They are part of
4 the record. Can I just ask you a question? If
you took the farm stand, you could take the farm
5 stand and just move it back to the farm and have a
farm stand.?
6 MS . WICKHAM: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
7 MS . WICKHAM: No, basically what you can
have county farm land is a very small portable
8 building that doesn' t accomplish any of these
things .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn' t do a
farm stand? You couldn' t do a one side open type
10 thing where you can sell stuff out of?
MS . WICKHAM: No, it has to be portable .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is a separate
lot; is this separate from the farm?
12 MS . WICKHAM: No, this particular piece is
an appendage of the farm where you are allowed to
13 build, you can' t build on any --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is an envelope
14 created by the Planning Board.
MS . WICKHAM: And it was specifically
15 intended when it was sold in that configuration
that this would be the building area for the farm
16 stand, through the Planning Board and the Peconic
Land Trust .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Basically the
location of this farm stand, this building is
18 predetermined as a condition of preserving the
rest of the land?
19 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . This is where they
intended to put the farm stand because it has the
20 Main Road.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, that' s all I
21 have .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Regardless of the
22 decision by this Board, this matter must appear
before the Planning Boards or not?
23 MS . WICKHAM: Chapter 47 requires that a
farm stand go to the Planning Board for parking
24 review, yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Even farm
25 buildings, farm stands?
MS . WICKHAM: Farm stands under Chapter
November 30 , 2006
48
1
2 47 .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right, I 'm just
3 verifying that we' re all on the same page as
that .
4 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Gail, was this
denied for not meeting the definition of a farm
5 stand or no?
MS . WICKHAM: It was based on the fact
6 that it wasn' t open on one side despite the fact
that there are garage doors on both sides, and it
7 was also denied for a front yard setback.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But do you
8 want to very quickly say why it was a farm stand?
MS . WICKHAM: I think I did, you were not
9 here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: She went through that
10 in great detail .
MS . WICKHAM: I' ll say it again.
11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No, that' s
okay.
12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The only thing we
didn' t talk about is the square footage of the
13 building. You said it was 720?
MS . WICKHAM: . 700 square feet of interior
14 floor space plus 220 square feet of porch for a
total footprint of 980 square feet .
15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I am sorry, the way
that the Building Department had .explained it to
16 staff, and that' s why I was confused originally
when you had designed it .
17 MS . WICKHAM: The Building Department --
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The Building
18 Department indicated that a farm stand was a
structure that would have to be maybe less than 20
19 square feet, the other definition.
MS . WICKHAM: There is another definition
20 in the code about a 20 square foot building.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s to prohibit the
21 tractor trailers coming in and setting up as a .
farm stand because they had no enclosure, so this
22 is not that .
MS . WICKHAM: But the other confusing
23 thing in a farm stand definition it says a tractor
trailer in excess of 20 is a farm stand, but
24 Chapter 47 --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have another
25 question.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jim.
November 30 , 2006
49
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This concerns
signage, and I'm wondering what kind of sign
3 they' re going to have there and are there going to
be any off premise signs?
4 MS . WICKHAM: Only if the Building
Department allows it I guess . They will make an
5 application for sign permits .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think what --
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But it will be
limited to that piece of property.
7 MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Gail, in other words we
8 don' t want to see lavendar for sale up by the
causeway, lavendar sale down by the --
9 MS . WICKHAM: I 've already had that
conversation.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s illegal .
MS . WICKHAM: I understand that, all
11 conforming signs .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience
12 that wishes to comment on this application?
MR. PETER: Good morning, my name is
13 George Peter, I'm president of Gardiner' s Bay
Estates Homeowners Association. We have a letter
14 of approval for the stand when it was first
amended. We are still in favor by the
15 design. The other regulations are up to you in
size and dimension. We appreciate what the
16 Rozenbaums are doing for our neighborhood.
Another reminder is that as you were saying
17 before,. we as an association own Cedar Lane . It
is our private road. It' s a main access road into
18 our association. Since he' s been operating the
lavendar farm he' s been extremely cooperative in
19 preventing accidental parking on Cedar Lane, which
is really just a two lane road, and he has put up
20 no parking signs . He' s found out of town tourists
who park accidentally to block our access and
21 egress, he' s been very good about that . He' s
tried to block off any chance they 'park next to
22 that . So he' s been cooperative in every sense .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anybody
23 else wishes to comment on this application? Yes,
sir?
24 MR. MAYER: I'm Rob Mayer, I live directly
across the street on the northeast corner. I ' m
25 against this because of the traffic . What he says
is dark and true as far as I'm concerned. If I
November 30 , 2006
50
1
2 sit out on my porch there, Rocky Point Road is a
speedway, people pulling off, the conglomeration
3 of traffic on that corner and the accidents and
the parking in front of my house to walk across
4 the street . This is a nightmare between steps and
the traffic that that place is going to generate,
5 even that it generates right now, what' s going to
happen? How are people going to come out of Rocky
6 Point Road, make a left turn, when people are slow
enough to pull into the farm stand, they' re coming
7 down from Orient to go there . They' re parking,
walking across the street because they can' t make
8 the left because the traffic going east , it' s a
conglomeration of everything there . This is
9 incredible that you would consider a building
right there . Now, maybe I'm wrong but is this a
10 farm stand just for the lavendar or will they be
able to sell other products?
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, only products that
have to do with lavendar.
12 MR. MAYER: What about the other people
that have these things, why put up a building
13 there? I mean, that' s what I thought this thing
was about . Not to sell retail", I thought they
14 were going to build there and sell wholesale .
When I saw that tent go up I was aggravated
15 because of the traffic . I mean, really, that' s
all I have to say. I have a brutal traffic
16 concern. There' s accidents there all of the time,
whether close accidents, or fender benders, or
17 major accidents . I mean, my road is closed half
the time with fender benders there . It' s nuts,
18 now with this thing going there, forget about
it . You' re going to have a cockpit all the time
19 there directing traffic .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Miss
20 Wickham, do you want to say something?
MS . WICKHAM: I think I 've addressed why
21 it' s not just for sale and I think I have
addressed as much as I can about traffic, and
22 certainly if there' s enforcement issues that needs
to be dealt with with DOT.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Therefore, I ' ll make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
24 until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
25 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the
November 30 , 2006
51
1
2 Drews . We' ll postpone FITF until Mr. Schwarts
arrives .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Moore?
MS . MOORE : Good afternoon, Patricia Moore
4 on behalf of the Drews . I have the Fisher' s
Island, Mark Schwartz is the architect and he had
5 a prior commitment .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Moore is
6 any portion of this house going to be saved?
MS . MOORE : No.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the entire
foundation going to be demolished and a new
8 foundation? ro
MS . MOORE : Yes .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you' re going back
75 feet?
10 MS . MOORE : Yes . The existing house -- we
have the site plan dated September 13 , 2006,
11 should be the one you have in front of you, that
one shows the outline of the house and the darker
12 hatch markings show the proposed. The existing is
53 . 3 from the bulkhead to the existing deck and
13 the 70 . 3 to the house . I also provided in my
packet photographs of the house and the decking,
14 and you can see that Photograph 2 in the packet I
originally gave you, it shows the location of the
15 house and the decking in relationship to the
properties to the north. If you notice, many of
16 the waterfront homes that were on Nassau Point,
many of these were older homes that are at a point
17 that because of the newer codes and the cost of
construction and the cost of the properties
18 themselves, it makes more sense for demolition and
reconstruction; that is what this family has
19 proposed to do here . The placement of the house
is, as we said, it' s set back further than the
20 existing structure . The sanitary system was
placed and approved by the health department on
21 the landward side of the house . There are
numerous trees as you can see all along the west
22 side of the property, along Nassau Point Road, and
they have been very careful in their construction
23 and. proposed garage to try to limit the number of
trees that would require removal . So we would
24 like to keep the house where it is because it
preserves the maximum number of trees as well as
25 obviously keeping the location of the sanitary
system where it' s been approved.
November 30 , 2006
52
1
2 This has Trustee approval . It has DEC
nonjurisdiction. We' re at this point the last
3 agency to review this . I had an additional
photograph which I did leave on the dais while you
4 were taking a break. That photograph shows the
character of the waterfront area there . The
5 adjacent homes, if you face to the north, the
north homes are again set back closer to the bluff
6 than our proposed new construction and two houses
to the north is a very substantial house that is
7 one of the newly reconstructed houses that is
significantly closer to the bluff than our
8 proposed location. On the opposite side, the
south side of the property is a very small house
9 that has a lot of natural vegetation; the property
line on that side is being retained. The existing
10 house is being retained so the setbacks are being
preserved, so there won' t be any change to the
11 setback on the smaller house that' s on that
photograph. That' s with respect to the setback
12 from the bulkhead. This is a very stable
bluff . There is no erosion. It' s one of the
13 higher, taller bluffs along Nassau Point . It' s
one of the relatively lower ones as it relates to
14 the Nassau Point area.
On the north side of the property, the
15 other variance we required was merely for the
roofing over of the stoop and the stairs, are
16 permissible, that does not require a variance .
However, the roof over --
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The stoop?
MS . MOORE : Is what I need to ask for is
18 to allow a variance for that cover, otherwise it' s
an open entryway.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just to reiterate, you
are, according to the site plan, 80 . 8 feet from
20 the bulkhead to the proposed building?
MS . MOORE: Proposed, the main house is
21 80 . 8 . The setback to the proposed deck --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is 71?
22 MS . MOORE : 71 . 3 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How wide is that deck?
23 MS . MOORE : The deck is 112 feet from the
street, porch from the edge of the street, which
24 is the furthest part . This home is primarily
enjoyed in the summer time so the deck and the
25 views are very important to the client . So the
decking is something that they truly want to
November 30 , 2006
53
1
2 preserve .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high above the
3 ground is the deck?
MR. DREW: 18 to 24 inches .
4 MS . MOORE : It would be similarly designed
as the one that they have got, which is an open
5 railing, which wouldn' t be considered at grade
because it' s slightly above the grade, but it' s
6 not highly elevated.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
7 purpose of the roof over the stoop?
MR. DREW: Just a covered entry for rain
8 and also a detail to break up the wall elevation.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Pretty bland, a '
9 volumetric device .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
10 distance between the porch on the southeast side
or the steps of the porch and the property line?
11 You' re showing a 20 . 3 foot over on that side, but
you' re not showing a distance on the other side?
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s 15-5 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 15-5 .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, over here
(indicating) .
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, sorry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm asking where
15 it says dry well?
MR. DREW: From the edge of the steps?
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
MR. DREW: I would say 15 feet .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ten.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' m concerned
18 about closing up side yards, okay. You have a
side yard that' s closed up totally on the north
19 side with the roof over the .stoop .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You retain 10
20 feet but you've got yourself some sort of -- I
have no idea what the blocking around that is ;
21 what is that blocking?
MS . MOORE : That' s hay bales .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Those are hay
bales during construction?
23 MS . MOORE : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, you can' t
24 tell me that no one is going to build a 6 , 000
square foot house and not put some sort of
25 screening in there . So it' s going to be reduced.
So if you' re starting with 10 , you' re going to
November 30, 2006
54
1
2 reduce it; it' s going to be six by the time you
put something in there . That' s why it' s critical
3 to know what kind of screening these people are
anticipating because this is really, really closed
4 up . It' s a problem. It' s a problem from a fire
fighting standpoint; it' s a problem for
5 everything.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There' s again 15
6 feet on the other side .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, 15 feet
7 less whatever kind of screening you put in. You
put significant screening in, and it grows to a
8 maximum girth to three to five feet, you' re back
to 10 . You have to end up with a clean 10 to 12
9 feet in there based upon topography. You've got a
significant grading change between the back of the
10 property, which is of course, the road frontage
side and the elevation of the water side .
11 MS . MOORE : Given your comment, I think we
have been talking the porch on the south side, the
12 larger porch, a design change could be proposed
that has the stairs going towards Nassau Point
13 Road. So we don' t have the stairs encroaching,
giving 20 foot clearance on that side . That' s
14 fine .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
18 audience that wishes to comment on this
application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close
19 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
20 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
21 Papazahariou. Miss Mesiano?
MS . MESIANO: I am Cathy Mesiano, and I am
22 here on behalf of Zaharia Papazahariou is my
client . We made an application to the Building
23 Department for a swimming pool . We were denied on
the basis that a swimming pool is not entirely
24 located in the back yard of the property. I
believe about 400 square feet of the pool extends
25 into the side yard, and we believe the
configuration of the house on the property creates
November 30 , 2006
55
1
2 a practical difficulty in that --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Two front yards .
3 MS . MESIANO: Well --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a right of way
4 there .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There' s a 20 foot
5 right of way.
MS . MESIANO: I was assuming because of
6 the encroachment into the side yard.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That would be the
7 front yard if it' s in their deed, the right of
way, and if they use it .
8 MS . MESIANO: That right of way is for the
benefit of someone else .
9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s not in your
client' s deed. Let' s see, that would be the
10 determining factor.
MS . MESIANO: It' s in their deed it' s not
11 for their benefit . It' s for the benefit of --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s on their
12 property though.
MS . MESIANO: I have to apologize . That
13 was not made clear to me, or I did not perceive
that from the wording of the notice of
14 disapproval . I had looked at it and understood
that it meant that it was in a side yard. Because
15 that right of way is not for the benefit of this
person but for the benefit of another.
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s not a rear
yard.
17 MS . MESIANO: It' s not a rear yard is the
bottom line .
18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s why you' re
here .
19 MS . MESIANO: So whether it' s because of
the 20 foot right of way or then the side yard
20 distance from that, it' s still between 127 feet --
it' s 127 feet from the pool to the side yard .and
21 129 . 7 from the house to that person' s . So in any
event, I don' t think that that would be a
22 deterrent or distraction or negative impact on
another' s right of passage through the property.
23 Visually it certainly does not have a negative
impact . As far as a practical difficulty, this is
24 not or rather a self-created hardship . I don' t
believe that it is a self-created hardship. Given
25 these. parameters there' s not a rear yard to be had
because, again, the house is set on an angle on
November 30 , 2006
56
1
2 the property, the side yards are not your typical
side yards .
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There' s essentially
no conforming, and it' s very heavily treed on the
4 other side . It' s completely open space . It' s
completely screened by dense evergreens .
5 MS . MESIANO: I had my mind set on a
particular set of facts . It was not my
6 interpretation of the disapproval . It was for two
front yards .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I only noticed it last
night myself . I have no problem with it . Jerry?
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nothing at the
moment .
9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I actually just had
a question and not specifically regarding the
10 pool, but in making the site inspection I noticed
the really quite large accessory structure . The
11 garage noted as a garage with kind of scaffolding
and concrete platform behind, and it' s got lots of
12 windows with blinds all around.
MS . MESIANO: I will make a point of
13 inquiring.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I would really
14 like to know how that accessory structure --
there' s no driveway up there . There' s an attached
15 two-car garage to the house . This is not what' s
before us, but in making that inspection, I ' d
16 really like to know what that structure' s being
used for.
17 MS . MESIANO : I will certainly find out
and get back to you. I didn' t focus on that
18 because my focus was the swimming pool .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no problem
19 with the swimming pool . I just want to know
what' s going on with the garage . Because there' s
20 no driveway going to it . So clearly -- and
actually there' s landscaping in. front of the
21 garage door.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, the
property card says that in 1997 there was a
23 building permit issued for a structure of two-car
garage, so that' s what it' s being used for.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But there' s no
driveway.
25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There' s no way it' s
being used for a car.
November 30 , 2006
57
1
J
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It has a building
permit and , CO.
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But there' s lots of
windows with very beautiful Venetian blinds in
4 them.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just
5 clear something up, real easy for you, Jim, and
everybody else . If you' re applying for a
6 variance, you have to be in compliance . If you' re
not in compliance, then you don' t get the
7 variance, and that' s the story.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm pointing out
8 for you that they have a CO for that building.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t care if
9 they have a CO for it, what does the CO say?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Two-car garage and
10 storage .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, if it' s
11 not being used for that, they don' t get a
variance .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm trying to
figure out how you know that it' s not being used
13 for a two-car garage .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because there' s
14 a tree in front of the door. You couldn' t put a
car in.
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But you don' t need
to put a car in a garage, you can store anything
16 you want in a garage .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s correct .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It doesn' t
necessarily even have to be a garage . It could be
18 a storage shed. It can be that size . It could be
a zillion things besides the focus of this
19 particular application.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How do we know it
20 isn' t a residence, for example?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite honestly, you
21 can' t make that determination.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I am asking the
22 question. That' s one of the advantages of site
visit .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And Cathy' s going to
get back to us .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You see that many
windows with window blinds in them all the way
25 around. I just want to know how the storage is
being used.
November 30 , 2006
58
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : For anybody' s
information when I read the notice of disapproval,
3 my assumption was that the building inspector made
the determination about that right of way, so
4 therefore there should not be any mention in
there . He made his decision, that' s why it' s not
5 in there .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There' s a broader
6 question, suppose someone applies for something on
one corner of the property, we look at it, and
7 while we' re on there, we notice that there are two
houses fully occupied on the same property. It
8 isn' t clear to me, are we supposed to simply
ignore that because that' s not part of the
9 application? Or are people placing whatever
they' re doing at risk when they apply for
10 something and thereby invite site inspections?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: By us granting them
11 an application, we grant the building inspector
the right to go on that piece of property and
12 inspect that piece of property, and that quite
honestly, is his purview and not ours .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I disagree with
you.
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You can' t disagree,
we' re not enforcement officers here .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We never sought
to be . But we have had this discussion
16 innumerable amounts of times over conditions of
rights of ways and always asking this nice young
17 lady, and she intend to give us the answer.
That' s the end of it .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to comment on this
19 application? Yes, sir?
MR. HOLLIS : My name is Phil Hollis from
20 1150 Sound Drive, adjacent to the property. I 'm
objecting to the pool . The pool is right under my
21 wall . My kids can fall right in there . Now, I
think you' re --
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think you' re on
the wrong application. We' re talking about the
23 next one .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What street are you
24 on, sir?
MR. HOLLIS : 1150 Sound Drive .
25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s the Seeley
application.
November 30 , 2006
59
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s the next
application. We' ll get there . All right . I' ll
3 make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
decision until later.
4 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Seeley at 1250 Sound Drive in Greenport, who
6 wishes to build a swimming pool at less than 100
feet from the bluff . Miss Mesiano?
7 MS . MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf
of the applicant . I understand that there are
8 numerous issues .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s just one .
9 MS . MESIANO : Mr. Seeley is applying for a
swimming pool in a location less than 100 feet
10 from the edge of the bluff, and his practical
difficulty was created in my opinion in the ill
11 conceived design of the set of plans of the
subdivision. The soundfront lots on this section
12 of the subdivision are compromised at best because
it appears to me that consideration was not made
13 for the fact that once you impose a 100 foot
building setback line from a bluff and then you
14 impose a front yard setback line, there' s not much
left . Mr. Seeley, I would say, is the worst of
15 the lots . I do have copies of the site plans,
subdivision map.
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I ' d like to see .
We have a tax map. I ' d like to see the
17 subdivision map.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Here (indicating) .
18 MS . MESIANO: The practical difficulty for
me came with the creation of the subdivision.
19 Ours is the eastern most lot .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Cathy, I just
20 wanted to make sure they had a copy of the
covenants .
21 MS . MESIANO: We have covenants and
restrictions that were recorded against this
22 property in conjunction with the subdivision of
the property. One of the items was pointed out as
23 an issue, and I would like to address that and
just briefly I' ll read Covenant Number 11 , No
24 draining shall be permitted with topography of the
bluff except that which may be necessary to
25 control the erosion against storm water going over
the edge of the bluff . So I would just like to
November 30, 2006
60
1
2 add that . And the third point that was raised as
a result of the inspection by the Suffolk County
3 Soil and Water Conservation Board is that it be
noted that there appears to be some -- they
4 mentioned two gullies that had been created on the
face of the bluff . Since we have been made aware
5 of that . Mr. Seeley has been watching that . It
appears that this is a result of the deer
6 traversing. There' s always footprints in the
area. It doesn' t appear to be gully created by
7 water going over the edge but by the traffic by
the deer. So we have an issue with that . So I've
8 got several issues that I need to address . The
two issues concerning the soil and water
9 conservation board' s recommendation and the
covenant at first blush seem to conflict .
10 However, when you read the covenant more clearly
and it' s saying except that which may be necessary
11 to control -- the recommendations of the soil and
water conservation board are specifically that
12 Soil and Water Conservation Board is recommending
a berm be placed at the northerly edge of the
13 landscaped area of the property for the purpose of
impeding any erosion, any run off the bluff .
14 Linda and I had discussion as to whether
this was counter to the covenants and
15 restrictions . Since these covenants were saying
except for that which may be necessary to control
16 or remedy erosion, I think that that falls within
that exception.
17 So I would like to now set those thoughts
aside and focus on the pool placement, alternative
18 suggestions for placement and so on. As initially
presented to the Board from the proposed pool to
19 the top of the bluff and the shortest distance is
66 . 8 feet . I made a suggestion to Mr. Seeley that
20 the pool be redesigned, reoriented, which was
taken under advisement, and their surveyor has
21 drawn another configuration, and the closest
distance in this configuration -- and that is to
22 say the pool was initially oriented in a generally
north-south direction, and this configuration is
23 in a generally east-west configuration. By doing
that we have increased the setback from the top of
24 the bluff to the pool to at least 72 feet . I have
just received a survey this morning. I have made
25 some recommendations to Mr. Seeley that we could
further improve the setback from the bluff to the
November 30 , 2006
61
1
2 pool . . I will give you a copy of the survey, but I
would like to say also that I would like to go
3 back to the drawing board. I think that this can
be made closer to conforming, and create less of a
4 problem and require less of a variance . This is
the new proposal I was just speaking.
5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So you' re amending
the application for this proposal, correct?
6 MS . MESIANO: Yes .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes, thank you.
7 MS . MESIANO: My view of this plan that
the surveyor provided us with, I immediately
8 noticed that the spa, which was proposed seawards
of the swimming pool, I felt could be removed and
9 increase that setback. So I would eliminate that.
from that area altogether, and I would propose
10 shifting the pool in a generally southwesterly
direction so that the pool can be farther from the
11 property line . And that being said, I wanted to
say that this is going before the Trustees, and
12 I ' m on the Trustees calendar on the December 13th
hearing. The remediation to the bluff as was
13 recommended by the Soil and Water Conservation
Board letter is primarily the subject of that
14 application as well as, but I will ask at this
time, I would certainly be happy to address any
15. questions that you have, but I would like to hold
this over until after the Trustees hearing because
16 I need to address with the Trustees the
remediation of these eroded areas, that the
17 erosion is from the deer path more than the water
runoff . And I need to address the Trustees
18 construction of this berm as was recommended by
soil and water. And after I have completed the
19 Trustees' application, I will know what I 'm able
to do as far as the bluff is concerned, and then I
20 can come back to you with more of a firm plan on
the erosion issues, and issues raised by Soil and
21 Water Conservation Board. So at that time I will
know how much flexibility the Trustees will allow
22 in the placement of the pool . I have come close
to their 75 foot setback requirement . I'm- trying
23 to placate everyone I can to come close to that 75
foot setback. So I will request that we hold this
24 over, but I would be more than happy to address
questions .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think we mind
to hold it open as far as the bluff is concerned.
November 30 , 2006
62
1
2 As far as the pool is concerned, according to the
LWRP, you' re 100 foot back now with your house?
3 MS . MESIANO: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see no reason to put
4 a pool in there at less than 100 feet back. I am
very concerned about the bluffs in that area going
5 eastward. There have been blow-outs and if you
have a couple gullies now -- and I don' t care who
6 they' re caused by -- unless it' s remediated, I
certainly don' t want the weight of a pool anywhere
7 near that bluff . And if you' re 100 foot back,
you' re a lot safer. I would not vote for it .
8 MS . MESIANO: We have no alternatives on
this site .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I realize that .
MS . MESIANO : And we would not ask for a
10 variance without also implementing the remediation
that was recommended by soil and water.
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There' s a question,
when was the house built, actually?
12 MS . MESIANO : The house was built within
the past two or three years .
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . And the pool
was presumably an afterthought? The one question
14 we could ask is since they' re so close together
and the house was built without the pool is if the
15 original site plan had called for a swimming pool,
would they have been able to get the variance for
16 that building, house plus pool? The answer to
that question would seem to be fairly relevant ,to
17 our deliberations on this issue that' s before us
today.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not really, Michael,
because it' s two different things .
19 MS . MESIANO: The plans have been designed
in such a way that the pool and the surrounding
20 fencing could have been integrated into the
structure of the house, and it could have been
21 part of the principal structure .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s true .
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What you' re saying is
that that option is no longer available because
23 the house has already been built .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I guess in a sense
that would be more likely to take this very
25 seriously if the house hadn' t been built just two
years ago: If it was built 25 years ago, then the
November 30 , 2006
63
1
2 question is how are we going to accommodate a
preexisting, a pool with a preexisting residence .
3 MS . MESIANO : The reason that I thought
that this was worth trying to get a variance on is
4 because in studying the subdivision map itself, I
keep getting stuck on the fact that the
5 subdivision itself was, in my opinion -- strictly
my opinion-- poorly conceived, and valuable lots
6 in the subdivision, the most problematic lots in
the subdivision, practically the house that' s on
7 the lot was designed for this odd-shaped building
envelope that was again, I'm not putting myself
8 out to be smarter than an expert, however, simply
looking at this, and knowing that waterfront is
9 valuable, and they' re not making any more, given
my druthers, I' d sacrifice some interior lots to
10 provide a better waterfront lot, and then have a
larger building envelope .
11 ASST. TOWN, ATTY. CORCORAN: But the
developer, they decided they wanted more lots and
12 they got more lots . We can' t later on say I also
want to be able to do whatever I want to do on
13 those lots .
MS . MESIANO: It is what it is, but in
14 looking at the property, my opinion on this is
that it' s unfortunate that it wasn' t more --
15 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Your argument
is essentially, we wish we had a better lot .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And we don' t .
MS . MESIANO : I can wish for anything I
17 want .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And nobody would
18 object to your trying to get this approved, get
the variance . Your difficulties with the size of
19 the lots would not have arisen were it not for the
fact that the Seeleys also want a swimming pool,
20 and we should remember that a swimming pool is not
a uniquely waterfront related feature . It' s a
21 very desirable feature . So there' s where the
problem is . So in this case the casualty of poor
22 site plan, if that' s the case was, is the swimming
pool . It' s a wonderfully situated house; it' s a
23 very nice lot . The question is, can they also
find room for a swimming pool on that lot given
24 the house is built where it is .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did you get the notice
25 of inconsistency with the LWRP coordinator?
MS . MESIANO: Yes, I did and I believe I
November 30 , 2006
64
1
2 addressed that to the Board as far as the drainage
is concerned. I don' t have that document in front
3 of me .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It was from Mark Terry.
4 MS . MESIANO: I know that . I don' t have
it in front of me, and I know you' re running late
5 and there are people behind me, but I did address
the issues raised in that as far as the drainage
6 is concerned. Again, taking into account the
comments of soil and water, if a swimming pool of
7 some degree is allowed in this site, Mr. Seeley is
more than willing to put the resources in to do
8 the remediation, restoration.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would respectfully
9 submit that he better try to restore or remediate
that bluff, otherwise you' re going to lose it .
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: With or without the
pool .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You've got a problem, a
big problem.
12 MS . MESIANO: I understand that, and it
was brought to his attention by this report . Once
13 we saw this report it' s been taken seriously,
which is why the application is in to the
14 Trustees .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very good.
15 MS . MESIANO: And as far as the pool is
concerned, I know we have -- I think it ' s a 16 by
16 32 . The Seeleys are quite flexible to design
something smaller and get as close to that 75 feet
17 that the Trustees will give us, that' s what we' re
trying to do . I want to go to them first
18 because --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We take precedent over
19 the Trustees .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You may still
20 have to go to the Planning Board to overcome these
C and R issues .
21 MS . MESIANO : Linda and I have had some
discussion, and I had understood that the Board
22 was going to be asking for an interpretation.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No. I had
23 suggested to you that you could write to the
Planning Board and ask them for an
24 interpretation.
MS . MESIANO : I'm sorry I thought --
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No, it was up to
you to do that .
November 30 , 2006
65
1
2 MS . MESIANO: I 'm sorry.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The covenant
3 says no grading within 100 feet of the bluff .
MS . MESIANO: Then read the rest of that
4 sentence .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I read it .
5 MS . MESIANO: Except for the purposes of
erosion control or --
6 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The pool is
erosion control?
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Obviously the berm
would be, but the swimming pool would be grading,
8 period.
MS . MESIANO: The pool would be at
9 grade .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You have to do
10 grading to make a pool .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' ll have to
11 excavate .
MS . MESIANO : The covenant says grade, I
12 don' t think it says no excavating. I think it
says no grading.
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s still a
disturbance .
14 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Excavating is
worse than grading I think.
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Good deal of
instability in soil .
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We dealt with
this issue in Mattituck at one point, where the
17 bluff was 165 feet high, there were significant
problems . We actually had an engineer weigh the
18 weight of the pool, gunite pool with water in it
as opposed to compacted soil, and believe it or
19 not as a result of that analysis, the weight of
compacted soil is actually heavier than a gunite
20 pool with water in it . It was his determination.
It was an interesting situation. However, in
21 making that determination, this homeowner knew
that they had to build outside of the 100 foot
22 mark. So what they did was they took the deck
down, they drove pilings underneath it, and they
23 built a swimming pool which basically is a free
flow in the contour of the house with total
24 engineering specifications that the Building
Department allowed. And that' s what you might
25 have to do here, even if you have to cut it into
the house, if that' s what you want, then that' s
November 30, 2006
66
1
2 what you may have to do. And I 'm telling you that
that was what was done . I observed this pool
3 after it was constructed, and I have to tell you
that it was extremely tastefully done . It was
4 certainly nowhere near the standard size of 16 by
32 , and was it outside the master bedroom. It was
5 directly outside the master bedroom, and, in my
particular opinion, I think that' s what you have
6 to do .
MS . MESIANO: I am here to hear your
7 comments because I know that this is not -- again,
I learn, nothing' s ever simple . But I know that
8 this is more problematic than most because of the
issues concerned. So I didn' t come here expecting
9 answers, and I know what I would have gotten -- so
I wanted to hear the Board' s comment, and I also
10 would like the opportunity to go before the
Trustees . Again, I'm sorry I misunderstood, and I
11 will put that letter into Mark Terry.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That was the only
12 suggestion I had. It' s not required, but it was
just a suggestion I had.
13 MS . MESIANO: I 'm sorry.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Don' t be sorry,
14 it' s okay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I walk by this
house every morning, and I watch this house being
16 built and the house alongside it . And the house
alongside it has a pool on the side yard. The
17 house was made narrower so they could put a pool
in, and my assumption is they' re restricted by the
18 same covenants that theirs was .
MS . MESIANO: This is the house --
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : To the west . And I
think a covenant is a covenant, and I read the
20 covenant as okay, you can do a little disturbing,
build yourself a berm, try to keep the water off
21 the bluff, but I don' t see where it says anything
where you can build anything in that 100 feet .
22 The Board knows how I feel about covenants . It' s
more than just a handshake; it' s an agreement, and
23 you agreed to it . And it shapes the value of that
piece of property. So I mean, you have to get
24 around that, quite honestly, long before we
consider anything else, and I haven' t heard you
25 say anything that you have some kind of hardship
other than some kind of covenant . I understand
November 30 , 2006
67
1
2 the position of the house, but the position of the
house was in the actual lot, was defined by the
3 Planning Board and so was the building envelope .
I don' t see you getting past that .
4 As far as this erosion is concerned, I
suspect that the stairwell that goes down to the
5 west of that piece of property that everybody gets
to use is blocking a path that the deer used to
6 use . There used to be a road that goes down
there .
7 MS . MESIANO : The neighbor completely
fenced his property -- not just around his
8 swimming pool . Trapping the deer, changed their
path that they used.
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have lived there
for 30 years and this year is the first year I
10 have seen deer on the beach.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re stuck and
11 they' re multiplying quickly.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We used to be able
12 to go down this road all the time . This was a
party place . But you want to address erosion,
13 that' s what he' s got to do. And honestly, you
haven' t in this hearing addressed that .
14 MS . MESIANO: Those steps are not
something we can speak to because those are the
15 association and they' re off this property.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree, but that' s
16 your problem.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
17 audience that wishes to speak on this application?
Yes, sir?
18 MR. HOLLIS : Phil Hollis, 1150 Sound
Drive . The bluff is in months going to fall
19 down. They have not made a single attempt to put
a dry well . They cleared all the brush, the house
20 is for sale -- all the brush is clean, this bluff
is going to go down any moment . I purchased the
21 property adjacent to that, and I had to put a
retaining wall, I had to put four dry wells; they
22 have done none of that . They want to maximize
property because they cannot sell the house . This
23 is speculators . I 've been there for 20 years and
honestly, we' re going to lose the bluff . As far
24 as the swimming pool, frankly speaking, I have a
swimming pool, but they have to meet the code that
25 you set up for me . They have not done that .
They' re ignorant . When they were building they
November 30 , 2006
68
1
2 knocked my wall out, they knocked this . It' s just
to get the money and run, basically. We' re here
3 to stay. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
4 who wishes to comment on this application? Yes,
sir?
5 MR. SEELEY: I 'm Bob Seeley, how are you?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hi .
6 MR. SEELEY: I didn' t knock his wall down.
I don' t know what he' s talking about . His pool is
7 like 20 feet from the bluff, that' s irrelevant
anyway. When we bought the house we were going to
8 live there . My wife, we' re going out there, she
decides she didn' t want to be near this guy, so
9 we' re not going to live there now. One of the
reasons we didn' t go for the variance originally
10 was because I wanted to get started on the house .
Took a while to think about it . The architect, he
11 says get the house started and talk about it
later.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
MS . MESIANO: There' s only one other thing
13 I ' d like to add talking about the covenants . I
think you were referring to the 100 foot setback
14 line . Again, I think it' s a gray area in the
covenant, the setback line pertains to structures .
15 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: As I read the
covenant, it says no grading within 100 feet of
16 the bluff, it doesn' t say building.
MS . MESIANO: If you look at the
17 subdivision map, Jim, is that what you were
referring to?
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to
hear it discussed.
19 MS . MESIANO: On the subdivision map
there' s a line in the code that there' s a 100 foot
20 building setback, specific in that a building is a
structure .
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: For some purposes and
not others .
22 MS . MESIANO: Unfortunately.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: As I interpret it,
23 and I 've been involved now for 20 years, a
building setback line is just that . There' s
24 not -- you know, a structure has to do with the
actual physical boards and everything but the
25 building setback line to my mind is a line that's
set with no building on it per se, just says this
November 30 , 2006
69
1
2 is -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just the
building envelope? I believe it' s a structure .
3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Building
i envelope put all your structures .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Building envelope in
which we put everything in it .
5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Even were that
not the case, you always have the grading problem
6 as well .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anything that is
7 determined to be a structure .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you want to
8 adjourn it?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. I think we' re all
9 agreed on the setback issue . So I ' d like to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s her dime . I' d
like to give her an opportunity. If she feels
11 like she wants to go to the Trustees and come
back.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: She can still go to the
Trustees .
13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : She wants to go to
the Planning Board also .
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So what? What does
that cost us anything? If you want to go through
15 the process, that' s what you' re asking us for, to
go through the process and come back to us and say
16 that' s what the Trustees say. I have no objection
to us holding the hearing open until then.
17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The alternative,
Ruth, would be January 25th at 11 : 10 in the
18 morning. So, I don' t know how the rest of the
Board feels .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We could leave it
open for 10 years .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Leave it open
without a date .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Without a date and
she' ll get back to us . Okay, make that motion.
22 (See minutes for resolution. )
------------------------------------------------ -
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
the one on Main Road in Mattituck, shown.
24 Mr. Goggins .
MR. GOGGINS : William Goggins, 31045 Main
25 Road, Mattituck, New York, for the applicant
Roy C. and Robert Schoenhaar. As you know we' re
November 30 , 2006
70
1
2 applying for two variances today. It' s that split
zoning in Mattituck. When we rezoned the town,
3 they put a zoning line down apart of this parcel .
The parcel that' s on the Main Road is business and
4 the parcel in the back is residential, it hasn' t
been subdivided. It' s just one big piece of
5 property. It' s been owned by the Schoenhaars
since the early ' 80s . It' s been in the family
6 ever since . There is a present structure, which
is in the commercial end of the property, which is
7 a ranch house that' s been there since
Mr. Schoenhaar built it in the 1950s, 140s or
8 ' 50s . Mr. Schoenhaar decided at the time to
subdivide the property, since he' s getting older
9 and at some point they wanted to develop the
commercial part of the property. So when we put
10 forth the subdivision process, the surveyor drew a
line right where the zoning line is, which split
11 the property, and that separated it so the
commercial end is 34 , 189 square feet, and the
12 residential part is 78 , 458 feet . In order to get
two residential lots in our town in an R40 zone,
13 you need 40 , 000 square foot per lot . So the
surveyor put together what he thought was a good
14 way to put these two lots together and that takes
us to the present map.
15 Frankly, with regard to the first
variance, Section 100 . 38-3 , regarding the bulk
16 schedule of the 80 , 000 square feet, the
residential part is 78 , 458 square feet . It' s 105 ,
17 52 feet short of the " required 80 , 000, and it
certainly wasn' t self-created. That was created
18 by the Town Board when they remapped the zone
there, and I did a calculation, if they had moved
19 the map just nine feet north, we wouldn' t be here
today on the bulk schedule on the residential
20 property.
I also did a little research for the
21 surrounding properties and their sizes and the
average size of the residential lots in the area
22 is 25 , 845 square feet, which is substantially less
than what is required in the R40 zone . I also
23 took the liberty of tax map Section 143 and
actually putting the actual square footage sizes
24 of all the surrounding residential properties
and --
25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You' re going
to create two lots out of this highlighted?
November 30 , 2006
71
1
2 MR. GOGGINS : In the residential portion
we' re putting two lots, and in the commercial just
3 one .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So you want
4 two in that 78 , 000 instead of 80?
MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the square
feet? Oh, there it is . The commercial property
6 is 44 , 369?
MR. GOGGINS : The commercial property is
7 Lot 1, which is 34 , 000 , 34 , 189 .,
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, thank you.
8 MR. GOGGINS : Then the two residential
properties, one is Lot 2 on, the map, which is
9 34 , 089 square feet and Lot 3 is 44, 789 . I'm not
sure why the surveyor did that . Mr. Schoenhaar
10 and I looked at it, and it doesn' t make sense why
they would do that . We thought they would make
11 Lot 3 40 , 000 and make Lot 2 38 , 000 and make it
more of a standard lot size .
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That can be
readjusted.
13 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . If we did that then
one lot would be in conformity and one lot would
14 be 1, 540 square feet short . Again, this certainly
wasn' t created by the applicant . It' s a line on
15 the map that caused the problem.
The second variance is the side yard
16 setback on that existing structure that' s in the
commercial portion. The Planning Board looked at
17 it and I know they sent a letter to the ZBA and
they had no opposition to that . They actually
18 supported that variance .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s along the
19 right of way?
MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The existing house
is partly on commercial, partly on residential or
21 purely on commercial?
MR. GOGGINS : It' s all on commercial .
22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it' s on Lot 1,
as noted on the survey?
23 MR. GOGGINS : Right .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it' s a
24 nonconforming use?
MR. GOGGINS : Right . Pre-existing,
25 nonconforming.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: What did the
November 30 , 2006
72
1
2 Planning Board have to say about this?
MR. GOGGINS : There was a letter, they
3 supported it .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That right of
4 way is very simply ,a piece of property that
Mr. Schoenhaar owns and you' re just deeming it to
5 be a right of way; is that correct?
MR. GOGGINS : That' s correct .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have total
fee to that; no one else has a right over that?
7 MR. GOGGINS : That' s correct .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
8 particular reason you decided to put it on that
side and not on the other side of the property and
9 do a crossover between the two?
MR. GOGGINS : I don' t know. The only
10 thing I could think of is that it would impact the
west residential property. Because the property
11 on the west is a big piece of property, and it
carries most of the right of way, and there' s two
12 parcels on the Marlene Lane side that would be
impacted in that their driveway would go past the
13 back of their homes, which I realize is probably
going to be a concern, and we' ll do anything that
14 would help the neighbors .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Those are
15 definitely the concerns that the neighbors have .
MR. GOGGINS : Those are. our concerns too,
16 that they would want some sort of screen.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s why I
17 said if it was over on the restaurant side, it
would probably be less apt to be used as having it
18 stand out alone on this side with a crossover;
they come over and do a crossover. But you've got
19 to take it away anyway, if you make them equal .
Mr. Rein, who I spoke to today, he' s not in
20 opposition to this . I guess Moyer, those are the
other side, it would have an effect on Vitale and
21 60 foot of the Sully, I think is the other
property.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Zara and Bob Sully.
MR. GOGGINS : It would affect Vitale and
23 Celic .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Celic Realty.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we have
to listen to contiguous owners . We know their
25 concerned'. We have to figure out a way to
mitigate this right of way, that' s my opinion.
November 30 , 2006
73
1
2 MR. GOGGINS : Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
3 that wishes to speak on this application? Any
neighbors? Yes, go ahead, please .
4 MS . LARETTI : Hi, my name is Ginny
Laretti, and I'm 13 on the map, which is where the
5 property takes kind of a hard left, and I've
spoken to a number of neighbors as well, and I
6 guess the concern is again, sort of changing the
character of the area, and the density which the
7 original Board had indicated they had a problem
with. I think that you have to look at the fact
8 that the front lot actually has a residential
structure on it already and with that turned
9 commercial, it has a residential unit there, and
adding two more behind it, and we know, as you
10 said, that there' s also going to be a commercial
space in front of it, you have basically four
11 structures on a very narrow right of way, and it' s
not going to be a public road, and it' s not going
12 to be maintained as other public roads are
maintained. As a result of that, I think that the
13 problem that we have is fire and emergency access
is going to be limited. And I think that the
14 variances requested are substantial, and the
setback relief is substantial, and we' re concerned
15 about that . I feel there' s not really enough
buffer between the buildings, and there are some
16 back structures that are omitted from the plans
that have been submitted. I don' t know if they
17 are impacted or not .
I'm concerned because I did speak to
18 Mr. Schoenhaar to discuss this and he' s a very
nice gentleman, and he said- he' s going to put all
19 the screening in and all this other stuff, which
is great because my concern is to keep the
20 character of the neighborhood, which is very
wooded at the present time . I come out here for
21 that; that' s why I come here . He said he' s going
to put screening. He hasn' t committed to that in
22 his plans, and as we heard earlier today, I think
one of the issues was with that road, the setback
23 is really --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Diminished.
24 MS . LARETTI : It' s a problem because we' re
already small lots . It looks as though he' s
25 looking to put all this in about 3 , 000 to 4 , 000
square feet, quite large in comparison houses .
November 30 , 2006
74
1
2 Our house is about 1, 100 or 1, 400 square feet .
I 'm on a half acre . And while their lot sizes may
3 be large in some cases, mine is small, but it' s
not the smallest lot size on half acre . My
4 structure fits the character of the lot as do on
Marlene Lane . There' s. small houses on small lots .
5 There are exceptions to that, but there are a lot
of existing historic-type houses on smaller lots .
6 They' re smaller. These are huge envelopes on
small parcels in which they' re seeking a variance,
7 and I find that problematic because it' s changing
what it is -- the reason why I'm out here . It
8 also doesn' t say on the plans whether or not it' s
single family or multiple dwelling.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would have to be
single .
10 MS . LARETTI : But even so, with these
large 3 , 000 , 4 , 000 square feet houses, which would
11 accommodate larger families, you' re looking at a
lot of cars . Where are those cars going to go?
12 And when the cars are there, how are the emergency
vehicles going to access these houses? So I have
13 a problem with that . There' s no reference whether
clearing restrictions are being met, I don' t know,
14 it looks to me the percentage of trees they can
take down. It' s basically a cul-de-sac without a
15 sack. So how do the fire trucks get around if
they can' t turn around? What if there' s a five
16 alarm fire? I' ll be burnt down. I have a back
structure I have on my property that' s not listed
17 on their plans, so I have that concern. Sanitary
water issues, and the water issues, you've got the
18 fire hydrant issue . Where is the nearest fire
hydrant? I think it' s on the Main Road. So from
19 the Main Road back to the end of that property
where basically my property is, I 'm toward the end
20 of that lot and especially because his property
curves to the left into my property, I have a
21 concern. If something goes down, I 'm not sure the
fire trucks can get there . So that' s a real
22 concern that I have .
So I also, as I said, have a concern
23 because I assume that there' s going to be four
buildings, not three as has been indicated and one
24 variance and then another variance, and then
another variance in the future . We' re taking a
25 lot in little pieces . I have heard -- and I don' t
know whether this is correct or not and you would
November 30 , 2006
75
1
2 know better than I -- that there is a way, once
you subdivide these lots and you have commercial
3 moved to residential, there' s some way to merge in
the residential into commercial if there' s a
4 certain square footage that is met . So, for
example, if you have a 40 , 000 square foot
5 commercial space and a 30 , 000 square foot
residential space, if you want to merge the
6 residential into the commercial it' s less than a
certain percentage you can do it . So I 'm
7 concerned that it will be subdivided twice and
then merged back into the commercial somehow to
8 create that into a commercial space . I don' t know
whether that is possible but it' s something that I
9 had heard.
Also, I understand that with the business
10 you need 30 , 000 square feet of space for a
business but when you have a dwelling on it, you
11 need 40 . So his existing residential structure on
the commercial space and having only 34 , 000 square
12 feet there, there' s a concern because then he' s
going to seek another variance, and you' re going
13 to have the density greatly increased in the
area .
14 So I completely understand that
Mr. Schoenhaar has had this property for a long
15 time, and he has a right to build on it , but I
think that he can' t do it at the expense of his
16 neighbors . And I think the increase of the
density has a detrimental effect on the value of
17 his neighbors' property, especially when I think
of the fire and emergency access . Thank you very
18 much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
19 anyone else that wishes to speak on this property?
Yes, ma' am.
20 MS . SKURO : My name is Rose Skuro, I live
on Marlene Lane, and will be directly affected by
21 the development of this property, SCTM#143 3 33 . 2 .
I have a petition stating we appeal to the Board
22 to uphold Town Code and deny the granting of
variances at this time . I have a petition with
23 signatures (handing) .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much.
24 MS . SKURO: I also have for the Board a
document that states my concerns . Do you wish me
25 to read it?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
November 30 , 2006
76
1
2 MS . SKURO: I have received legal notice
describing the most recent application for SCTM
3 #143 3 33 . 2, assessed to Roy C. and Robert
Schoenhaar. A section of this parcel forms the
4 easterly border of my property and the granting of
variances for the proposed development brings up
5 serious issues that will directly and permanently
affect my environment, as well as the environment
6 and character of the neighborhood and the
community in general .
7 This parcel is landlocked on its east,
west and south borders by residential and business
8 property owners . The parcel' s north border is
bounded by Route 25 . Access to and from the lot
9 and/or its structures requires the use of a right
of way, where 100 feet is the minimum required by
10 Town Code . In addition, Lot 2 will have a lot
area of 34 , 098 square feet where 40 , 000 square
11 feet is the minimum required in the R-40 Zoning
District . Currently, there is a preexisting
12 structure on the property with no proposed changes
to the building at this time .
13 The proposed right of way would need
available access from an already congested Route
14 25 . The access would be located on the south side
of Route 25 , across from the shopping plaza and in
15 between not one, but two busy shopping plaza
entrances and exits used by shoppers on a daily
16 basis . There is also a stop for the Hampton
Jitney and the S92 daily bus service on one of
17 those two entrances . This is a high traffic area
that is not only dangerous to negotiate any day,
18 but especially in the summer and fall, when
vacationers and visitors make use of Route 25 and
19 at times this reduces the flow of traffic to a
standstill . The surrounding area contributes to
20 the congestion with a new pharmacy, gas stations,
banks, boat sales and small businesses . During
21 the workweek, residents of the area and commuters
also deal with rush hour traffic peaks to share
22 the roadway with larger vehicles such as delivery
and supply trucks traveling to and from businesses
23 in the area as well as utility vehicles, buses,
pedestrians and bicyclists . In the event of an
24 emergency, when one or more ambulance, police, or
fire vehicles need immediate access to the
25 property, there could be a problem gaining access
to the interior parcels not only due to the
November 30 , 2006
77
1
2 traffic on Route 25 as I have described, but also
from the proposed residential development,
3 resulting in multiple users of the same right of
way and homes crowded on smaller parcels of land,
4 reducing availability to the surrounding area.
A portion of the proposed right of way is
5 located along my property' s easterly boundary
line, and I will not only be directly affected by
6 the proposed right of way as planned, but I am
also concerned about issues regarding pedestrian
7 and vehicle access, additional parking problems,
proposed development of landlocked property and
8 the increase in population and usage of that
area. This situation may also encourage
9 trespassing by one or more individuals at any
given time in order to gain easy access to their
10 residence or nearby shopping areas, recreation
facilities, and other neighboring residences or
11 businesses, thereby necessitating the need for
privacy barriers or additional fencing along
12 property boundary lines .
I am concerned about zoning variances that
13 create overcrowding, and will diversely impact the
environment, the character of the community and
14 the quality of life afforded to the residents . On
a parcel of land where there currently exists one
15 structure, there is a proposal for two more
residences to be built, one of which is to be
16 built on inadequate acreage . There also exists
the possibility of developing a business area on
17 that same acreage now or sometime in the future .
Also, the granting of the variance for the right
18 of way may set a dangerous new precedent that
could be referred to and implemented in the future
19 in similar situations in the Town of Southold,
with even less desirable results .
20 Granting zoning code variances for
property located in an area that is already
21 problematic would create permanent, undesirable
changes to the character of the area, create new
22 issues requiring more intervention by local
government and authorities and possibly
23 necessitate new regulatory procedures, as well as
negatively impact the surrounding residents, the
24 neighborhood and community in general on an
ongoing basis for all future generations . Thank
25 you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you for sitting
November 30 , 2006
78
1
2 here so long, too. Yes, sir.
MR. MOYER: Good afternoon, my name is
3 Dale Moyer, I reside at 650 Bay Avenue, just east
of the parcel . I have just a few quick points to
4 make . I do not believe the Board should create a
nonconforming lot that has only 34, 000 square
5 feet, not meeting the 40 , 000 square feet
minimum. However, I do have no. problem with one
6 residential lot for this parcel, if it conforms to
Town code .
7 The other concern I have is I understand
the Town frowns upon flag lots due to safety
8 issues and other issues, this proposal appears to
be establishing in a sense two flag lots, and I
9 hope this Board takes that into consideration.
My other concern is why the Board would
10 consider a setback relief of 87 feet leaving only
a 13 foot setback when the Town code calls for a
11 100 foot setback from the right of way. This
relief of 87 feet seems very excessive to me .
12 Thank you for your time and
consideration.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Dale .
Anyone else wish to speak on this application?
14 Mr. Goggins?
MR. GOGGINS : If I could just address some
15 concerns .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I just
16 clear one issue up first, Mr. Goggins? These
building envelopes that are being addressed by the
17 neighbors are not something that we created or
they have been presented by us I suspect, they' re
18 something that the Planning board was cognizant
of?
19 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . When the Planning
Board reviews an application, they have to look at
20 the date, the issues regarding fire and ambulance
and access . They have to look at building
21 envelopes, they want to make sure that any
proposed houses are going to be built within that
22 building envelope pursuant to Town law, so it' s a
process . We just don' t come up with a plan and
23 come to the ZBA. We have to go to the Planning
Board. They have to review plans, and we made
24 substantial changes from the beginning. And one
of the issues of the Planning Board was fire truck
25 access and emergency access, and that' s why at the
end of the right of way they put that T at the
November 30, 2006
79
1
2 end. So there would be a turn around area. We
had a cul-de-sac in there originally, but they
3 didn' t want a cul-de-sac . They wanted a
turn-around area. So that' s what the Planning
4 Board wanted, certainly not what we wanted. But
the Planning Board, they' re smarter than us . They
5 have more knowledge and they wanted it a certain
way and that' s how they wanted it . So, again, we
6 had a cul-de-sac, but they made this T area for a
turnaround for emergency vehicles, not us .
7 So those concerns have already been
addressed by the Planning Board. And as for the
8 building L, that doesn' t mean they' re going to
build a five thousand square foot house . That' s
9 just an area where they can build a house, whether
the house is going to be 100 square feet or 2 , 000
10 square feet or 3 , 000 square feet . They' re not
going to build those houses there, but they have
11 the option to do so pursuant to the code .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also with the building
12 envelope as was stated before, anything you want
to build in that,' it has to be in that building
13 envelope, whether it' s a pool, garage or shed.
MR. GOGGINS : That' s right . So if anybody
14 wants a big house, they' re not going to be able to
have a pool, a tennis court, an attached garage,
15 all that kind of stuff . It' s the building
envelope and a lot of people don' t understand
16 that . That' s the way it is .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to
17 clear that up that although it' s before us, it was
another Board that requested that in those
18 locations .
MR. GOGGINS : That' s correct . And also
19 all the surrounding properties according to the
surveyor have public water so there' s no issue
20 regarding cesspools and distances between cesspool
and wells because it' s all public water. And all
21 utilities will be coming off the Main Road, so
that' s not going to impact the neighbors either.
22 If I could just point out, most of these neighbors
have less than 20, 000 square foot of land on their
23 property. These properties are nearly doubled.
So they certainly conform with the neighborhood.
24 In fact, they exceed what' s already in the
neighborhood.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I apologize for
this again, but I just need, again, from the point
November 30 , 2006
80
1
2 of view for the neighbors and us, have you
anticipated any C and Rs on the right of way at
3 all in reference to the specific use of the right
of way, the pavement of the right of way and more
4 in particularly any screening of those neighbors
that have particular concerns?
5 MR. GOGGINS : We have been waiting for
Planning Board to tell us what they want . Whether
6 they want asphalt or whether they want rock or
pervious material or whatever they want . As for
7 screening, Mr. Schoenhaar is willing to screen any
area that this Board wants screened or the
8 Planning Board wants screened. But the Planning
Board has not said that .
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s get
pragmatic about this, and I don' t mean that in a
10 sarcastic sense toward you where you've been
before us many times, and you've done everything
11 we have asked you to do. If you put trees in, and
they' re not watered, they' re going to die . So I
12 suspect the only real screening that you could put
in that would last would be some sort of earth
13 tone fence or something of that nature . I mean,
that' s the best I could see at this particular
14 point, regardless of -- I mean, those are one of
the issues that I think that we' re dealing with;
15 is that not the case?
MR. GOGGINS : That is the case, so whether
16 it' s required an earthtone fence plus trees along
it or just trees or just a fence, Mr. Schoenhaar
17 understands their concerns, and he wants to allay
those concerns and make it less of an impact . We
18 understand that they have enjoyed having a wooded
property behind their lots and have privacy, but
19 they had to have some expectation it would be
developed at some point .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One option is to
move the right of way to the east so you' re not
22 dealing with that kind of setback variance from
the right of way. Because you have an awful lot
23 of room from where the house is sited to that
other property line; it' s still commercial in the
24 front, you still have some residential in the
south, but at least that would get rid of that
25 problem with that enormous setback variance on the
preexisting house .
November 30, 2006
81
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On the other hand, it
isn' t clear -- and I can' t speak for them --
3 whether the neighbors on Marlene Drive would be
more unhappy or less unhappy to have the right of
4 way removed to the other side of the subject
property.
5 MR. GOGGINS : Presumably make the people
on Bay Avenue unhappy.
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s absolutely
right .
7 MR. GOGGINS : And I think, like I said,
the Planning Board has reviewed this and this is
8 their kind of -- it' s our initial design, but it' s
their completed analysis, and once we finally got
9 to that point, they said, okay, come to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for a variance so they have
10 already considered all of these issues and --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They actually
11 looked at the right of way on the other side and
thought this was better?
12 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite honestly, on
13 the other side, you' re going to go down all
residential property. It doesn' t abut commercial .
14 MR. GOGGINS : The east side definitely has
more of an impact on the Bay Avenue properties
15 than it would have impact -- it only impacts one
and a half of the properties . It impacts Vitale
16 and it impacts the woman that spoke earlier and on
hers it' s just a turnaround area . So to negate
17 the impact upon her lot, Mrs . Skuro' s lot, the
only reason that' s there is because of the
18 turnaround area that the Planning Board wanted,
and that' s only 60 feet . So if we did screening
19 just in that 60 foot area, then her property
wouldn' t be impacted. There would be no impact to
20 her property at that point . The only person to
impact would be the Vitales, and I don' t see them
21 here to oppose the application.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: They moved.
22 MR. GOGGINS : They moved? Who is there
now?
23 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I'm slightly
confused by the Planning Board's memo . Maybe it' s
24 unfair to ask you to help clarify, but I' ll just
explain my source of confusion. The memo says on
25 the one hand the size and shape of the proposed
parcels is consistent with the surrounding area .
November 30 , 2006
82
1
2 Then it says, okay, we' ll look at the 13 feet . We
support that setback relief, then it comes out and
3 says we typically don' t support increases in lot
yield.
4 MR. GOGGINS : That' s exactly what they
say.
5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They don' t say
we support the increase in this instance .
6 MR. GO,GGINS : They don' t say either --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: , They' re saying
7 both.
MR. GOGGINS : They' re saying both. But
8 they' re saying, it is what it is . It' s a unique
piece of property, and they' re not going to go
9 either way. They use that word "typically. "
It' s a good point made, they don' t oppose it; they
10 don' t support it .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes . They' re
11 giving it to this Board, which is the Board to
make the decision.
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So we can then act
upon alternative relief via changes in site plan
13 recommendations .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You do
14 whatever it is you normally do.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think the right
of way is in the right place quite honestly.
16 Simply because that right of way on the other side
belongs to Mr. Pamillo, and that goes to a
17 residential house . It' s not really commercial,
it' s back to a residential house . The house
18 exists on this piece of property already and any
future building on that front lot is subject to
19 the same laws that it is subject to now. That is
if you have a lot on that piece of property, you
20 can' t just put a commercial building on there and
expect to keep the house without having a
21 variance .
MR. GOGGINS : That was one of the concerns
22 of one of the neighbors . Maybe years ago people
could mess around with it, but not any more . Site
23 plan approval, it' s a long process, you have
SEQRA, you have all these things . You have to go
24 through to get a commercial building.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We could restrict
25 that to if you want a commercial building, you
don' t have the house anymore .
November 30, 2006
83
1
2 MR. GOGGINS : I understand.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That would be a
3 condition.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The right of way is
4 just a right of way for two homes . It' s more a
driveway. How about the fire hydrant this lady
5 brought up. I'm sure the Planning Board is going
to make them and the water district is going to
6 make them comply to all the fire codes .
MR. GOGGINS : Right . The main drain goes
7 down the Main Road there .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So there would be a
8 hydrant within insurable district?
MR. GOGGINS : Right .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Any other concerns?
I think that' s it . Quite honestly, these lots are
10 going to be larger than any lots it abuts .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They are .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So I have no
objection.
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Goggins, would
you object to -- I think in fact you suggested
13 it, it makes no sense to have a 44 , 369 square foot
lot -- the creation of one conforming lot and the
14 other one slightly less than conforming, around
38 , 000 .
15 MR. GOGGINS : I agree . I think the reason
why they did that initially was because they
16 wanted a bigger lot to be adjacent to the
neighbors . Because Lot 2 is not adjacent to any
17 of the neighbors .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think part
18 of what makes it 44 is the inclusion of the right
of way.
19 MR. GOGGINS : Small part of that .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think what
20 Leslie is suggesting is maybe you could make that
lot smaller, make the other one bigger, but it' s
21 somewhat of a fission because it ' s really not
bigger than the other one right now. Numerically
22 it is .
MR. GOGGINS : But, no, we have no problem
23 reducing the Lot 3 to 40, 000 and increasing Lot 2
to 38 , 480 .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right . Because you
effectively lose the building potential with the
25 creation of the right of way.
MR. GOGGINS : Right . Then it becomes a
November 30 , 2006
84
1
2 1 . 9 percent variance .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which is
3 substantially less .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I just wanted to
4 mention, Lot 2 is actually 32 , 812 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Without the right of
5 way.
MR. GOGGINS : Right . Thank you.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there are no other
questions or comments, I ' ll make a motion to close
7 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
8 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know the Town of
9 Southold, they are buying the parcel to the north
of the property of FITF. Go ahead, Pat .
10 MS . MOORE : I know you' re all aware of the
establishment of the Town of Southold and Land
11 Preservation, they are buying the parcel to the
north of the property FITF. It' s drawn at the
12 request of the Land Preservation and the Town
Board. They want to incorporate cobble into that
13 lot . So as a result, the line of the creation of
this lot has made this lot undersized.
14 The parcel is as conforming as we can make
it . However, the wetlands area and some slope
15 results in the need for an area variance . The
Town Board did rezone this parcel from M2 to R40
16 in order to conform with the residential use that
the applicant requested. And they also rezoned
17 the northerly parcel that they' re going to
acquire . I think that one stayed R80 . So all in
18 an effort to accomplish this preservation so this
plan does depict what the Town wants . Do you have
19 any specific questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not really.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not really.
21 MS . MOORE : I am here only for the area
variance . I was hoping that the Trustees and the
22 DEC would respect the location of the house . I'm
hoping that this house will stay where it is, if.
23 not, we' ll have to be back on another application
unless the properties to the south have closer
24 setbacks, which I think they do . So I may be able
to push the house forward towards the road at an
25 average setback. So I'm hoping they avoid the
need for a further variance .
November 30, 2006
85
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We didn' t look
at this at Fisher' s Island.
3 MS . MOORE : Some people were looking at it
from the road.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did go up there a
couple years ago.
5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They had it in
their packets when they went to Fishers Island.
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, we saw it from
the boat and --
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, I walked
the property last December, and I 'm assuming
8 they' re taking that old building down.
MS . MOORE : Yes .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand there
were some gas tanks there that have been
10 mitigated.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is the old
11 government building.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Probably looked
12 like the old gas terminal in Greenport .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The Mobil one?
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. I' ll make a
14 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
15 (See minutes for resolution. )
- ------------------------------------------------
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Now, Mr. Anderson.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Okay, this is on --
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is on Fergus .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The tape is
18 recording.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Anderson, just
19 before you start, may I say that this is certainly
a magnificent house, and not the opportune plot
20 for it . It should be on a five acre plot . This
house is much too big for this sensitive piece of
21 property. I would suggest that you cut this in
half and move it back more than 20 foot from the
22 rear yard setback or whatever it is . It' s not
acceptable . It' s too big. It' s 100 foot almost
23 in length, 60 foot in width. It' s only a 50 foot
buffer to a wetlands . What' s going to happen
24 there, they' re going to move in, then they' re
going to want a dock, and then all of a sudden
25 they' re going to be eroded, and then they' re going
to want a bulkhead, and we' re involved. It' s just
November 30 , 2006
86
1
2 too close to a wetlands . And it' s too big for
that -- what?
3 MR. ANDERSON: We have a permit for that
already.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re just -- I'm
sorry, you' re not going to get the 20 foot . It' s
5 too big a house .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I comment?
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, you can.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ruth, I think you
7 need to hear the application before you make a
determination.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I walked the property.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just let him have
9 his say.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just want to tell him
10 right from the beginning, so he can address
anything he wants .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You can address it
during the application. The man hasn' t said a
12 word yet . Let him have his say. Then, you are
strong enough to go with convictions, if it passes
13 it passes, we' ll vote on it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, go ahead.
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He made an
application, he paid a few bucks, let him have his
15 say, and then you can have your say after.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay?
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to ask everybody
17 to keep an open mind.
This is a proposal to construct a 5 , 000
18 square foot single-family dwelling on a lot that
contains 63 , 000 square feet . It is a flag lot .
19 it' s zoned R40 . The lot is oversized in the
neighborhood it sits in. The coverage proposed in
20 this application is 8 .4 percent . It' s well within
the coverage descriptions that pertain to this lot
21 in this residential zone . Therefore, the house is
not too big in the sense of zoning.
22 The dwelling also benefits from receipt of '
a permit from the Town Trustees and the DEC and
23 the Health Department . The relief requested in
this application is to permit the construction of
24 an attached garage 25 . 2 feet from the easterly lot
line, defined as the rear lot line in this
25 application, where 50 feet is required. It is
important to note that but for the garage' s
November 30 , 2006
87
1
2 connection to the dwelling by heated space, we
would not be before this Board.
3 The dwelling size is what it. is because
it' s a one-story dwelling. Mr. and Mrs . Fergus
4 are here tonight -- I mean today, and their desire
is to have a one-story house because they have
5 moved on in age . Mr. Fergus has difficulty
climbing stairs .
6 We submitted applications before, the
Board has read the application and has reviewed
7 the criteria by which zoning variances are
demanded. I will briefly highlight them today.
8 So that we don' t believe this house will have an
undesirable change to the neighborhood because it
9 will be -- it is a flag lot that sits off the
road. The house will not be visible from the
10 street . It is also substantially screened in
other directions by a 50 foot buffer that was
11 required in this application in connection with
the wetland permits . So on that basis we believe
12 that there will be no undesirable change to the
neighborhood.
13 We submit that the benefit sought by the
applicant cannot be achieved by some other method
14 because this dwelling was shifted to the east as a
result in an effort to maximize wetland setbacks .
15 If we were to shift the dwelling back 25 feet to
the west, we would not be before this Board, but
16 what we would want are setbacks closer to the
wetlands than what' s proposed now, and that is
17 because the lot relative to the wetlands
boundaries narrows as you move from east to
18 west .
We submit that the variance request is not
19 substantial because again, we' re here only because
of the attachment to the house . In the event that
20 this was a detached structure, we would not be
before this Board because that setback would be 10
21 feet from the rear yard, but we are less than 25
feet, we' re an attached structure, whereas a
22 detached structure could be built 10 feet from the
eastern lot line without the need to come before
23 this Board.
Again, we submit that this will have no
24 impact to the physical and environmental
conditions with the properties in the
25 neighborhood. It does benefit from a DEC
permit . It does benefit from a Trustee permit .
November 30 , 2006
88
1
2 It benefits from a Health Department permit . It
provides a 50 foot nonturf buffer, which is more
3 than what' s found in the neighborhood because most
lots in the neighborhood, developed lots, preexist
4 these types of environmental codes and conditions
that stem from it .
5 We submit it' s not self-created from the
standpoint that it is the placement of the house
6 that has been dictated by maximizing the wetlands
that has caused us to come here .
7 I want to also mention to you that I spoke
with Mark Terry, he' s your LWRP coordinator, the
8 Town was kind enough to fax over his statement,
his memorandum written on November 26th,
9 apparently, and I would say --
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was already
10 faxed to your office yesterday, I did it .
MR. ANDERSON: You did it? Thank you.
11 And that he used the sources of comments that were
made in connection with the LWRP that was
12 undertaken by the Trustees, and that the 6 . 3 which
deals with the proposed setback from the wetlands
13 of 77 feet is really not germane here . What we' re
asking for is the setback from the property
14 line . So the first page of this memo doesn' t
really fit, what we' re here today to talk about
15 today is zoning. However, when you do get to the
conditions that begin at the bottom of the first
16 page and extend into the second page, those are
the same conditions that are imposed by the
17 Trustees and are built into. this application.
As a final matter, I was just aware that
18 Heather Cusack is here on behalf of the Trustees
with that, they noticed a grade change,
19 specifically coverage that goes over the septic
tank. The concern being a potential for flood,
20 the change in property, it was suggested to me
that perhaps a French drain be installed along the
21 northern property line and that' s perfectly
acceptable .
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: May I ask a question?
Do I understand that the 8 . 4 percent or .nine
23 percent, that' s the coverage of the non-wetland
portion of the lot; is that correct?
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it' s total lot
25 coverage .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Total lot coverage .
November 30, 2006
89
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: According to what I
have here, it looks as though it is . 63 , 000
3 minus -- according to thi's it says it' s only 3 , 300
are wetlands .
• 4 MR. ANDERSON: That' s correct .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it' s 5 , 000 square
5 feet approximately of 59 , which is about eight or
nine percent?
6 MR. ANDERSON: Right .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the question then
7 is there somewhere on this piece of land where the
effective building area is an acre and a half,
8 whether there' s room for a 5, 000 square foot house
that is all on one floor. In other words, the
9 wetland issue, if things are working the way
they' re supposed to, the wetlands and the wetland
10 setbacks are supposed to take care of themselves
under setback laws . So the idea is that somehow
11 or other, it would seem to you probably or your
client that on a lot that has an acre and a half
12 of buildable property there ought to be someplace
on there where they can build a house, which
13 apparently seems to be what the code allows . And
the problem, as you say, the reason you' re before
14 here is because of the question of the setback of
the garage, which is not on the side that' s near
15 the wetlands; am I correct?
MR. ANDERSON: That' s correct .
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So this is I guess a.
remark, if you find what I say consistent with
17 what you' re arguing?
MR. ANDERSON: What we' re trying to say is
18 that this house is sited towards the eastern
portion of the lot, where it is widest and where
19 the greatest wetland setbacks can be achieved. In
doing so, it has triggered a variance application
20 with regards to the setbacks off the rear lot
line, that portion of the house with an attached
21 garage .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . So your
22 understanding that is what is before us has
nothing to do with the wetlands but it has to do
23 with where the garage can --
MR. ANDERSON: It does relate because your
24 criterion for zoning variance delves .into the
environmental regulations that came to this lot
25 and how those regulations in this instance has
caused a practical difficulty. The practical
November 30 , 2006
90
1
2 difficulty being to place the house where the lot
is widest and in doing so triggering a variance
3 off the rear lot line .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the issues
are quite clear, I have no questions .
5 MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Fergus .is here, I think
he would like to say a few words .
6 MR. FERGUS : I just hope that the Board' s
thought process on the approval or disapproval of
7 this is not finalized in terms of you should come
and visit . My wife and I bought this land in
8 1982 , we also planned to reside in it as a
permanent home . We already had, years gone by,
9 DEC approval, Town Trustee, whatever other
approvals were required for a house that was
10 higher, in other words like a colonial, this is a
one-story house . We didn' t care at that time . In
11 1999 I lost a son-in-law, who was a lawyer, 1990 ,
1991; I lost my son in the Twin Towers and those
12 permits were down the tubes . So now, a couple of
years later -- and we went through this two years,
13 it' s the last permit we need. I ask you, the lot
it is an acre and a half, you' re right, but the
14 flag piece is open, it' s 225 foot long and 30 foot
wide . 65 some-odd thousand square feet . Then you
15 have your wetlands, then you have the setbacks . I
don' t think there' s any other place we can put
16 that house . It may look like it' s 5 , 000 square
feet, you chuck that garage, it' s a main room,
17 like a living room, there' s a kitchen, there' s
three bedrooms, and there' s four bathrooms, that' s
18 it . The garage area may be a little bigger than
what it would be, I wanted it bigger, as Bruce
19 said, we wouldn' t be here asking for a permit, I ' m
told, if we would disconnect it and it became
20 alone . In other words, there' s no requirement
that it has to be 50 foot back under those
21 circumstances . I'm getting older, I needed a
.place to retire . I know you' re smiling --
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. I admire you for
doing a one-story house because it just fits into
23 the land better. Is there any way you could live
with a smaller garage?
24 MR. FERGUS : I've already made it
smaller. You know what I mean? We put a lot of
' 25 stuff together. I put the dock in the ' 90s . All
the prior permits are fine, it just happened that
November 30 , 2006
91
1
2 it went down the tubes . A two-story house is not
something we could live with, one-story that' s I
3 believe for older people . One step in the house,
it damn near killed me . I just had my knee
4 replaced, I 'm going to have a hip replacement . My
wife has had a hip replacement, and she' s got a
5 shoulder replacement -- a what do you call it?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Rotator cup.
MR. FERGUS : And knees . So I.'m asking you
7 to consider, if you can. I can' t put the house
any other place on the property as proposed and we
8 put in so much time with the permits . I 'm asking
personally, we would like to live here in
9 Southold, and we've owned the home for 25 years,
and that' s all I have to say. Thank you very
10 much.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have a few
11 questions . If I might, please .
MRS . FERGUS : My husband and I think we
12 reached a point in our lives where an detached
garage just doesn' t work. Just pull the car in
13 and go into the house .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It is a three-car
14 garage with a loft above it .
MRS . FERGUS : We made it smaller.
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because the plans
we have are the three-car garage with the loft
16 above it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The plans are the
17 three-car garage .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Three-car garage
18 with the loft above it . So the information we
have -- so we don' t have accurate --
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Information. You may
have reduced --
20 MR. ANDERSON: What you have before you is
what the application was .
21 MR. FERGUS : In other words, there were
three garage doors because there will be three
22 cars . We cut it down.
MRS . FERGUS : We cut it down when we
23 attached it to the house, we made it smaller, so
it could only hold two doors right now.
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We don' t have
updated plans .
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It still has a loft
over it or not?
November 30 , 2006
92
1
2 MR. FERGUS : It does, just for storage .
MRS . FERGUS : The loft . We needed it, I
3 don' t want to give away everything that I own.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you' re
4 building a basement too.
MRS . FERGUS : Building a basement but
5 considering where the property is, we have been
advised that' s going to be --
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' re going to
have a very bad situation. You' re going to be
7 right on the water table . It' s going to be very
difficult .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To be honest, Mrs .
Fergus, I would be very careful, just for your own
9 sake, you're so near the water building a
basement . Once the high tide comes in, you may
10 have water in that basement .
MRS . FERGUS : This is really --
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because it happens
on -- I 'm 600 feet from Orient Harbor, and when it
12 comes up, I get it .
MRS . FERGUS : That' s the reason we were
13 trying to cover our bases and put the loft, make
the garage higher for storage, but thank you for
14 your time .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is it possible to
15 submit to the office the most current plans?
MRS . FERGUS : I can tell you.
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask
one question?
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Why is it called
out as a three-car garage?
18 MRS . FERGUS : It wasn' t attached to the
house .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I just ask
a question?
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Since this is
2'1 again my application. The notice of disapproval,
Bruce, reads 25 feet, you' re addressing it at 25
22 feet . The plans that we have are 21 feet, and
this is the garage we' re referring to, the.
23 setbacks', and that is the reason why we have this
little inconsistency, Mr. Fergus, that we were
24 just discussing.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s right here,
25 Jerry, 25 . 2 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I apologize,
November 30 , 2006
93
1
2 25 . 2 .
MR. ANDERSON: 25 . 2 is the rear yard, the
3 21 is the side yard.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sorry, I
4 apologize .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s the only
5 variance you really are requiring.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s right, I
6 did see that last time, I missed it this time, I ' m
sorry.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Heather?
MS . CUSACK: Hi, I'm Heather Cusack, I
8 work for the Trustees .
I spoke with one of the Trustees and with
9 Mark Terry, who asked me to come over here and
give you some information on this . The Trustees
10 approved a permit for this house February 15th,
and I have the plans here that were approved, and
11 what Mark Terry in reviewing it for LWRP brought
to the Trustees attention that the survey that' s
12 before you today is just slightly different, and
we have some concerns . The one that was approved
13 by the Trustees has the septic system at a nine
foot elevation and the one that' s before you has
14 it at 11, which I'm guessing is something that was
imposed by the Health Department possibly. And
15 the proposed finished grade will now be different
in the left-hand side, it says proposed contour
16 and proposed elevation. So the Trustees just
wanted you to know that what they approved is --
17 this is slightly different than what' s before you.
The concerns are that the water with it higher
18 will shed onto the neighboring property and what
could be done about that is putting in some kind
19 of French drain along this property line or even
right into that gravel driveway, and there' s also
20 water quality concerns there with Goose Creek. So
just wanted you to be aware, you know, bring this
21 forward to all of you that this would have to come
back to Trustees if this was approved.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If this one is
approved, it has to come back to the Trustees?
23 MS . CUSACK: Yes . I just wanted to bring
it up to you if you wanted to look at it
24 (handing) . This is approved by Trustees and I
just highlighted that difference here and here
25 where it says proposed contour and proposed
elevation that' s not on the plan, that was
November 30 , 2006
94
1
2 approved by Trustees . Just concerns about how
that will be addressed. So, if you have any other
3 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So, if we approve this,
4 it still has to come back to you?
MS . CUSACK: Yes, because the plan you
5 have is not the plan for an amendment just so the
Trustees can address that different grade . This
6 was approved March 22nd, and since then there' s
May, September and October, there have been three
7 revisions . Mark brought that to our attention.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We probably should
8 mark those .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bruce, do you
9 understand?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, the difference is very
10 minor.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have
11 any questions of Mr. Anderson? Does anybody in
the audience wish to speak?
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could I just --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, Jim, I'm sorry.
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Heather? Can I
just ask you a question?
14 MS . CUSACK: Yes, sure .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I really appreciate
15 the fact that the Trustees sent somebody here to
tell us what their concerns were . It' s really
16 very helpful, but I am wondering if you' re aware
if this property has ever been filled with dredge
17 material and is that a concern of the Trustees?
MS . CUSACK: It is a concern.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It was all dredged,
dumped.
19 MS . CUSACK: It' s dredge spoil . And
that' s part of the concern with the drainage, what
20 will actually happen with drainage .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Would there be a
21 reason for us to turn it down? I can' t ask you to
make a decision.
22 MS . CUSACK: Right .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It seems to me like
23 you did an approval on this piece of property
based on the facts . And you contended and you
24 came to a conclusion -- Trustees did -- that it
was okay to put a house on this piece of property
25 even though it' s been dredged spoil; is that
correct?
November 30 , 2006
95
1
2 MS . CUSACK: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN I OLIVA: Mr. and Mrs . Fergus,
3 are you aware of that?
MR. FERGUS : Yes .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have.
5 I want to thank you for coming.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, that' s great .
6 MS . CUSACK: Oh, you' re welcome . It may
affect, because of the elevation of that septic
7 and how the Trustees may look at that, it may
affect your decision today because of the location
8 there of the garage and where they' re going to
put -- where they may ask for a French drain, it
. 9 may not . Just wanted to make you aware of that
little change.
10 MR. ANDERSON: Grade we' re talking about
deals with sort of the opposite side of the
11 building, you understand.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else wish
12 to speak on this application? Yes .
MS . LANE : Good afternoon,
13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : State your name,
please .
14 MS . LANE : My name is Johanna Lane . I am
the owner of the adjoining property, 1852 North
15 Bayview, and I'm a licensed real estate broker.
I understand that the ZBA is here to
16 consider only one part of this project, which is a
variance for an attached garage pursuant to
17 Article 3 Section 100-38 . 3 , and I will address
that issue specifically in a moment .
18 At the same time I am mindful that SEQRA
encourages us not to dissect a project, rather to
19 consider it as a whole and when viewed from that
perspective, I'm troubled by what appears to me to
20 be a lack of thorough review of this proposal from
all involved agencies . I have prepared a short
21 statement here which I appreciate you just hearing
me out and then come back with a rebuttal or any
22 questions after that, but I would like to stay on
point and get my points across . And I have a few
23 to make .
The first thing is the scope of the
24 project . When I compare the documentation
approved by the Trustees in February with the more
25 recent documentation presented for this hearing,
that' s just been pointed out by the Trustees, I
November 30, 2006
96
1
2 find significant differences and interesting
contradictions . As such, I'm having some
3 difficulty understanding the nature and the extent
of the proposed development . And I think we all
4 the agree that it' s in an environmentally
sensitive area and we need to understand what it
5 is that' s trying to be done here . So in terms of
the discrepancies and changes that I'm finding,
6 the survey approved by the Trustees in February
has subsequently been revised four times, in
7 March, May, September and October. Has the ZBA
compared the current version with the version
8 approved by the Trustees? It appears to me that
today is the first time that you have had an
9 opportunity to see that . I have had an
opportunity to review that very briefly, I haven' t
10 had very long but I 've had probably 24 hours
longer than you. And a brief review that I have
11 had reveals the following list of changes . The
grading plans were mentioned. If I go back to the
12 beginning and I look at Question Number 12 on the
Trustees EAF, it asks as a result of the proposed
13 action will existing permit approval require
modification and the answer given was "no . " Yet,
14 when I reviewed the Trustee grading plan, I see
that what was stated as nine foot grading plan
15 then has now been stated as 11 foot on the ZBA
.grading plan. So my questions are : What is the
16 final grade of this property to be and where will .
the water run? Also, what part of the plan
17 addresses the mitigation of water runoff onto my
, property? What steps are being taken to mitigate
18 that? Has the ZBA compared their EAF with other
EAFs submitted to other agencies . Has that review
19 of the documentation been undertaken? On our
adjoining boundary line it' s roughly an eight foot
20 elevation on my survey, whereas my neighbor' s plan
is to build his property out to at least 11 foot
21 elevation.
To over simplify the test hole data that
22 you see on that survey, it states that the first
four foot is sand, and then it' s clay, which is
23 tough for water to filter through; so where is
that water going to run? It' s going to run
24 laterally. I'm sure you have all seen the flood
at the entrance to the easement on North Bayview
25 after it rains . At the entrance to that easement,
it floods, even in the light rain, and trust me,
November 30 , 2006
97
1
2 it' s no different on my driveway. I have a
flooding problem on my driveway as it is across
3 the whole lawn. After the adjoining lot is
developed, there will be significantly less land
4 available to absorb the runoff and all that
additional water is going to go where
5 exactly? It' s going to go downhill . And how are
the dries going to disperse accumulated water if
6 they' re situated in clay? So it' s going to end' up
with 11 foot here and eight foot here and that
7 water' s going to go up three feet, and I 'm on a
slab three feet below this house, and my house
8 could flood three feet . So I have serious
concerns about this aspect of this property. What
9 guarantees can the Town give me that there will
not be a river running through this property as a
10 direct result of the rise in the grading and an
awfully big house with inefficient dry
11 wells . Raising the building pan with fill raises
the significant flooding concerns for me . And
12 this issue needs to be addressed before any kind
of approval or construction begins .
13 I have also concerns about lot size . I
have compared the submitted survey with my own
14 records . I have a survey by John Ehlers dated
December, 2000 , which shows the rear side yard lot
15 line as 174 . 35 feet whereas Peconic Surveyors
acting on behalf of Mr. and Mrs . Fergus, are
16 showing now 182 feet . How did it grow more than
eight feet in six years? To add to the confusion,
17 the original subdivision survey dating from around
1975 shows the rear side lot line as 190 feet,
18 with the Fergus' s lot at 53 , 000 square feet, which
is 10 , 000 square feet less than what is now being
19 claimed on the current survey. How can that be?
If the land has eroded over time since the
20 subdivision was first done, then it would be
understandable if the lot line had reduced from
21 the 190 foot to either 182 foot or 174 foot, but
surely there would then have been a commensurate
22 reduction in the square footage of the lot over
the same period, not an increase of 10 , 000 . square
23 feet . And I 'm also thinking, if have got two
lots, one here and another one in front of it, and
24 the one in front of it erodes back, is that person
taking their lot line back into my property? I
25 mean, these are just issues and questions I have .
I ' m not making allegations or claims . I 'm just
November 30 , 2006
98
1
2 saying, I 'm very confused by the whole project . I
have lots of bits of paper here that I 'm supposed
3 to be walking around for you to show, with surveys
and this sort of thing, but I'm going to move on
4 and give all that to you later.
I could be wrong, but I think there' s been
5 an error factor in one of these surveys, but it' s
not clear to me which one, and the issue also.
6 needs further fact finding before a determination
can be made .
7 Then comes the amount of land affected.
Addressing the question of exactly how much land
8 is going to be affected by the proposed
construction. The Trustees' EAF states not quite
9 . 11 plus/minus, which by my calculations is 479
square feet, that must be a typographical error.
10 It also states that three and a half percent lot
coverage, so I compared this with Mr. Fergus' s
11 project development submitted to the Trustees, I
don' t know if you have a copy of that, I have a
12 copy of that here I can give you. That states a
single family dwelling with a 2 , 674 square foot
13 footprint, covered porch of 154 square foot,
wooden deck 700 square foot, garage 900 square
14 foot, shed, 240 square foot, which is a total of
4 , 668 square foot . Put another way, that' s more
15 than double the three and a half percent lot
coverage stated on the Trustee application data .
16 Compare this with the notes of lot coverage
presented to you today and the revised plan, and
17 you' ll see that the lot coverage has now grown to
5 , 360 square feet . So clearly the project has
18 expanded over the courses of going through the
various agencies . And I'm not at all clear that
19 all the other agencies are. understanding exactly
what' s been going on.
20 So I don' t want to take up any more of
your time with issues that may not be directly
21 within your purview today, but respectfully
request that a thorough review is undertaken of
22 all submitted documentation to insure consistency
with all the involved agencies prior to any final
23 decision.
I' d also like to address a couple of other
24 issues . One is the self-created hardship issue .
The Trustees asked in EAF the question, will the
25 proposed action comply with existing zoning and
other existing land use restrictions . The answer
November 30 , 2006
99
1
2 was yes . And a 2, 674 square foot home was
envisioned, all of which sounded perfectly
3 reasonable to me at the time it was presented in
February, although I wasn' t privy to the details
4 at that time . One can' t help wondering what
hardship has developed in the intervening period
5 to now warrant a variance . Reasonable people
could agree that the variance is needed only
6 because plans for the house have outgrown the
property; that' s what' s happened since February.
7 Also, I gave very careful consideration to
the reason offered for the area variance as
8 described in Part A of the application to the ZBA,
and I have the following comments . In Paragraph
9 1, detriment to nearby properties, and I quote
from that, Mr. Anderson' s response to that
10 question -- "The lot line abuts an unbuildable
portion of lots 39 . 4" -- my lot . With all due
11 respect to my neighbors, and they' re certainly
entitled to their opinion, it' s not their decision
12 to determine what part of my property may or may
not be buildable . Even if they' re right, which I
13 do not accept given the proposal for the subject
property, they cannot take the benefit from my
14 property for their own enjoyment simply because
now they have an awfully big house in mind that
15 unfortunately doesn' t fit their building envelope
anymore . So instead of focusing on what portion
16 of my property may or may not be buildable, let' s
focus on the subject property and how much of that
17 is buildable . Let' s deduct 8 , 775 square feet that
constitutes the right of way that we both share,
18 add to that the 50 foot buffer zone, which has
already been reduced from the normal 100 foot to
19 allow them to build anything at all, then there' s
the driveway needed for egress and ingress to and
20 from the property and garage, plus parking for
residents, their invitees and guests, as well as
21 allowing for normal access into a flag lot for
emergency vehicles; is there enough room for
22 everyone without using the driveway as a parking
lot , and where is the turn-around? I don' t see
23 that on a plan.
Then come to adverse effects on the
24 physical and the environmental conditions in the
neighborhood. As we all know, the . ecosystem in
25 Goose Creek is very sensitive not least because of
the Cornell Institute feed beds, which are very
November 30 , 2006
100
1
2 close to my property and the subject property.
For this reason and the abundant of wildlife,
3 flora and fauna including numerous birds, nesting
geese, turtles, horseshoe crabs, clams, prickly
4 cactus, deer, rabbits and so on, we maintain our
property, or my property in a very natural
5 state . We do not have the kind of water quality
problems that are being experienced further into
6 the creek and the water is currently crystal
clear, the best kind of beach on the north fork.
7 Maintaining this pristine state is my number one
priority. And I try to do as little tampering as
8 possible . We may not have a pristine lawn by
other people' s standards but we do have the
9 pleasure of seeing a family of geese bring their
goslings twice a day to feed on the wild plants
10 that grow in the spring within a few feet of my
house .
11 In Paragraph 4 of Part A, the Ferguses are
claiming no adverse effect on the physical
12 environment and environmental conditions based on
their maintenance of a 50 foot buffer. Without
13 saying how they propose to pull actually maintain
that, as well affecting my maintenance of the
14 natural vegetation on my side of the property line
as a reason why they don' t need to maintain any on
15 the subject lot . Again, this is muddying the
waters by taking a benefit of a neighboring
16 property and applying it to their own, when the
real issue here is are they willing to maintain a
17 50 foot buffer as it is now natural vegetation on
their own property, a vegetated buffer. That' s
18 not stipulated in the Trustee permit . There' s
nothing that the Trustees have done that binds
19 them and their successors in title to maintaining
that buffer as a vegetated buffer. Anything less
20 is detrimental to the environment, and it' s simply
nonsense to say that it' s not . To not require a
21 vegetated buffer could lead to misunderstandings
over the course of years . A cleared buffer and
22 glowing green lawn leading down to the water line
all maintained with pesticides running off into
23 the creek. Did I miss the vegetative plan in the
file? Where is it? This is not spelled out in
24 the Trustee permit .
I understand that Mr. and Mrs . Fergus are
25 getting on in age, and I am certainly not
unsympathetic to anyone' s desire to have an
November 30 , 2006
101
1
2 attached garage in the winter regardless of age,
and I do understand that it becomes more of a
3 priority in advancing years, but there' s no reason
in my mind why they could not have the attached
4 garage and comply with the required setbacks if
only they were willing to reduce the size of their
5 awfully large house . Interestingly when the
project was presented at the Trustees hearing back
6 in February, a similar argument was used for a
larger than normal footprint for the house because
7 they wanted to avoid having stairs and keeping to
a single story. But now we find that the house
8 has grown a full basement with stairs down and
sufficient height to finish it off unless it
9 floods, and I agree with the comment that was
being made about flooding earlier because all the
10 houses on the other side of the creek, they all
flooded when we had that nine day rain two years
11 ago, all of them, they all flooded. So I really
think they' re going to end up with a swimming pool
12 in their basement, but anyway, there is a basement
with stairs down and sufficient height to finish
13 it off, as if it were a second story, as well the
garage has a second story with a nine foot six .
14 ceiling height and a picture window that directly
overlooks my property and directly faces my master
15 bedroom window at more or less the same height .
Why do storage boxes need a view at the expense of
16 my privacy? Or could it be that the garage is
destined to become an accessory apartment over
17 time? The house itself appears like a two-story
Cape, the garage elevation height is 22 . 6 feet or
18 something like that, I 'm not even sure of the
house height . But that' s two dormers short of a
19 two-story Cape and there is no covenant being
added to the deed to restrict a second story being
20 added to this property over time if not by the
Ferguses, by their successors .
21 So when I'm looking at the plans for the
house, try as I may, I can' t envisage this home
22 nestled on the property in a way that respects the
wetlands and the integrity of the surrounding
23 ecosystem. When I look at the elevations in the
floor plan, try as I may, all I can see is a lot
24 that is all but cleared of vegetation completely
except for a 50 foot wide green lawn at the
25 water' s edge that could be leading to a 7, 000
square foot home, two-story home, with an
November 30 , 2006
102
1
2 accessory apartment, a 3 , 00.0 square foot basement
and triple car garage -- I'm saying triple car
3 garage because that' s what it says on the plans --
towering maybe 10 foot above the surrounding
4 vegetation. There is no vegetation on
that property that exceeds 22 and a half feet that
5 is not going to be cleared as a process of this
development .
6 So finally, I wish to stress that I did
not take the decision to speak on this issue
7 lightly. There is nothing personal in my
comments . I wish Mr. and Mrs . Fergus a long and
8 happy retirement in Southold, and I certainly
don' t want to be the one to spoil it for them by
9 making difficulties unnecessarily. The issue here
is not about our stewardship of the land, which is
10 for a fleeting moment of time that we own it; it' s
about the long term future of Goose Creek, and I 'm
11 not convinced that the ZBA is on sufficiently
solid ground to make a good decision one way or
12 the other on the variance issue without a thorough
review of this project, including the fundamental
13 issue of whether or not the subject property
offers the Ferguses what they need for their
14 retirement without destroying the delicate balance
in the area that currently exists today. Thank
15 you for your time . I have all the things that I
am supposed to have wafted around here to show
16 them if you would like to see them. One thing I
would like to do, I have copies of the surveys
17 here to demonstrate the 90 foot going back to the
197 survey. I have the project description from
18 the Trustees . I have the environmental EAS
form. I have the photographs here, and these are
19 particularly good. This is my husband Dennis .
MR. LANE : Can I approach?
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
MR. 'LANE : If you haven' t been down to the
21 property I think this is going to add something to
to it . You' re looking at the vegetative state .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have all been
there .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But not from the air.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We've all walked
24 it .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But not from the
25 air.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We haven' t flown
November 30 , 2006
103
1
2
MR. LANE : Also, I'm going, if I can talk
3 just a little bit of an aside for a second. All
the other stuff is very important, but here' s
4 another indication of what' s been going on since
the beginning, and I've asked Mr. Fergus about
5 trespassing on our property to gain access to
his . We have a perfect example here, and I don' t
6 know who took these pictures, but it' s got
indications of Fergus' s property, and it shows
7 that it' s been cut paths through, they cut them
through our property to .get to his property. And
8 the person who was a real rocket scientist here
took the pictures of the access trail, they' re
9 standing on our property taking the pictures, if
you would like to take a look at that, all the
10 trespassing that' s gone on. We have had vans,
trucks, ' all parked on our lawn. And a gate to try
11 and keep it from coming onto our property.
MS . LANE : I think what we' re requesting
12 here is a more collaborative process to work with
us because we do feel that we have been kept a
13 little in the dark in this and that the
inconsistencies have not been explained to us . I
14 saw the elevations and the plans yesterday for the
first time, I didn' t even know it was going to be
15 two story. I.'m not blaming all that on anybody
else, I ' m heavily committed elsewhere, and it ' s
16 taken me some time to realize and do my due
diligence of what this project is all about . As
17 I 'm reiterating here, I still don' t know what it' s
all about, but my major concern I think out of all
18 this is the inconsistency in the plan. The dots
don' t seem to line up for me at all . It doesn' t
19 make sense what' s going on. And my major concern
is this flooding. I don' t know where this water' s
20 going to go except into my house because it' s
clay. I mean it' s sand, you walk on it .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I sympathize with that .
Back in the 170s when some of the homes were built
22 in our area, there' s homes that shouldn' t have
been built in the first place, but anyway, they
23 have -- the Department of Health had people mound
cesspools, which changed the whole direction of
24 the water coming, because we live right across
from a marsh and it just made it that it floods
25 our property so much easier, I know.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to raise
November 30 , 2006
104
1
2 a question, a procedural one . I think that you
have raised -- what is your name, please?
3 MS . LANE: Johanna Lane .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: -- has raised a
4 number of questions, the merits of which I am in
no position to evaluate, I don' t know whether the
5 Board is at the meeting and I wonder whether we
should keep the meeting open, I 'm just saying this
6 to the Board -- in order to get more input on
these -- these are very important questions . I
7 think we' re all sympathetic -- I'm sorry, I didn' t
hear you, Bruce .
8 MR. ANDERSON: I would like to respond to
all of this .
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, fine . But I'm
saying whether we need to review this closely, I
10 think you' re onto a very general issue, which I
think we' re all concerned about, is the agencies
11 are not sufficiently interconnected with regards
to the information and the assessment . No, no one
12 is keeping any .of this information from you, no
one is keeping you in the dark.
13 MS . LANE : No, I appreciate that .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But one has to be
14 very diligent in order to have the whole big
picture, and we often do not either. So I
15 certainly think we have to keep our minds open and
our desks clear for a time so we can think this
16 through and for the sake of future decisions,
regardless of how this one works out .
17 MR. LANE : I would just say, don' t feel
bad, Homeland security has the same problem.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Anderson, do you
have anything else to say?
19 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I would like to
respond.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to take you
21 through pretty much all these comments . First
comment I want to make is start off with a
22 dissertation on the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, and you should be aware that this is a
23 building of a single-family dwelling, which is a
Type 2 Action and the State Environmental Quality
24 Review Act does not apply. You also probably know
that the granting of an individual lot line
25 variances are also Type 2 actions and they are
likewise not subject to State Environmental
November 30 , 2006
105
1
2 Quality Review Act . There is no issue of
separation -- I think she meant to say
3 segmentation -- which is discouraged in the
statute because the statute doesn' t apply. And
4 finally that there is no agency coordination
provided in SEQRA with regards to this project
5 because the project is not subject to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act because it is a.
6 Type 2 Action.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Type 2 Action, right .
7 MR. ANDERSON: And we all know Type 2
Actions by law are not capable of causing
8 significant environmental impacts . That ' s what it
says .
9 So the question pertaining to the
discrepancies of the Trustee approval deal with a
10 slight elevation change in the vicinity of the
septic system, specifically the septic tank and
11 you will get that amendment, and adding a French
drain, we are happy to do that .
12 The third thing, drainage generally,
you' ll notice on your survey, you will see we have
13 placed various dry wells which is standard and
best management practice for controlling runoff .
14 Shown on your survey, if the Trustees require or
if this Board requires additional drainage, we' re
15 happy to accommodate .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Bruce, can I ask a
16 question about that? The drain, are you capable
of keeping that, proving that you can keep that
17 water on the property that comes off the house; is
there some calculation that allows you?
18 MR. ANDERSON: Yes . For a two inch
rainfall we can comply.
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you can supply
that?
20 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I would be happy to
provide you with that drainage calculation.
21 MR. ANDERSON: Now, as to the lot size,
what Mrs . Lane is referring to property line in
22 our survey shows 183 . 47 feet, which is the
measurement from the northeast property corner to
23 the water, that is to the water is marked by mean
high water, which changes . It' s a variable and in
24 fact, looking at this description and I would
presume also the Lanes' deed description, they
25 would go to a written meets and bounds description
of the property extending to mean high water . So
November 30 , 2006
106
1
2 that number can change depending on whether
erosion happens, accretion happens . It is also a
3 function of interpretation on the part of the
surveyor. And the surveyor is specifically
4 licensed to make those sources of interpretations,
and that' s what he has done and he has put his
5 seal upon the survey, and he has put his license
on the line . And we must rely on what the
6 licensed surveyor tells us in terms of the
distance from that point to the high water mark as
7 well as the area of the lot, as well as the
coverage over the lot because that' s what
8 surveyors do .
Next we move to the question of the
91 environmental integrity of Goose Creek, we already
have a Trustee permit for that . By the way the
10 Trustee permit also includes that footprint of
that house of that garage, being that setback from
11 that wetlands . So there is no change . The change
referred to here, as Heather Cusack just told us,
12 is that slight elevation change . There is not a
.smoke and mirror show going on here .
13 Now, as far as the creek goes there is a
50 foot buffer, and it shows on the survey and it
14 is required in the Trustee permit . That is an
enforcement issue that the Trustees make . It is
15 their job to insure that it is protected. I will
say in contrast, when you look at the adjacent
16 property as shown in the aerial photographs that
these people just handed up, it was their lawn
17 extends right to the creek, and that if you look
at that property you will notice that the high
18 mark has in fact been cleared from the adjacent
property now owned by Lane. So when you compare
19 the two properties --
MS . LANE : I refute that .
20 MR. ANDERSON: So, when you compare the
two properties from the standpoint of
21 environmental protection, you' ll find that this
has a 50 foot natural buffer, the other has
22 lawn. This has an extensive tide mark, the other
one doesn' t . Now, whether they cut down the
23 marsh, I don' t know, I don' t care, but to say that
somehow that this is more of a detriment than
24 what' s next door is patently absurd, and if there
is this overriding concern, let them remove the
25 lawn and plant native vegetation and get the
appropriate permit authorizations to do that .
November 30 , 2006
107
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I just ask, when
were these aerial photographs taken?
3 MS . LANE : In August, 2005, so not this
. past summer, the previous summer. I believe
4 actually corroborated by regularly weeding the
dock.
5 (Audience discussion. )
MR. FERGUS : I have a permit for that .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sure you do.
MR. FERGUS : The Town, before I put
7 anybody on the property to cut a path in there, we
went through, I wouldn' t touch anything but only
8 vegetation until I got that done .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
9 MR. FERGUS : Many, many years I never cut
one native grass down on that property.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think I ' m going to
make a motion to keep the hearing open until all
11 these questions that have been raised by Heather,
the Trustees, and these folks, what have you, have
12 been answered to our satisfaction. There' s too
many discrepancies .
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I have a
comment on that?
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, Jim.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just have a
15 question. 'One of the things that this lady
mentioned was to use driveway in lot coverage
16 calculations . I think I heard that .
MR. ANDERSON: They' re not .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : They' re not . How
about the right of way?
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The right of way?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The right of way,
19 does that include the lot calculations?
MR. ANDERSON: For purposes of zoning
20 you' re supposed to be exclude it . For purposes of
coverage of the adjacent area, you do include it .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And it has been.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It has been?
22 MR. ANDERSON: We' re all under the
coverage restrictions .
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to
get it on the record.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Jim.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : There' s a couple
25 more things here that I heard from this lady that
don' t jive with -- either she' s misinformed or
i
November 30 , 2006
108
1
2 she' s accusing an agency of this Town of changing
something, and --
3 MS . LANE : I have made no allegations
against any agency of this Town, absolutely
4 not . I 'm sorry, I think you' re misunderstanding
what I have said. I' ll be very happy. to give you
5 a copy of the statement to review at your leisure .
I will give that to you today.
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I suppose you' ve
raised so many things, I 'm trying to figure out
7 where we go --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From here?
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : From here .
MS . LANE : A full review is I think what
9 we' re asking for.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How do we obtain
10 these answers? What is to our satisfaction?
Because quite honestly, what I heard, I could look
11 in the code book and find the answer to those
questions . Is that -- are we talking to somebody?
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there' s
discrepancies in the different site plans that
13 we' re given, as Heather said, they will have to go
back to the Trustees . I ' d like to see the
14 Trustees address that .
_ BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought that he
15 would remedy that . What is the other--
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I guess the French
16 drain, whether they need one, the applicant' s
engineer.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to confer
with the Town attorney too .
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I actually have a
question about the buildings, I don' t know if you
19 and your aircrafts and engineer have consulted
about the inclusion of your basement, knowing
20 fully well that it is likely going to flood, of
water proofing, which is essentially creating --
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can' t do it .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: -- creating a
22 channel along the cove where the slab and the
walls meet, and then using sump pumps in order to
23 channel out the water back onto the
property. That' s very standard, you know
24 especially when there' s clay around the core
percolation, one of the things that people often
25 do after the fact when their basements do start to
flood is at great expense, go in there because
November 30 , 2006
109
1
2 it' s so unhealthy for your house, forget about all
the stuff you want to store .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All the mold.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s unhealthy for
4 occupants and it' s unhealthy for the actually air
quality in the house and the structure of the
5 house, go in and do what I had to do in my house,
which is to go in and put in an entire system with
6 sump pumps, that would make a difference in terms
of groundwater runoff . And since you' re close to
7 the creek, where is that water going to eventually
wind up going, it has to go someplace that' s
8 contained on your property, you put dry wells in,
so it' s not going to either wind up either on
9 their property or back in the creek. So, have you
thought about those issues?
10 MRS . FERGUS : I believe that Courtney
represents the gentleman that will be --
11 MS . GALLAGHER: I am actually the quasi
contractor. I've been working on the plans for
12 the Ferguses over the past three years . I 'm
designing and maintaining this house . We have
13 talked about foundation, a foundation plan. I do
work with Joe Fischetti, and we do design the sump
14 pump system to connect to a lowering system to
connect with the dry well system. We actually
15 built the house two doors down in the area where
we did have to remove a lot of lawn. We did have
16 to bring material in to make the house sit
properly, and you know the property goes down.
17 It' s the garage doors on the --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We granted that
18 house .
MS . GALLAGHER:- Right . That was only a
19 few years ago. And their runoff, they do not have
issues . We complied and their dry wells are
20 holding up nicely. And now they have a crawl
space there and we don' t have any issues with that
21 crawl space for utilities and what not :
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are the dry wells
22 that are on this survey a part of that plan or are
they for -- is that simply for rain?
23 MS . GALLAGHER: The dry wells are for
rain, anything that' s any kind of in areas that we
24 do have access to the basement via outside, we do
connect dry well system in front of the stairs to
25 catch any runoff . We do take the drains very
seriously because, you know, the last thing you
November 30 , 2006
110
1
2 want is the customer coming back to us screaming
and yelling with an issue with the house . We put
3 appropriate venting windows in to allow to
alleviate all the problems . We put a cement bank
4 systems in so any issues that we have with the
basement we do look at, Fischetti' s been around
5 for a long time .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you have a
6 foundation plan that indicates location of sump
pumps and various discharge?
7 MS . GALLAGHER: No. I don' t actually draw
the foundation plans, we have Joe Fischetti . The
8 foundation plan should be attached to the plans
that you have in front of you, that we are going
9 off of .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We do have a --
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is your full name?
MS . GALLAGHER: Courtney Gallagher.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bruce, while
this nice lady is looking for that, Bruce, my
12 concern is the issue that this lady to my right
and to your left, that' s the issue of this
13 change . We are dealing with the standard septic
system in this house?
14 MR. ANDERSON: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there are no
15 elevated systems that require, no walls around
them?
16 MR. ANDERSON: No .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, the French
17 drain that you would be building would be towards
their property?
18 MR. ANDERSON: It would be on the line .
It would have it 20 feet from the septic system.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much of this
property is going to be devegetated?
20 MR. ANDERSON: Landward of the 50 foot .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. What
21 actually is going to happen between the Ferguses'
property and the people that are speaking now to
22 my right and to your left?
MR. ANDERSON: What is going to happen;
23 what do you mean?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Between the two,
24 is there going to be a vegetation buffer; is there
anything that is going to be proposed?
25 MS . FERGUS : They' re threatening a fence .
MR. LANE : The fence that she' s speaking
November 30 , 2006
111
1
2 of I put it because of trespassing, and that runs
along the right of way. There is no fence
3 between. We have all the phragmites .
MS . FERGUS : It' s a wetland.
4 MR. LANE : We got to clear the phragmites
to put the French drain in, and our phragmites,
5 which were supposedly not touched are going to
shield them. It' s going to give them the buffer
6 or whatever you want to call it . So actually,
they' re not doing anything, they' re just taking
7 all of their property and using it, and using our
property as their buffer. Let me just say
8 something. I had a conversation with Bruce one
time when we were standing there, and we were
9 going through this permit process, his
credibility I'm sorry, is in the gutter. He
10 turned around to me and he said -- -
MS . LANE : No, you can' t do this .
11 MR. LANE : I will do this .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Uh-uh.
12 MR. LANE : He said to me, if you want to
clear anything, because he made statements about
13 what we have been clearing or what have you, if
you want to clear anything, do it now.
14 MR. ANDERSON: I deny that .
MR. FERGUS : He did not say that .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t want to hear
personal stuff, please, please, nothing. Stick to
16 the facts .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask you a
17 question? Are you saying that somewhere in our
code it requires a buffer between your property
18 and his?
MR. LANE : No, what I'm saying is you can
19 put all the French drains you want, and I 'm not a
water scientist, but water is going to run to the
20 lowest point . If you put in 150 cubic yards of
fill and where is the excavation for the basement
21 going? And where is the excavation for the rock?
On the surveys, their survey and our survey,
22 together, it shows an eight foot elevation on both
sides . No, actually on our side it shows eight
23 foot, and on their side it shows 8 . 6 . How could
the surveyors have been so screwed up, they have
24 the boundary lines different and the high water
mark. We could remedy that . There' s an area
25 where we have an indication on the survey that
shows from the Volkavich property where the line
November 30 , 2006
112
1
2 is . So it' s not susceptable to erosion. They
could be showing where that true boundary line
3 is . We think it' s a floating boundary line
because we have three different numbers where it
4 is on three different surveys .
MS . LANE : Yes, and it was pointed out
5 that it' s a matter of interpretation for
' surveyors . So maybe our surveyor got something
6 different .
MR. LANE : If you take any one of those
7 numbers and move it back, what' s that going to do,
we don' t know. What is our property and what is
8 their?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ' m concerned about
9 you said something about a 50 foot buffer.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s from the
10 wetlands .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All the way the
11 French, on the waterfront .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the waterfront .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not on your
property. You' re concerned about their French
13 drain taking away your buffer?
MR. LANE : No, no. My point being, if all
14 the people who are paid to do this are wrong,
where is the water going to go? If you have clay
15 at four feet, and you have lateral water movement,
that' s the only way it could go, where does it end
16 up? We' re on slabs . It' s going to end up in our
house . It' s going to end up --
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In the creek.
MR. LANE : We' re saying, there' s a problem
18 that you can' t just change . It' s part of the
system. Maybe if they' re going to tear up all the
19 subsurface and take away all the clay and put in
sand, you' re still going to have the water table .
20 They can' t change. that . You've got a problem in
the area and they' re going to exacerbate that .
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to say that
our intent here is to really do the best job we
22 possibly can to respect the rights of property
owners, both neighbors and builders, and those who
23 want to build, development by right can happen,
but we want to make sure that it happens in the
24 most responsible way possible, and I'm sure that' s
what everyone wants . You don' t want a flooded
25 basement if you can avoid it .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He doesn' t have
November 30 , 2006
113
1
2 a basement, he lives on a slab.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You don' t want a
3 flooded house, and I for one want to make sure
that when I sit down to deliberate with my
4 colleagues I have benefit of as much information
as possible so we can make the most informed
5 judgment for everyone' s benefit . That' s why I
asked about the architectural plans because it did
6 confuse me because even just the set of drawings
that we've got here, at one point it says the
7 section calls it out at three car, the floor plan
calls it out as two and a half car, you' re saying
8 it' s a matter of the doors being changed, and I'm
saying, much as I guess you' re saying, we have
9 lots of information. The Trustees came in and now
they said, there' s inconsistent information. All
10 I care about -- I realize we are very limited in
what you are asking us to do in terms of one
11 simple setback variance, that is why you' re before
us, but when these issues are raised, I want to be
12 able to sleep at night . I want to be able to say
that I 've done my job' as a public official, the
13 best of my ability to incorporate a total picture,
and to work with other agencies if need be, to
14 make sure that we' re all on the same page here . I
do have a problem with Trustees having one bit of
15 information and we having another bit of
information.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And they have another
bit of information.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because there are
so many runoff and drainage problems in the whole
18 area, it' s not just your piece of property, or
your piece of property, all the along there there
19 are issues that all of us need to be concerned. I
just looked at the foundation plans and in the
20 corners I see called out F D, French
drains . There is nothing that shows in the
21 section or in other plans, on the electrical
foundation plan, how they' re tied into anything.
22 They' re noted --
MR. ANDERSON: What do you want us to
23 provide exactly?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Two things . A
24 survey that has consistent information on it .
When you go back to the Trustees and you get the
25 change and in grade and so on, that' s the survey
I ' d like to look at in terms of making a final
November 30 , 2006
114
1
2 deliberation.
MR. ANDERSON: That survey.
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right, I mean,
you' re going to do it anyway. The other thing
4 that I would like to do is see how below grade
water in basement areas is going to tie in to
5 about any kind of onsite cistern, dry wells,
drain, whatever. I want to see how water
6 management on the site is going to be controlled.
Mr. Fischetti can provide it, Mr. Saetta can
7 provide it .
MR. ANDERSON: On the sump pumps, is that
8 what you' re asking?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The pumps and how
9 the discharge tubes are tied in to create control
of groundwater runoff . You need to understand it
10 as homeowners, as property owners, because I don' t
want to see what happened to me happen to you. It
11 cost me $10, 000 to fix a problem that I didn' t
create . I moved into a situation that' s on solid
12 clay, and I'm at the end of a hill, on the
bottom. It' s just important that people be
13 informed about what they' re getting into, that' s
all .
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not only that,
Leslie, you have to deal with the fact of what
15 it' s going into.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s what I
16 mean.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can pump
17 anything out, but what is it going into?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s what I want
18 to see . Water discharge is accounted for in .the
corners of the foundation plan, but not how it
19 will be removed, and where it will wind up .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me ask you a
20 question, when we have had these extremely high
tides --
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, in a
containment system.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- have you ever walked
down to the edge of their property; is there any
23 flooding on their property?
MS . LANE : There' s certainly no sand on
24 their property. It goes right up to the
grasses .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But the tide has not
come up over?
November 30 , 2006
115
1
2 MS . LANE : Possibly it does, yeah, a
little bit .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I'm just seeing
the past few years, I 'm not saying anything
4 against the Ferguses, but the past few years, we
have had more and more of these really bad
5 storms . The tide is really coming up . I see it
when it comes up, it pushes the whole freshwater
6 lens up, so that the water is bubbling on at the
ground. Of course they with the clay, if it comes
7 in under that clay, it' s going to come bubbling up
too, and there' s not much you can do about it, I
8 think they should be aware of it . There are
problems with waterfront plots, as nice as they
9 are .
MR. LANE : I haven' t seen any, we have had
10 heavy downpours . On the surface it' s all sand so
it goes right through, but we took a water line in
11 there, and yeah, the clay is there. So once it
hits the clay, yeah, over time it may permeate
12 through it, but if it' s a fast rain, where' s it
going to go? If you put that interruption in
13 higher than normal, now you've raised the
groundwater, you got less places to go, I've seen
14 it where the grass is actually under water or
where it' s soggy under the feet even though it' s
15 sand.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just want the
16 Ferguses to be aware of these problems that you do
have, and it' s very difficult --
17 MS . LANE : The tide line is definitely
getting higher.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To mitigate those .
MS . LANE : If it' s a heavy storm it comes
19 halfway up the path, it never used to do that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. Global
20 warming.
MS . LANE : I 've lost about a foot of the
21 eastern side .
MR. ANDERSON: Perhaps the Lanes should
22 install drains . They don' t have any drainage .
MS . LANE : We welcome all suggestions to
23 try and fix the environmental problem. What we' re
trying to do here is mitigate the impact on the
24 environment .
MR. ANDERSON: Are you offering to assist
25 your drainage?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No .
November 30 , 2006
116
1
2 MS . LANE : Possibly. You' re welcome to do
it .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No .
MS . LANE : What I would like to . say is
4 this LWRP form that I have here, you know, the
argument that' s being used as well on the visual
5 aspect is that the proposed dwelling will not
impede the line of sight through the subject lot
6 anymore than it is impeded now as the said lot is
highly vegetated. But he' s clearing all that
7 vegetation but most of the vegetation would only
be up to the heights of the phragmites and yet the
8 roof height is only 20 something feet . So that
beautiful view is impeded. I mean, I 'm not saying
9 that he doesn' t have the right to build but I 'm
saying the arguments that are being used.
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I was wondering if
we could have a copy of your questions, please .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Statement and your
questions, would be very helpful .
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What did you say,
you just did what?
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You said something?
MR. ANDERSON: Trees, they' re trees .
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I didn' t hear you.
I didn' t hear you. I have great empathy. You
15 bought property some time ago, and at the time you
have become more and more aware of how development
16 has impacted collectively. You've had it for
years, you' re entitled to -- this has always been
17 declared a building site, and you' re entitled to
build your home on it . I do have a lot of empathy
18 for you. It' s an expensive process to go
through.
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s time
consuming.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Frustrating.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But I do hope you
21 understand that this is not about attempting to
take away your right to build your house, to make
22 sure that when you do it' s in the best interest of
all concerned.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And in the safest way
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the environment
24 too, and for your sake too.
MRS . FERGUS : I understand that and as my
25 husband said, we owned this property since 1982 .
We have never touched a phragmite on that
November 30 , 2006
117
1
2 property, ever. Mr. Tuthill, got permission, like
he said, got permission after 11 months to cut a
3 path to our job, and I mean, we have abided by
DEC, we have abided by the Town Trustees, I mean,
4 as far as dry wells and things like that, that' s
fine by us, we don' t want water any more than the
5 Lanes want water.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The issue is what
6 goes forward. There' s no indication, I think that
anything that you have done or anybody else has
7 done is defective . It' s just a question of where
do we go from here . It' s a lot easier to be
8 preventive than it is to be corrective .
MRS . FERGUS : I agree . That' s why we have
9 no problem putting in extra dry wells and sump
pumps .
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Good.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The point is I
11 don' t want to have the Trustees telling you one
thing and telling us another thing, that' s unfair
12 to you. We should collaborate, get the same
information, make sure we all understand what all
13 the implications are and then make our best
decision. . I don' t want to see anyone feeling like
14 they' re confused, or jerked around, or how come
this one says this or that one says that .
15 Sometimes you know you can do everything right and
follow everything everybody tells you --
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And be wrong.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And it still
17 doesn' t come out as clearly as it should. Our
task is to try and make sure it comes out clearly
18 and well .
MR. FERGUS : My wife and the architects,
19 the size of the house aside from cutting down the
size of the garage, I mean, it would be asking to
20 put the garage at the original size, and push down
this for a larger variance, we cut that down, the
21 main portion of the house, I think it' s under
3 , 000 square feet, Courtney, I think somebody
22 measured it, which is still a sizable house,
granted, we haven' t changed anything in terms of
23 the dimension. There was a reference here that
something was changed in terms of the house
24 getting bigger and smaller and bigger and smaller,
we haven' t changed that . As far as any surveys
25 that you have, they have all been certified by the
local surveyor.
November 30, 2006
118
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know.
MR. FERGUS : We did what we had to do.
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You just have to
understand one thing, Mr. Fergus, sometimes when
4 they' re submitted, there are different dates on
those surveys, and there may be one little thing
5 left off and/or one little issue, and when you
review them and you lay them all out as this nice
6 lady did in the back, they may not be exactly the
same, and those are the problems that you run into
7 with submissions of other agencies, and that' s an
issue that she' s raising, and that' s an issue that
8 we have a particular concern about . And not that
there' s anything -- it may be so diminimus, that
9 it doesn' t have a real effect upon anything but we
certainly want to be aware of it . If there was a
10 different submission to a different board with
some particular issue that we' re not dealing with.
11 That' s the reason why I asked Bruce regarding the
cesspool system, if it was going to be a raised
12 system or a flat system, and that' s a concern,
why, because your neighbor in the back doesn' t --
13 it' s sediment, they don' t want anything moving
toward their property, and I don' t blame them, I
14 wouldn' t either. Those are all issues that we' re
trying to deal with here based upon this
15 particular hearing, and I just want .you to be
aware of that .
16 MR. FERGUS : Where do we go from here?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to make a
17 motion to keep the hearing open until such time
that the Trustees have reviewed it and that we
18 have gotten the questions answered from this nice
lady to my right out here, and then we will
19 schedule it for another date .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Question, question.
20 What are the answers from this nice lady, quite
honestly?
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have them in
writing.
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She created some
questions; am I correct? Now, who is going to
23 give us those answers?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We will submit them to
24 Mr. Anderson.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could you write a
25 letter addressing those; is that what' s going to
happen? And then we can review that?
November 30 , 2006
119
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We' ll include them
in a letter to him and he' ll respond.
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ' m concerned.
MR. ANDERSON: I ' d be happy to address
4 whatever questions you have .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re closing a
5 hearing --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re not closing it .
6 We' re keeping it open.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All right . We' re
7 leaving a hearing open; where are we going to get
those answers from? Who are we going to ask those
8 questions? If you have a question, all I want to
know is where you' re going to get the answer
9 because you' re leaving it open. It doesn' t seem
to me like you have any place where you' re going
10 to go and get the answer.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the
11 reason why I wanted to discuss that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: With who? Let' s
12 get it on the record, that' s all .
MR. ANDERSON: Here' s what I don' t
13 understand.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s up to
14 Mr . Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: We requested a Trustees
15 permit amendment, we will get that permit
amendment submitted to you and that will be the
16 survey. That will take care of that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
17 MR. ANDERSON: You have asked that the
drainage sump pump design and how it will tie into
18 the drainage to make it provided to you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct .
19 MR. ANDERSON: That will be provided to
you.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
MR. ANDERSON: This woman put in a letter
21 which raises questions, I 'm happy to take those
questions and respond to them.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Good, thank
you.
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So then we' re going
to talk to counsel next .
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
25 MR. ANDERSON: Then you can decide whether
you agree with my answers or not .
November 30 , 2006
120
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sounds good.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I will second that
3 motion.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
4 (All Ayes . )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you all very much
5 for your time, patience, courtesy, et cetera.
-------------------------------------------------
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
a rehearing for Mr. Guild. Mr. Guild, I know you
7 have been before this Board before, but I did not
have the privilege of listening to your testimony,
8 although I did read it . I would appreciate it if
you would give me a brief, three minute overview
9 of just what you want to do
MR. GUILD: I want to add an additional
10 37, 000 square feet to my greenhouse range . And
the setback I want 50 feet, and they called for
11 75 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When you build a
12 greenhouse, what is the procedure for doing it? I
have pictures, if you care to look at them that I
13 took yesterday. You have all the plastic down;
what does that do?
14 MR. GUILD: What do you mean?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have the plastic
15 down from the greenhouses that are already there
to what? I would assume to the 56 mark.
16 MR. GUILD: There' s no greenhouse
there . This is no greenhouse . This is blocked
17 off .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Whatever it is,
18 plastic?
MR. GUILD: This is the cloth greenhouse .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I know but I mean,
why is the cloth down?
20 MR. GUILD: Because I put mums there
during the fall and we keep the weeds .out .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To keep the weeds
outs But in other words, when you build the new
22 greenhouse, you do not strip the top soil off?
MR. GUILD : No. When we built the first
23 range, we graded everything so everything was done
right then. So it' s all level .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very good.
MR. GUILD: We have to do it that way.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So this makes it easy
to keep all the weeds down so when you want to
November 30 , 2006
121
1
2 grow something it' s fine and dandy. That gully
that' s in the rear, is that part of your property
3 or --
MR. GUILD: That' s part of my property,
4 yes . We left it there . When we have a heavy
rain, it floods there and doesn' t go onto the
5 other property. And we' re going to leave it
there . And if we have the 50 feet --
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 56 feet?
MR. GUILD: 56 feet, it' s still going to
7 be there .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually the end of
8 your plastic is at the 56 mark?
MR. GUILD: Actually, yes,; it' s very
9 close .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, just wanted to be
10 sure . And I just wanted to ask you one more
question. Up near the road, you have two areas
11 also that are -- and this is actually that one
(indicating) .
12 MR. GUILD: We grow mums there too.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you' re just keeping
13 that. covered to keep the weeds down. No new
structure?
14 MR. GUILD: No.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Can you
15 explain why you need the amount of room you need
between the two greenhouses?
16 MR. GUILD: Because I have unusual
ventilation. I have vents . So we don' t have any
17 fans running, we need the air flow between the two
greenhouses .
18 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So if you
brought the back greenhouse closer, what would the
19 problem be; you wouldn' t- have enough air flow?
MR. GUILD: Enough air flow, plus we want
20 in between the two greenhouses, we grow hardy mums
that' s what we put there .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The deer don' t eat
them?
22 MR. GUILD : I put electric fence around.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I saw deer
23 marks all over the place .
MR. GUILD : Yes . But when we had mums
24 there we had electric fencing around.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So if you
25 brought the rear one closer, would you not have
enough room for the hardy mums; you couldn' t do it
November 30 , 2006
122
1
2 behind?
MR. GUILD: We' re probably never going to
3 put another greenhouse up there . We want to
keep -- I want to keep the distance the way it is .
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Guild, in your
original hearing, you requested a 32 percent lot
5 coverage, we granted you 30 percent . In the
survey you just submitted, it says 29 . 9 percent .
6 MR. GUILD: You said 32 , I never said 32 .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In the notice of
7 disapproval, building inspector calculated your
proposal based on your hand-drawn survey; in other
8 words, part of it was hand drawn, part of it was
an originally licensed surveyor at 32 percent .
9 This Board granted you a 30 percent lot coverage .
We now see in your corrected survey, that it is in
10 fact less than what we granted you. You
requested 32 . The notice of disapproval said that
11 you were requesting coverage that would amount to
32 percent .
12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : He told me he was
happy with the 30 percent lot coverage .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The distinction
then is that we are back here because you are
14 continuing to request a 56 foot rear yard setback
for your greenhouse, which is what your original
15 request was, as opposed to the 75 foot required
setback. When I inquired previously about
16 ventilation, essentially you said that you could
live with a little bit less space in between those
17 greenhouses than what you originally requested. I
think what you' re asking for is not so much the
18 issue of ventilation, which, despite all of my
efforts to try to get you to explain what the
19 minimum space requirements for that adequate
ventilation were, that what you really want the
20 space for is in addition to ventilation to
maximize the ground cover area for growing your
21 crops?
MR. GUILD: Correct .
22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. I just want
to be sure that I understand why -- because I
23 could not get an adequate technical reason for
ventilation to be at that number of feet that you
24 were requesting. It' s a combination of
ventilation and crop.
25 MR. GUILD: I think it would be in the
best interest, that' s what I want and I can keep
November 30 , 2006
123
1
2 more crops in between the greenhouse . Also the
other reason why I didn' t like the finding at the
3 end of the statement that I could never build
again, and I think that' s too restrictive of a
4 statement .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I think it said if
5 you add anything you have to come back.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, he is right on
6 the original there was a condition for granting
the lot coverage at 30 percent, it stipulates that
7 no additional structures on the subject parcel be
built in the future that would cause this lot
8 coverage to be exceeded. That was a condition of
the original --
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Doesn' t mean that you
couldn' t come back in and ask for a variance .
10 MR. GUILD: Yeah, but I think if I built
the greenhouse, that' s saying I cannot do it .
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. It would mean
it' s just like now. You want to build a
12 greenhouse you have to get permission.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That
13 statement' s really superfluous, if you wanted to
build it, you' d have to come in.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s right .
MR. GUILD: So the statement shouldn' t
15 really be there .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Those statements
16 are for subsequent owners . This has nothing to do
with you, Mr. Guild
17 MR. GUILD: Prior owners say, oh, you can
do anything on it . You sell the property to them
18 and then they come back in and then all of a
sudden they can ask for 90 percent lot coverage .
19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But the code
already says that . You can' t exceed the lot
20 coverage .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
21 that . But I 'm just explaining to him.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think he' s
22 taking it as you' ll never grant me another
variance .
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, that' s not
true .
24 MR. GUILD: Suppose I want to go build a
Morton building, because I'm renting a building
25 now. Truthfully I don' t really need to rent, I
could build a building there, but I 'm not ready to
November 30 , 2006
124
1
2 do that, maybe 10 years down the road.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You have to come back
3 anyway.
MR. GUILD: Oh, I got to come back in,
4 that' s a whole different ballgame .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No . But saying that
5 you have to come in anyway, and there' s a clause
that you have to come back anyway doesn' t do you
6 any harm.
MR. GUILD: What I understand from that
7 statement in the end is if I agree to this I can
never build again.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, no, we can' t do
that .
9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, what that means
is that it repeats what the code says, and it is
10 redundant . It is not necessary to put it in the
deliberation. It is there as Mr. Goehringer said,
11 for purposes of clarification. It simply means
that you are already exceeding what our current
12 zoning allows, which we are granting you to do,
and if you wish to do additional structural work
13 on that property, you would have to come back to
see whether we would be prepared to grant another
14 variance for additional lot coverage .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which would be
15 relief of that condition.
MR. GUILD: Because I had some other
16 people read that and they interpreted it the same
way I did.
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s a reminder.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don' t have any
18 problem in rewriting a deliberation that deletes
it, simply you would have to comply with the law
19 anyway. If it makes you more comfortable, that' s
not an issue .
20 MR. GUILD: At 56 feet .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s the
21 question. Here' s the important point : If the
connecting piece between the existing and proposed
22 greenhouse with the two greenhouses are now
calculated at 30 percent lot coverage, 28 . 9
23 percent, assume they' re calculating the lot
coverage to be -- then that' s a reasonable thing
24 to do. Part of the reason for maintaining the
setback at less than the 75 feet was to reduce the
25 lot coverage because the piece would be shorter,
that connecting piece would become shorter and
November 30 , 2006
125
1
2 that' s a built piece of structure . If you reduce
the setback to 56, then what you' re doing is
3 creating a longer piece . I was basing it on
calculations that the building inspector indicated
4 in the notice of disapproval would yield a 32
percent lot coverage .
5 MR. GUILD: That' s what he did, I disagree
with him.
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We can only go on
the basis of the legal disapproval that we' re
7 given. I'm not a licensed surveyor, which is why
we asked you for a surveyor. Had you done that to
8 begin with, we wouldn' t even be here .
MR. GUILD: The other thing is if I
9 couldn' t put the greenhouse there, why did I have
to get a survey until I know I can put it there .
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because it cost you
$250 like every other citizen of this town to come
11 before this Board with a legal document so we make
decisions based on legal documents .
12 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Besides, if you wanted
to sell it, the first thing people would say is
13 where' s your legal survey.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I will tell you
14 something now, given the fact that there is
virtually no visual impact on anybody whether you
15 have a 75 or 56 foot rear yard setback, I don' t
have a problem with the setback. What I had a
16 problem with was the lot coverage, and the lot
coverage as it turns out based on this new survey,
17 essentially doesn' t exceed what we already granted
you, so I don' t have a problem with the setback.
18 MR. GUILD: I understand all this, but I
also know it' s a gray area because in New York
19 greenhouses are equipment, they' re not built .
It' s such a gray area that' s why, you know,
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don' t have a
definition that says temporary structure . It' s
21 either a structure or it' s not a structure .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You know that is a
22 problem because we often come into conflict
according to what our zoning requires us to
23 operate under. You know, we can' t legislate from
the bench. If we have a law, we have to uphold
24 that law or grant relief from that law. On the
other hand, when you don' t think a law is up to
25 snuff, in other words, if it' s dated, if it needs
to be revised, then you need to change the code .
November 30 , 2006
126
1
2 But we can' t change the code from this bench.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think also
3 what needs to be reflected on the record is the
unique situate of this property. That it' s in a
4 New York state agricultural district and Ag and
Markets has its own point of view as to what rules
5 apply in those districts, and we' re required to
work with the applicant and Ag and Markets to come
6 up with a good solution, and that' s what we' re
doing here . So, we should be careful about the
7 precedent setting value of this decision in
properties that are not in the Ag district .
8 MR. GUILD: I agree with you.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That' s why
9 we' re here .
MR. GUILD: I live here, I want to
10 prosper.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Sounds like
11 you' re in good shape .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Kieran, how do we
12 proceed? Close the hearing again?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Close the
13 hearing again, and make your new decision.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. I' ll make a
14 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
15 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------- ----------
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
East Marion Fire District . Mr. Boyd, are you
17 going to be the spokesperson for our 30 foot
tower?
18 MR. BOYD: I'm Ed Boyd representing the
East Marion Fire District . I'm here today with an
19 application for a 120 foot communications tower
for the fire district -- for the fire department .
20 The reasons for this are very simple . We have had
occasion with all the fire departments with
21 precedents using in a 46 megahertz area, it simply
doesn' t work anymore . The coverage that we have
22 is terrible and we are overrun with interference .
The interference has become a true difficulty in
23 our day to day operations and with Babylon Town
and specifically Deer Park Fire District are
24 running through extremely large transmitters,
which interfere with our working frequencies on a
25 regular basis . All of the fire districts in
Southold town are going to a high band radio
November 30 , 2006
127
1
2 communications .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
3 MR. BOYD : In order for a 450 megahertz to
work, we must get an antenna in the area, and it
4 must be a substantial distance up in the air. The
antennae must be suited to the topography of the
5 area it is going to cover. This new communication
system is required for the safety of the fire
6 fighters, certainly is necessary for the
efficiency of the families, the dispatcher and the
7 operation of the ambulances, who have new
protocols which they must adhere to. The way that
8 most fire districts are answering this protocol is
by issuing a portable radio to each and every
9 member of the rescue squad or ambulance squad so
that they can call in immediately upon the
10 dispatch and signal to the dispatcher that they
are responding to the requirements of the county
11 standards . Certainly, these include marine
divisions . Water rescue has grown an unbelievable
12 amount in the past few years . The Coast Guards
are actually getting out of the business and
13 turning it back to the local .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does East Marion have a
14 marine division?
MR. BOYD : Certainly do. Orient and
15 Southold and Cutchogue and Greenport .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Everybody.
16 MR. BOYD: We all have it . We've gone
from two years ago one or perhaps two incidents to
17 an excess of 20 this last summer. It' s just a
fact of life .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I believe it .
MR. BOYD: You do have all the details of
19 the presentation in the packet . I have two
witnesses here today that I would like you to hear
20 something from, but I can expand or contract what
they have to do say.
21 A big difference between the last
application that was before you and East Marion is
22 that in the case on the Orient application, we did
not have a 450 megahertz system in operation.
23 East Marion already has it in operation. East
Marion town already has an operation and I would
24 like to have Chief Wallace of the fire department
explain to you exactly what the situation is with
25 the 450 megahertz at the existing antenna height .
So it can be demonstrated --
November 30 , 2006
128
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the existing?
MR. BOYD: 30 -- not even.
3 MR. BOYD: The other gentleman is Bill
Schiebel, who you might remember, is from
4 Eastern --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, we remember.
5 MR. BOYD: They' re the gentlemen that , I
would have speak about the radio frequency maps .
6 I apologize in advance, the color copy has proven
to be unservable today. So we have one color map,
7 the other is black and white, but we would be
happy at a later date to supply color copies to
8 flesh out the application.
So without anything further, at this
9 moment I would like to turn it over to Chief
Wallace so we could very briefly explain to you
10 what the status is of the 450 megahertz radio that
they operate right now in East Marion. Chief?
11 CHIEF WALLACE : Chief Gregory Wallace,
East Marion Fire Department . Hi .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hi .
CHIEF WALLACE : As Mr. Boyd has said
13 before, we run with 450 megahertz; we need the
increased coverage on the west end, which would
14 not be able to operate on the 450 megahertz , on
the causeway where we need mutual aid assistance
15 from other departments, but we had not been able
to contact our provider on low band.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When did you go over to
the higher frequency?
17 CHIEF WALLACE : We put the higher
frequency in effect January 1st . It did not cover
18 even our district . We had an incident where we
were called for a water rescue and our boat was
19 out doing operations, and I could not communicate
with them, I did not know where they were . It' s
20 very dangerous . Having a repeater at a height of
120 feet would enable us coverage in our district
21 as well as coverage in neighboring districts
because as things are going, the volunteer system
22 is being taxed and taxed more and the departments
on the east end have decided to work together
23 cooperatively a lot more than they have in the
.past . So we find ourselves not only doing
24 operations in our districts but. often doing
operations in other districts as well . It would
25 be easier to utilize that communications .
There was an incident in Southold where we
November 30 , 2006
129
1
2 could not use our high band radios . There was a
lot of traffic on low band, so in order to
3 communicate with our members, we ended up using
Cutchogue' s repeater off their frequency. But
4 there is need for coverage throughout the entire
town because we do work often in mutual aid
5 response . So where it is now doesn' t even cover
our district .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
CHIEF WALLACE : That' s all I have .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does Greenport have the
high frequency too?
8 CHIEF WALLACE : Greenport is in the
process of putting it in place . I don' t know
9 where they are at this point . I know they have a
system.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Southold?
CHIEF WALLACE : Southold has theirs up and
11 running. Cutchogue, Mattituck and Orient has just
got theirs .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . I see it going
up every day. Okay, thank you.
13 CHIEF WALLACE : You' re welcome .
MR. BOYD: The other presenter that I
14 would like to call, to bring before you is
Mr. Scheibel from Eastern Long Island Electronics
15 who will just show you very quickly what the
propagation maps are and why we believe that we
16 must get to this height for our antenna . These
are the black and white copies, and I ' ll leave the
17 color copy behind because it' s a lot easier to
see . But I' ll speak from the color copy, if you
18 don' t mind (handing) . .
A lot of the actual presentation I think
19 you've seen before .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have .
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Probably we' ll see
it again.
21 MR. SCHEIBEL: Do you want me to do it
again?
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, but it was really
good, though.
23 MR. SCHEIBEL: I mean, cut to chase, the
Chief and Ed have kind of given you the details,
24 and I know you' re well aware of why we do this
now, and the fact that most of the departments are
25 being put on line, they have the antenna that' s
about 30 feet right now, and what the first map
November 30 , 2006
130
1
2 shows, it' s kind of obvious when you see the pole
in black and white, the coverage right now at 30
3 feet is really bad.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nothing.
4 MR. SCHEIBEL: They cannot even cover
their own district with a handheld radio . At 120
5 foot mark, there' s obviously a clear difference
between the 30 foot antenna and the 120 foot
6 antenna. You can see that the coverage extends
now you can see, which is how we engineer the
7 systems . We want at least one district on
coverage to each direction, and obviously at 120
8 feet we accomplish that goal . That' s pretty much
based on that terrain on Long Island to deal with.
9 As you know from the past that' s kind of the
number we come up with.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the elevation
in East Marion where you want to put the tower?
11 MR. SCHEIBEL: I believe it' s 30 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s more than
12 Orient .
MR. SCHEIBEL: Then, if you look at the
13 other side, the back side of the equation, this is
the radio' s ability to talk back to the repeater
14 site .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We remember that, the
15 talk out .
MR. SCHEIBEL: The talk-out map, which is
16 from the repeater back out to the radio; you won' t
see a drastic difference because the license that
17 East Marion has actually has translimitations .
The license in East Marion, like Orient, and this
18 has to do with the FCC and channels . I won' t bore
you with the details, but the FCC put limitation
19 on their transmitter because there are already
what they call co-channel users in Connecticut
20 that they don' t want to create an interference
problem. So the antenna height for the
21 transmitter and receiver will actually be
different, whereas in Orient they' re the same .
22 But you can see, easily, this is the talk-out
coverage at the current 24 feet, and this is the
23 talk-out coverage at what ends up at about 45
feet .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me see this one
again.
25 MR. SCHEIBEL: As we say in the radio
business, height is might . But see talk-out
r
November 30 , 2006
131
1
2 coverage you can make up by adding more power, you
can' t do anything, as we talked about last time,
3 there' s nothing you can do about the handheld
radio, the four watt handheld. And its small
4 battery and small antenna is a constant versus I
can do something to the hardware that' s located at
5 the repeater site to generate more energy and
therefore make up for talk-out . And there you
6 have it .
Beyond that, this pretty much speaks for
7 itself . If you have any questions as to why we
did what we did or our intentions going forward, I
8 would certainly be happy to answer them for you.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, we see the
9 Orient tower going up now, how much different in
view?
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How different is this
going to be? Because the Orient tower only goes
11 partly up with the white it' s more like --
MR. SCHEIBEL: The Orient tower will be
12 white all the way up .
MR. BOYD: When they have the antennas
13 fixed to the central core, then the panels will go
around the outside of it so the entire
14 presentation will be white with a single monopole
whip at the very top. The East Marion tower is
15 designed to appear as a flag pole . There' s going
to be a flag on it; there' s going to be a cross on
16 it . The flag will be lighted with lights . That' s
the way it' s been presented so far; that' s the way
17 it was looked at by the Planning Board that they
seemed to appreciate that design. That' s it .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
purpose of the cross on it?
19 MR. BOYD: Decorative .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And to hold the
20 lights?
MR. BOYD : And to hold the lights .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How far from the
building is it going to be?
22 MR. BOYD: I' d have to look.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We have the
23 elevation and the site plan, but it' s so tiny.
Before we had full scale . These are awfully hard.
24 MR. BOYD : I can get you larger ones .
It' s also a very confusing site because there' s so
25 many lines on it . It looks like about 20 feet
between the back of the rear garage and the base
November 30, 2006
132
1
2 of the enclosure around the tower.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was just wondering if
3 they couldn' t move it closer to the building as
you did say in Orient, it gives at least the
4 height of the building, kind of mitigates the
height of the tower sort of, a little bit .
5 Because otherwise there' s nothing. Everything' s
flat .
6 MR. BOYD: I believe the fire district
wanted to keep some area behind there for relative
7 easy access to the garage area.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right . I just
8 wondered.
MR. BOYD: It was discussed. I know it
9 was a subject of discussion by the commissioners
at the meeting and they figured they were getting
10 it as close as they could for effective use of
their property. In the packet that each of you
11 have there' s a color photograph that shows the
stakes exactly and those stakes show you where the
12 fencing around the base of the tower would be, not
terribly far back from the rear garage .
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How far are those
from the back of the lot?
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: He thinks it' s
about 20 feet .
15 MR. BOYD : Well, from the back of the lot
it' s considerably more .
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, from the back
of the lot . It looks like it' s 106 feet -- no
17 that' s to the front -- 133 --
MR. BOYD: 106 minus 20, looks about 86
18 feet .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it' s closer to the
19 house .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, yeah. Because
20 we don' t have, as we did in Orient, the entire
site plan. We don' t have information about
21 landscaping around the mechanical area. I presume
it' s part of the site plan approval from the
22 Planning Board.
MR. BOYD: The Planning Board has dealt
23 with that . They have no problem with that at all .
It' s a double row of trees around the outside of
24 the fence . Staggered one tree here, closer to the
fence all the way around.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high?
MR. BOYD: It really is nothing that
November 30 , 2006
133
1
2 anyone at the Planning Board found to be the
slightest bit offensive given the nature of what
3 we' re dealing with.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, unlike in the
4 case of Orient where there was an impact of
residential streets as well as Main Road. Here
5 the impact is not so great at the base . There' s
no real impact on Route 25 . It' s primarily on the
6 resident properties behind is . Which concerns me
to make sure that you've done everything you
7 possibly can to make it as attractive and the
least intrusive .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think there could be
some trees on that rear property line .
9 MR. BOYD: Obviously if you want that we
would be happy to comply with that . If I remember
10 correctly, the majority of the flags will be on
the north, east and west of the enclosure, and the
11 entrance to it will be on the southerly part, but
I think that' s another reason --
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which is facing the
back.
13 MR. BOYD: That' s another reason why we
needed some separation between the building and
14 the enclosure, so that we could get into it .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Service truck can
15 get back in there?
MR. BOYD : Exactly.
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know, I just
want to say this to you, Mr. Boyd, at the last
17 hearing in Orient -- I'm putting words in my
fellow Board Members' mouths, sometimes I take
18 them away but I' ll put them in this time -- there
was an attempt -- of course, we moved the antenna
19 closer to the building, and certainly one or two
of the Board Members and there is a nice young
20 lady in the audience that wants to speak -- in an
attempt to mitigate this cylindrical pole, there
21 was a thought of some future plantings of some
evergreens that would certainly grow to an
22 excessive height some day. So that if the tower
ever had to be moved, not to get in the way of the
23 tower but to somehow mitigate that height .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Soften it .
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Soften it, and
I 'm just trying to get a gist of -- and this is
25 for future applications that you may come before
us -- that from the fire commissioners if there
November 30 , 2006
134
1
2 would be any attempt to do that on their behalf,
to try and help the community out in the back
3 there .
MR. BOYD: Obviously I can' t commit to 100
4 percent but I'm confident that anything that is a
reasonable request will be accommodated. I'm not
5 sure exactly what can be done in the way of trees
that get to a certain height within a reasonable
6 period of time, anything like that . The one thing
that I have had a question about and probably
7 shouldn' t even stir the pot on this one right now,
but I 'm not sure that the white color that we have
8 been going with on some applications is the best .
It' s going to present as a flag pole, white is the
9 traditional color for a flag pole and that seems
to be what the community settled upon as being the
10 least --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Offensive?
11 MR. BOYD: -- offensive, shall we say for
the presentation.
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite honestly,
Sunday I was out in Orient, gray or that blue
13 color it would be much better than white, unless
you want to make it look like a church steeple .
14 It just sticks out as this big white line on the
blue . That was the first .thing that struck me is
15 it looks better without the top on it . Less
intrusive .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It doesn' t look really
bad with just the plates, I agree with you.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The problem is when
you try to make something what it isn' t, it is a
18 monopole, and it' s not a flag, and it doesn' t have
the same scale, and it doesn' t have the same
19 diameter.
MR. BOYD: All these designs exist
20 there' s a limit as to what can be done . But your
observation as to the color is certainly one that
21 I concur, and in Orient, if we were a clean slate
we might possibly look at a different color rather
22 than the white .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Quite frankly, I
23 think there is a certain honesty and aesthetic
quality to pieces of engineering that ought to
24 look like pieces of engineering and serve a
functional purpose and don' t have to be
25 camouflaged. I mean, they' re going to be out of
scale no matter what you do relative to what' s
November 30 , 2006
135
1
2 around it .
The other thing is I believe what we've
3 talked about or what Jerry' s talking about in
terms of trees is there is an engineering report
4 several years back that was in our file that
indicated that the case of Orient that base it was
5 really visible from the scenic corridor, Route 25,
which will in part be the case with East Marion as
6 well, that a 30 foot high tree given the setback
from the Main Road at full maturity would mitigate
7 the height because of the angle . You actually
calculate the horizontal to vertical distance and
8 actually triangulate it and the 30 foot high tree,
the suggestion was not an evergreen because that
9 would essentially diminish the open fields that
are important to the scenic corridor, so it was a
10 deciduous tree that was suggested. It' s possible
that maybe putting that on the boundary behind the
11 fire station where the residential properties
are . I would suggest deciduous because they' re
12 probably more in keeping.
MR. BOYD : I. know it had been discussed
13 the possibility of putting some deciduous
plantings along Route 25, and that has been
14 objected to by the fire district because we
believe that it would impede the visibility of the
15 apparatus coming out .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No question
16 about it .
MR. BOYD: But along the rear of the
17 property I don' t see any reason why that could not
be done as long as they' re not going to be 25 foot
18 trees right away.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think that' s an
19 unreasonable cost .
MR. SCHEIBEL: As long as the trees didn' t
20 grow to a height where it would --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Interfere with your
21 signal, right?
MR. SCHEIBEL: I think the lowest antenna
22 is at 38 . So you could go pretty high with the
trees before you had any problems .
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the
absolute minimum height that your equipment would
24 operate optimally at? Is it 120 feet or less than
120 feet?
25 MR. BOYD: I think you' re asking a
question that cannot be answered as far as minimal
November 30 , 2006
136
1
2 height and optimal . Optimally we' re looking at
120 feet . Bill can testify to what would happen
3 to the RF propagation if the antenna height would
be diminished, and it would be a percentage
4 factor. MR. SCHEIBEL: Let' s say we were
to drop the antenna height 20 feet, you' d probably
5 see you' d lose coverage by that 10 percent but
there' s actually a computer with all the
6 arithmetic where I could come back and say -- in
fact, I think we did this with Orient .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you did.
MR. SCHEIBEL: And the way Orient actually
8 ended up being built was less than what the
optimum height was and actually what was lost was
9 coverage of Plum Island. So you can see from the
120 foot map that we now have coverage out, like
10 you' re talking water rescue is important now,
cross district coverage . So we obviously can
11 cover out to the Orient Point area with like a 95
percent liability. So if we drop the antenna 20
12 or 40 feet, you' re going to see differences that
are relative to the change in height . We can
13 protect that, that' s what the computer does . I
don' t actually hand draw that .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I'm just
wondering with Orient at 90 feet and you have a
15 higher elevation to start with, why do you need
120 feet, how about 80 feet?
16 MR. SCHEIBEL: Actually because the
coverage out of Orient, because remember Orient
17 actually was supposed to be 190 , we dropped it and
exactly what happened was we lost some percentage
18 of coverage . Given that what we end up with is
there' s no fire district outside of Plum
19 Island. Plum Island is what they call work water
cap, it' s pretty easy to talk across the
20 water. Plus the leaves on the trees is enough to
knock a radio signal down by a good percent . So
.21 the way we got to the 120 foot number was that you
talk in from handheld radio at ground height for
22 the district to each side of that is what we try
to accomplish, and that' s how we got the 120 foot
23 number. If we knock that number down what will
change is there won' t be handheld level coverage
24 at that, whatever, 95 percent liability that we
design to is going to drop to like a mobile level
25 of coverage outside the East Marion district . The
handheld coverage will stop and will probably not
November 30 , 2006
137
1
2 suffer.
MR. BOYD: One other point the Chairwoman
3 brought up is the difference in the ground level
elevation between East Marion and Orient, could we
4 get by with a lesser tower there . Well, certainly
if we' re talking about protecting out into an
5 increment space, but we must remember that East
Marion as such is higher than Orient . So we have
6 to stick with basically the same height of the
tower above the ground looking at the receiver as
7 a little portable is a little higher as well .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right . You
8 say, you' re not serving the lower area with the
higher; you' re serving the higher with a
9 higher. So --
MR. BOYD: Basically that takes that into
10 account .
MR. SCHEIBEL: In some of these runs I
11 make I ' ll load all the perimeters in and it will
take minutes before it comes up with a map. It
12 actually goes to the U. S .G. S . policy data and then
it looks at the levels we' ll enter the manpower
13 gradient it can generate, it comes up back to me
and it comes back with the zero.
14 MR. BOYD : Any other questions? I don' t
want to go overboard on this thing. I think you
15 understand what we' re talking about . You've heard
this before .
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just have one
other question, although it' s not part of this
17 application. Are there commercial cellular phone
company equipment that' s also going to be anchored
18 to this monopole, I presume so?
MR. BOYD: Not as part of this application
19 but there are of course interested parties, and I
suspect there will be applications to collocate on
20 a tower that' s put up for the fire district use .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Of course . Then the
21 obvious next question that you've heard before, to
what extent is that 120 feet rather than 90 feet
22 influenced by the needs of the private cell phone
companies?
23 MR. BOYD: In this instance it' s not . We
would get more coverage than we got out of Orient
24 at 90 feet . We would like to have optimum
coverage for our fire district in East Marion and
25 the 120 feet is the optimum.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We would like to
November 30, 2006
138
1
2 believe that if the cell phone company said that
we really want 150 feet, you would still be asking
3 for 120 .
MR. BOYD: Well, in a perfect world they
4 would want 155 .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s what I'm
5 saying whether their wants are instrumental .
MR. BOYD: We' re not asking for that .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re going to want
another cellular tower at Orient Point anyway.
7 MR. SCHEIBEL: You heard 195 is the magic
number for a lot of reasons . Number one you go to
8 195, you can put up that structure and not need
FAA approval, which has a whole layer of
9 complexity. Once you have 195 point something
feet, now you have lighting considerations .
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We' re just concerned
that we' re not deciding those issues when we' re
11 reviewing this .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s another thing,
12 if, God forbid, if the tower falls down at 120
feet, do you have enough room that it' s not going
13 to hurt anybody?
MR. BOYD: The only thing it will hurt is
14 our own building. The answer really is, these
structures are designed to withstand so much. It
15 just isn' t going to fall, and if it does fall,
they collapse upon themselves .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Implode rather than
explode if you don' t live in Orient, you don' t
17 understand wind.
MR. BOYD: I understand the wind all
18 right . I live on the bay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know you' re down
19 Paradise Point, but Orient is different . People
from Cutchogue have moved to Orient and they have
20 said how do you stand the winds, and I said but
you live in Cutchogue, - and they said it' s not the
21 same . The wind doesn' t blow that much down here .
MR. SCHEIBEL: Even in a Category 5
22 hurricane, the antennas themselves would probably
break and come off, and they would basically not
23 fall . They had hang by their mounts, the monopole
itself has survived typically to withstand in
24 excess of 135 mile per hour. So if it does, it
won' t come down at the base because that' s
25 actually the strongest part of the structure . If
it comes apart it will come apart at the- top.
-November 30 , 2006
139
1
2 It' s almost like all towers are actually
constructed that increased wind they actually can
3 move a little .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Like the bridges .
4 MR. SCHEIBEL: That' s part of the design.
Like the World Trade Center, they actually move .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone in the audience
have a question?
6 MS . BONDARCHUK: I am Sheryl Bondarchuk.
I am the neighbor to the fire department, and I do
7 have concerns about the safety issues of the
proposed tower.
8 My first concern is the radio frequency.
Living so close to a cell tower at 450 megahertz,
9 this is going to be projecting right at my house,
right at my kids' bedroom window, and I 'm
10 concerned more for my kids' safety in the long
run.
11 The aesthetic value of it, my property is
right next door to the proposed location. It' s
12 going to affect the resale value of my home . The
pollution issues, I mean, we have a lot of light
13 pollution from the fire department now. There' s a
lot of -- the halogen bulbs are very bright . They
14 shine in my house at night, which we don' t have to
have night lights, thank you. But the pollution,
15 the siren going off, but I grew up in Orient, I
know what the siren is for, that' s a good thing.
16 I'm concerned about having the flag at the
top of the pole . Is there going to be noise from
17 the flag flipping in the wind? The light lighting
on the pole, the pole itself, with the wind, is
18 there going to be a constant hum from the wind or
from the transmitters on it that I'm going to be
19 hearing a low level of humming noise from this?
I mean, I have concerns . I certainly
20 don' t want to get in the way of expanding on the
fire department or communications . I understand
21 the need for it, but I also have to look out for
my family too.
22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Per the experts
could answer some of your questions .
23 MR. BOYD: We certainly hope it doesn' t
hum because that would mean something' s wrong.
24 The lights that are going to be illuminating the
flag are going to be pointing up in the air. They
25 shouldn' t be affecting anything down on the ground
at all .
November 30 , 2006
140
1
2 About the radio frequencies and emissions
there, we are so far below the federal standards
3 that it truly is not a subject of concern, but I
would like to explain it in a way that was
4 explained to me once . Radio frequencies are
really just the same as light waves . It' s just a
5 different spectrum. We' re going to have a 100
watt out put . The radio frequencies that you' re
6 going to be receiving at your house will be the
equivalent of 100 watt light bulb on that tower.
7 A 100 watt light bulb on a tower that' s several
hundred feet away from you is --
8 MS . BONDARCHUK: But constantly on. And
100 feet or 86 feet off my property line .
9 MR. BOYD: It' s still a 100 watt light
bulb.
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not constantly
transmitting at -- it' s only transmitting when you
11 key the mike . It' s only when they talk on that
radio will you receive that energy.
12 MR. SCHEIBEL: Unlike light, what actually
happens with radio waves is the energy is actually
13 the square foot of the distance, so it actually
falls down at a much higher rate than light .
14 Light transverses open space way easier with way
less resistance than air represented. The other
15 thing is the FCC rules changed a decade ago
already that you' re not allowed to construct
16 anything within these limits the FCC established
that' s in any way dangerous . And every tower site
17 has to be registered with the FCC regardless of
what it is . And that very registration is how the
18 FCC knows to keep tabs on, and they know what
equipment is there, who the carriers are, what
19 they call the AERP, which is another way to
measure our energy. It' s not really the power
20 that comes out of the transmitter or the power
that comes out at the end of the cable what
21 actually gets off the antenna has the potential to
be -- and those numbers are far under anything
22 that' s even relatively dangerous .
MS . BONDARCHUK: Do you have studies?
23 MR. SCHEIBEL: Actually there' s whole web
sites I could actually point you to.
24 MS . BONDARCHUK: I would appreciate that
information. Because I know as an x-ray
25 technician, I know that there is no level of
radiation that is considered safe .
November 30 , 2006
141
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s because that
is high frequency and radio is low frequency.
3 High frequency means high energy and that' s the
relevant difference . It' s all exponential whether
4 it' s light, whether it' s UV or whether it' s x-ray,
it' s all exponential if the relevant thing is the
5 frequency and the wavelength. Radio is low
frequency and therefore low energy and x-ray is
6 high frequency and high energy. No wonder you
have to watch out for x-ray, it' s the other end of
7 the spectrum.
` MS . BONDARCHUK: Actually x-rays are
8 ionizing radiation whereas radio waves are not .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . Exactly.
9 They' re ionizing because they' re high energy.
MS . BONDARCHUK: However, the studies that
10 have been done with x-rays have been based on
atomic bomb survivors that have gotten mega doses
11 of x-rays .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . They' re
12 dangerous .
MS . BONDARCHUK: Yes, they are . But now
13 they' re coming to find out that radiation workers,
people in my position over the last 50 years,
14 they' re coming to find out that the low levels of
radiation that we' re exposed to at work are now --
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But those are still
pretty high energy radiation. Radio waves are on
16 the other end.
MS . BONDARCHUK: But is this going to be a
17 problem down the line for my children?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I'm saying is
18 x-ray isn' t that far from the kind of heavy duty
radiation you have associated with bombs . That' s
19 the UV, past the UV side of the spectrum, on the
other end, past the infrared down where the radio
20 and the microwave are, those are relatively
harmless . So that' s the issue .
21 MS . BONDARCHUK: So they say now,. My
concern is what' s going. to happen to my children
22 and their children.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: We don' t
23 regulate that .
MR. SCHEIBEL: The only thing I can tell
24 you is that current standards are way tighter than
the amount of leakage that you' re actually allowed
25 to receive from your microwave oven. So what
comes out of your microwave seal is way greater
November 30 , 2006
142
1
2 than what you get off the waves generated by the
cell phone tower.
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: May I ask you,
should additional carriers be added to that
4 monopole, would that in any way increase the
potential dangers? I mean, let' s assume in time
5 Verizon wants to get or Cingular or Nextel, they
want to rent and collocate, what impact, if any,
6 would there be that would be beyond what would be
there just if the fire department' s equipment was
7 there?
MR. BOYD: What I can only do is relate to
8 you the testimony that was given on the Orient
application where the wireless carriers came in
9 and they made a very convincing argument as to the
federal requirements of a very small percentage of
10 the federal requirements that they were actually
using, and the fact that available data presently
11 shows that it is certainly safe . I don' t have
those figures in my hand, and, quite honestly, I 'm
12 not competent and fair to give you specifics on
that . I represent the fire district in an
13 application for a public service antenna . But you
would have -- if it comes to pass that there is an
14 application to collocate -- every opportunity to
question the engineers from those companies about
15 exactly this point . And I think it' s without
prejudging the matter or prejudicing it in any way
16 those engineering studies have passed muster in
just about every place they have been questioned.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In our
deliberations for the Orient tower, we made a kind
18 of decision among ourselves that a decommissioning
bond would be a reasonable thing to attach, as you
19 know, on the granting of this permit, special
permit . Information is required from you or from-
20 your engineers for us to write that for our
engineers to write that . Is there a problem with
21 providing any of those things? We have a list now
of questions that need to be answered from the
22 previous one, right? Linda, don' t we have Jaime
Richter' s questions? Can we proceed with that?
23 MR. BOYD : The decommissioning costs will
be something that will be done really, you' re
24 asking the fire district to post a bond that they
would take it down.
25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: What they' re
asking is that in the event that they decide to go
November 30 , 2006
143
1
2 to another technology and the pole is no longer
needed, then this Board may wish to have the tower
3 come down if it' s not needed.
MR. BOYD: I would have absolutely no
4 problem with that . It could certainly be a
condition in there that if it were determined by
5 the fire district that the tower is no longer
necessary for the fire district use, they would
6 remove it . I would have no problem with that
whatsoever.
7 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes, this
Board should consider whether this Board wants to
8 require that of another municipality or to wait
for a collocator and impose that on a collocation
9 instead.
MR. BOYD: As far as the fire district is
10 concerned, I would have no problem in advising you
right at this moment that they will agree to take
11 it down if it' s no longer necessary.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: A way to do it
12 is maybe to make it a condition on the first
approval, and then require a bond if there' s any
13 later approval .
MR. BOYD : That would not be a problem for
14 the district .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could we ask you for
15 some calculations for the coverage at let' s say
100 feet and 80 feet so we can compare them?
16 MR. BOYD: Bill, can we do that?
MR. SCHEIBEL: Yes .
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you have that
to us before we have to deliberate?
18 MR. BOYD: I think that depends on how
well Mr. Scheibel' s computer is functioning.
19 MR. SCHEIBEL: Yes, we can do that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm just wondering
20 what would be the reason for that .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think
21 there' s a couple reasons . I think if you want to
approve the 120 feet, you could show that you need
22 the coverage that you get at 120 feet and the
coverage you get at lore is not sufficient . And
23 if you wanted to require less than 120 feet I
think you' re going to be able to show or argue
24 that it is sufficient at those lower numbers and
be prepared to defend that decision. So it' s
25 prudent either way. Unless you wanted to approve
the 120 you could just look at this picture, and
November 30, 2006
144
1
2 if it were obvious to you that that' s what you
needed, you could approve that 120 as well . But
3 if you have any doubt in your mind, you could ask
for more information.
4 MS . BONDARCHUK: Can I ask one more
question?
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
MS . BONDARCHUK: In July, when they had
6 the crane up there for the survey, was that the
proposed height?
7 MR. BOYD: I do not know what height they
put it at . I was in Orient the day they put the
8 thing up. I don' t know how high the crane
was . We can find out .
9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think it was 120
feet because I stopped for visual testing. I
10 stopped by while they were actually hoisting the
crane up and dropping the plum line, and I asked
11 them if this was what was being proposed, and I
believe the gentleman who was putting it in place
12 said, yes, but there was nothing that said this is
exactly 120 feet .
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I spoke to him too.
It wasn' t in the location in which you' re
14 proposing now.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It was over
15 farther.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it was over
16 like 50 feet .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the height
17 was about right . I think they' re bringing it
closer to the building and farther away from your
18 property.
MS . BONDARCHUK: I know exactly where it
19 is . It' s right in direct view of my house . You
can put up big trees, huh?
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, we can make
that a condition.
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The Planning Board
has an entire schedule of selected trees that have
22 been approved for hardiness, fast-growing capacity
and for not being brittle . What you don' t want to
23 do is put up a tree that dies, breaks off and
becomes a maintenance problem. So that ' s a whole
24 list of approved species, different kinds .
MS . BONDARCHUK: Another silly question
25 about the potential for this to fall down, 125
foot tower, if things blow off of it there is
November 30 , 2006
145'
1
2 potential for them to hit my property, to hit my
house, to hit my people . What kind of protection
3 do we have from that? Is this fully insured?
Again, I know it' s a silly question, but again,
4 I 'm looking.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not a silly
5 question at all .
MS . BONDARCHUK: I want to be protected.
6 MR. BOYD: It' s fully insured, yes . It' s
not a silly question. I hope that would never
7 come to pass .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : These things
8 generally -- in my earlier life I worked for
Cablevision and part of my job was climbing these
9 towers, and I can tell you as a general rule with
the exception of probably like you said, a
10 Category 5 , things fall pretty straight down. I
mean, if you' re in a tornado, that' s a problem,
11 but you' re probably going to have more problems to
worry about -- probably a 10 pound piece of
12 aluminum that might come off that tower. If you
climb the Greenport tower, if anywhere there was a
13 tower that toppled, at one time when I was a kid,
those pieces are still there, the top of that
14 tower -- and that tower was 300 feet -- landed
probably about 70 feet away from that tower.
15 Granted it was a guide tower, a little different
from this monopole . But like the gentleman said,
16 the base of that tower, if that base goes, that
probably four foot round hunk of cement, we' re all
17 in trouble . But they' re putting these sheets of
metal on there . Quite honestly to my mind, I
18 think you' re better off without them, but people
want these things, they' re welcome to them.
19 MS . BONDARCHUK: This is the picture that
you gave the people at one of the fire department
20 meetings that it was going to be a flag pole . And
this picture shows a flag pole with all of these
21 projections . What is the final plan on this?
MR. BOYD: The one that was submitted to
22 the Zoning Board of Appeals .
MS . BONDARCHUK: So it' s no longer a
23 straight flag pole?
MR. BOYD : No. It' s going to now have the
24 cross arm on there to allow the lights .
MS . BONDARCHUK: And again, there has to
25 be a flag on there because I'm concerned about
listening to this, hearing more rattles .
November 30 , 2006
146
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, I'm concerned
about that myself . I mean, does there have to be
3 a flag there?
MR. BOYD: I can' t speak for the Board. I
4 can say that in many ways the monopole without
cross bars, without a flag, is less noticeable,
5 but you see you've all seen the large flag pole,
the one that' s in Riverhead.
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you stand next
to that on a windy day, you can hear it . Is there
7 a reason -- what is your reason for the flag?
MR. BOYD : The reason very simply was to
8 try and make this as presentable to the community
as possible .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Does the community
feel like they need a flag; can we not have the
10 flag?
MR. BOYD: I cannot answer that . There
11 has not been to the best of my knowledge a survey
done to the entire community.
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : What if we say you
can' t have a flag; is that acceptable?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s
unconstitutional .
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it is .
MR. BOYD: I don' t think the fire district
15 would be upset if you told them they could not
have a flag.
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What about
lighting; is it essential from a navigational
17 point of view that the top be lit?
MR. BOYD: No . It' s only lit because the
18 flag is there .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. Because
19 quite frankly if the flag were eliminated and the
lights were eliminated, it' s less costly and it' s
20 less maintenance . You don' t have to change
bulbs .
21 MR. SCHEIBEL: Well, we do have the issue
of having the antennas are split based on the
22 license .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which means what?
23 MR. BOYD: Well, we' re still going to have
some form of cross arm.
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What would the
diameter be, the span?
25 MR. BOYD: Very similar to what we have on
the Orient tower.
November 30 , 2006
147
1
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So 10 feet across .
MR. BOYD: Yes .
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s very small
relative . What is the diameter of the actual pole
4 at the base; does it taper?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, it tapers,
5 it' s pretty thick.
MR. BOYD: Okay. Going to guess at the
6 base it' s four, four and a half feet, the
diameter. We' re talking these sand lots around
7 the 38 foot level, something like that, and each
one of those sand lots is going to have a whip on
8 it to give us additional communication if it' s
necessary. This is all for the fire district
9 stuff . This has nothing to do with anything else .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Did this go before
10 the Architectural Review Committee?
MR. BOYD: Yes .
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And they' re the
ones that said --
12 MR. BOYD: It was the Architectural Review
Committee that wanted us to put the deciduous
13 trees along the north side of Route 48 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, boy.
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 25 .
MR. BOYD: 25 .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In East Marion or
Orient?
16 MR. BOYD: This particular application,
the East Marion application.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I could certainly
see buffering the side yards of the property and
18 the rear yard to mitigate the views to the
residential properties . It' s placed in such a way
19 now that it' s not going to be as productive to put
those trees there on 25 anyway. I mean, it
20 interferes also with the whole point of putting
up, to me, putting some tree line around some
21 residential properties, removing the flag and
removing the lights . If you don' t need it for
22 navigational purposes, and so there' s less
potential light pollution of any kind, less
23 potential noise, flapping around, and possibly
making the thing more blue-gray is going to do the
24 trick mechanically. It will blend more with the
firehouse and essentially is going to address some
25 of your concerns . There' s a time in which kitsch
doesn' t work, really trying to camouflage
November 30 , 2006
148
1
2 something is worse than letting it be what it
naturally needs to be .
3 MR. BOYD: If I can take from this you
don' t want a 120 foot palm tree?
4 MS . BONDARCHUK: As long as you don' t have
the corresponding size coconuts up there .
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the
diameter at the top of the pole? I 'm trying to
6 get a sense of the tapering.
MR. BOYD : At the top, something like 18
7 inches, something like that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So it diminishes
8 from 4 to 1 over 120 feet . Because the height of
your fence is six feet with the screening around?
9 MR. BOYD: I believe so. It' s a cyclone
fence with the interwoven.
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The lattice .
MR. BOYD: And then on the outside of that
11 there' s going to be the staggered row of plantings
to fill in the gap between those .
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Something like
arbovitae that will go to what, 10 feet high?
13 MR. BOYD: I don't know. Whatever the
Planning Board has specified.
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Trying to figure
out what diameter at that height would be, what
15 you see . In other words, you' re not going to see
the four feet . If you get screening of 15 feet or
16 so of evergreen, how wide is that pole? It' s
probably going to be about three feet, maybe three
17 and a half feet .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is where a
18 section through the site would be very helpful to
show where the road bed, is to show the height of
19 the firehouse, the back building of the firehouse,
the height of the monopole and then the height of
20 a mature tree line . I'm not suggesting that you
need to submit that now. I 'm simply saying in
21 future applications that' s the kind of information
which is enormously useful for everybody to be
22 able to see . If I'm standing here what do I see;
if I 'm here what do I see . If I'm back there from
23 my house what do I see .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You can get a real
24 sense of what those vertical relationships are .
MR. BOYD: We do in this instance have
25 computer generated photographs that merge a
projected tower with the surrounding area, and
November 30 , 2006
149
1
2 with the exception of one photograph that was
taken at a place where there' s nothing in the way
3 of vegetation right in front of the photograph,
there' s absolutely nothing that can be seen of
4 this particular tower because it' s all screened by
the plantings that are around it .' And I think
5. what you were talking about earlier in terms of
putting the deciduous trees on the northeast
6 boundary of the property would pretty well take
care of this whole thing. We could just give the
7 trees a little bit of time to grow.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything else? Yes, do
8 you have something else?
MS . BONDARCHUK: Item 11 on the general
9 note says that the total area of disturbance under
this proposal is plus or minus 370 square feet; is
10 that what you' re considering the base of the
tower?
11 MR. BOYD: That' s the area around the
tower. The area inside the fence line .
12 MS . BONDARCHUK: Thank you for hearing me .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re welcome . Thank
13 you for coming in.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you feel any
14 better? Do you feel like we addressed some of
your problems?
15 MS . BONDARCHUK: I 've had questions
answered, but I don' t feel comfortable with this
16 going up in my backyard, but I don' t think that my
voice alone is going to be the thing to move it to
17 another perhaps more ideal location for the
community. It sounds like we need it at the
18 firehouse, and I certainly don' t want to be the
one to be the impediment to getting this at the
19 firehouse . But when we built our house in East
Marion, it was a nice, quiet neighborhood; it was
20 green. There was none of this tower
construction -- there was none of this there . We
21 want to keep a quiet, .peaceful home . And I really
don' t want to live next door to a cell tower.
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Where do you
suppose you could put that in East Marion?
23 MS . BONDARCHUK: That' s a good question.
The church steeple or I was under the impression
24 that the original plans were to be the cellular
company that was going to put up the tower with
25 the intention of having all the receivers, the
transmitters for the cell phone industry, which to
November 30 , 2006
150
1
2 me would be a better location in a less
residential area like the golf course, but I know
3 that they need to have this at the firehouse . And
again, I don' t want to be the one to say no, don' t
4 do it, but I also don' t want to be living under
the shadow of a radio tower. And again, my
5 concerns are for the health and safety of my
family, my children. I mean, we' re going to be
6 living there for a long time .
MR. BOYD: Hopefully the fire district is
7 going to be there for a long time as well . We
have considered so many of these things that you
8 brought up. And you realize that we need
proximity to the scene of the action. We have to
9 be close to the emergency tower for our generator.
All the stuff that' s right there .
10 MS . BONDARCHUK: How does this affect the
helicopter that' s coming in for emergencies?
11 MR. BOYD: Not at all .
MS . BONDARCHUK: It' s not going to be in
12 the way of that; they' re not going to be landing
in my yard? They' re pretty close sometimes .
13 MR. BOYD: I certainly hope not .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir?
14 MR. PETER: My name is George Peter, I 'm a
resident of Gardiner' s Bay Estates, and I don' t
15 know how this compares to the rest of the north
fork, but we have almost one hundred residents and
16 and I would estimate that at least one-third of
them are full-time residents, and almost every one
17 is a senior citizen, some of them widows and
widowers, for the overall safety down the road and
18 all these zones interconnect it is to the benefit
of everyone' s health and future .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You know you have a
65 foot tower in your neighborhood?
20 MR. PETER: Where?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : How long have you
21 lived here?
MR. PETER: I've been out here for 28
22 years on weekends . I've been permanent for five
years . Where' s the tower?
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Tommy Apgreer' s
house . You haven' t seen it? It' s there .
24 MR. PETER: I 've been down there . I
haven' t noticed it . 65 feet?
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It' s probably about
55 feet now. I'm just kind of pointing out where
November 30 , 2006
151
1
2 you could live in a neighborhood with these things
and you don' t notice them. It was used when
3 Mr. Wexler was alive . They did - well,
Mr. Wexler was there and we used to go down there
4 quite often. He would take us out in the boat but
the man Tommy who owns that now was the captain of
5 the boat, and they used to fish and whatnot, and
he got the tower so he could radio at the
6 time . And that tower still exists . Well, Tommy
doesn' t live there that often.
7 MR. PETER: He' s there --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean Shirley used
8 to have a radio, she' d talk to him and dispatch
him. None of that goes on any longer. I wanted
9 to just let you know. Next time you go in you' ll
go and see it right next to the driveway.
10 MR. BOYD: We have nothing further.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir?
11 MR. ACEBO: My name is Mike Acebo, I live
in High Point also. I 'm a businessman in
12 town. One thing I' d like to offer is that as a
businessman and as members of this board, we all
13 know how difficult it is to get employees . I
think the fire districts are also having
14 difficulty in getting personnel to be volunteers
and be members of the fire district . With that in
15 mind, I think communication is the key element in
having businesses and fire districts operate with
16 limited resources . The better they can
communicate, I think the better off we all will be
17 t in our emergency services, and the same thing is
true in my business . I moved to High Point just
18 beyond the firehouse . I can see the firehouse
from my house . I ' ve been there for 18 years . I
19 having sat through the conversations of flooded
basements, and now realize why when I moved here I
20 looked for a place called High Point .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very smart .
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I moved into low
point .
22 MR. ACEBO: I feel very sorry for you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She has a much
23 better view than you do .
MR. ACEBO: On removing the flag and
24 painting this pole gray, I think that' s a key
element . As far as the noise elements, again, I
25 run a boat yard, I probably stick possibly 150
masts in the air that reach up to the point of
November 30 , 2006
152
1
2 probably 75 or 80 feet in the air. The round ones
never make any noise . The ones that make noise
3 are the ones that have the sails that slide into a
slot . When the wind blows across you get noise .
4 I 'm one of the largest noise polluters in the town
of Southold with the boats that are stored with
5 the masts inside in the boats left out there in
the winter, very, very annoying. Those masts are
6 horrible . The round ones don' t make any noise .
We've got several boats that have round masts that
7 are basically light poles, aluminum light poles
that are tapered from about two and a half feet to
8 10 inches at the top . Those masts have no stays,
they make absolutely no noise when the wind blows .
9 So I think we' re in good shape with this tower. I
think the noise is not going to be a problem. The
10 flag would be a problem; it would be noisy. I 'm
not sure what the controls were on the flag, but I
11 know the fire district has to put it at half-mast
quite often. So it gets to be a complicated
12 procedure; we' ll save them some effort . We can
get rid of the light so it doesn' t stand out so
13 much. I think you did a great job in your
discussion with that point . I hope you go through
14 with that . I'm in favor of this . I do live very
close, and I think -- I'm not worried about the r
15 microwave or the radio problems with my children
or with myself . I think I'm comfortable with
16 that, but I think you've done the right thing.
Thank you.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve decision until
18 dater.
(See minutes for resolution. )
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
November 30 , 2006
153
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
5 State of New York, do hereby certify:
6 THAT the within transcript is a true record of
7 the testimony given.
8 I further certify that I am not related by
9 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
10 action; and
11 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
12 of this matter.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
14 hand this 30th day of November, 2006 .
15
16
17
18 V�
Florence V. Wiles
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
November 30 , 2006