HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/02/2012 Hearing 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ----------------- ----------------------- X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4 -------------------------------------------- X
Southold Town Hall RECEIVED
6 Southold, New York FEB 2 9 2012
7 BOARD OF APPEALS
8 February 2 , 2012
10 : 11 A. M.
9
10 Board Members Present :
11 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
12 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
13 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
14 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2 : 19 P . M. )
15
16 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
17 VICKI TOTH - Secretary .
18
GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member (Absent)
19
20
21
22
Jessica DiLallo
23 Court Reporter
P. O . Box 984
24 Holbrook, New York 11741
( 631 ) -338-1409
- 25
2
1
2
INDEX OF HEARINGS
3
4
5 Hearing: Page :
6
7 Joseph and Elizabeth Brittman #6522 3-12
8 David Moore #6515 12-17
9 Anthony S . Campo #6531 17-21
10 Douglas C . And Kathleen M. Folts, #6536 28-33
11 Paul Nadel #6537 33-48
12 9105 Skunk Lane, LLC #6538 49-51
13 David M. Hall #6535 52-77
14 LIPA and T-Mobile Northeast, LLC #6433 77-107
15. MGH Enterprises , INC/ 107-142
16 New Cingular Wireless, LLC, #6528
17 Nicholas Gorgone #6534 142-197
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3
1
2 HEARING #6522 - JOSEPH AND ELIZABETH BRITTMAN
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our first
4 application of this morning is for Joseph and
5 Elizabeth Brittman. This is a carryover, so
6 there is no need to read the legal notice .
7 Please come to the podium.
8 That ' s right . This is actually a new
9 Notice of Disapproval . So I am going to read
10 it into the record, the legal notice . You can
11 stay there . Request for variance from
12 Article III and Article XXII, Code
13 Section 280-15, 280-15F and 280-116B, and the
14 Building Inspector ' s October 3 , 2011, Amended
15 December 22 , 2011 , Notice of Disapproval based
16 on a building permit application to construct
17 an accessory garage, at ; 1) more than the code
18 required maximum square footage of 750 square
19 feet on lots 20 , 000-60 , 000 square feet, 2 )
20 less than the code required front yard setback
21 on a waterfront parcel of 40 feet, 3 ) less
22 than the code required bulkhead setback of 75
23 feet, located at : 80 Glenn Road, Main Bayview
24 Road, Southold, New York.
25 This is a public hearing that was
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4
1 adjourned from December 1st, and today we have
2 a new Notice of Disapproval . Okay. We also
3 have a new survey from you .
4 Mr . Brittman, would you please state
5 your name for the record.
6 MR. BRITTMAN : My name is Joseph
7 Brittman . I live at 80 Glenn Road.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. You
9 probably don ' t have a new updated Local
10 Waterfront Revitalization Program
11 recommendation . So let me give this to you .
12 It declares the action inconsistent with the
13 LWRP . I 'm sorry, the action was recommended
14 as inconsistent . We got a new one . The Board
15 is -- in which the coordinator, who is really
16 not issuing it, recommends that our Board, the
17 Zoning Board, consider issuing a consistency
18 determination pursuant to 268 . 5 .
19 MEMBER HORNING : When is that document
20 dated?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the date
22 on that? We have it in our packet . When we
23 last left off, Mr . Brittman, we had an
24 accessory garage that had a bulkhead issue .
25 Primarily it was the size .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 5
1 MR. BRITTMAN : The square footage .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We covered that .
3 Why don ' t you just tell us why this new Notice
4 of Disapproval was issued?
5 MR. BRITTMAN : Sure . I had submitted
6 my DEC application similar time to the ZBA
7 application. And they sent it back asking --
8 originally, when we were designing it, we
9 designed it to maintain the original 40 foot
10 setback, which was consistent with the Town of
11 Southold. When the DEC got the application,
12 they asked if we could move it forward. So
13 that we had more space between the garage . So
14 after looking at everything with the property
15 the way it is now, we have -another setback of
16 33 feet from the front yard. I figured if we
17 moved the garage forward to 33 feet rather
18 then the allowed 40 , maybe the DEC would allow
19 that . So we got in touch with the DEC and
20 adjourned it because we were waiting to hear
21 back from them. So anyway, the DEC did
22 approve the 33 foot setback -- the bigger
23 setback in the backyard, but now I have go for
24 the front yard setback and didn ' t realize that
25 the bulkhead setback, which we weren ' t aware
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 6
1 of when we made the original application . The
2 DEC has since issued a permit for the
3 construction, which you should have a copy of .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes . So the
5 necessity now for a front yard setback is the
6 consequence of the DEC determination --
7 MR. BRITTMAN : Yes .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As to where an
9 appropriate setback, which is still
10 nonconforming from your bulkhead --
11 MR. BRITTMAN : Yes .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see you also
13 have a 15 foot wide non-disturbance buffer
14 along the edge of the wetlands proposed and
15 two drywells onsite --
16 MR. BRITTMAN: The 15 foot buffer that
17 . is proposed is there already .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is listed
19 here . The previous survey didn ' t show it .
20 MR. BRITTMAN : Right .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So does the Board
22 have any questions? Jim?
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : No . I guess , can this
24 be made smaller?
25 MR. BRITTMAN :. It ' s a real big deal
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7
1 because it ' s pre-engineered building .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s pre-engineered.
3 It ' s already built somewhere and you have to
4 bring it in?
5 MR. BRITTMAN : Everything is structures
6 and gets shipped. Not in modular but
7 everything get ' s engineered.
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Can they take a couple
9 of structures out and make it smaller?
10 MR. BRITTMAN : It ' s been completely
11 re-engineered because of the wind mode and
12 snow loads .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay.
14 MR. BRITTMAN : As a matter of fact, I
15 did get in touch with the company that makes
16 it and said, they would have to completely
17 redesign the structure . It ' s a pretty big
18 deal .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : And you would be using
20 it for?
21 MR. BRITTMAN : We have a 27 foot boat
22 that this would fit inside . So we thought we
23 could stick it inside .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO: Nothing else?
25 MR. BRITTMAN : Well, I would keep it as
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 8
1 a storage . I have a single-car garage with no
2 basement in the house . Of course, there would
3 be --
4 MEMBER DINIZIO: This is for your own
5 personal boat?
6 MR. BRITTMAN : Yeah .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s 54 square
8 feet over the maximum allowed of 750 square
9 feet . So we actually understand the size of
10 it .
11 MR. BRITTMAN : It ' s actually more than
12 that .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s --
14 MR. BRITTMAN : 864 .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I 'm sorry, 864 .
16 750 is allowed.
17 MR. BRITTMAN : I guess if we had to do
18 it . If that would make the Board accept the
19 structure, I guess we could do it .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO: I think my questions
21 just go to, we have to determine if it ' s a
22 hardship and why you need the variance on
23 that . I understand that you have ordered --
24 or have looked into it . I assume you haven ' t
25 ordered it yet . But certainly costs in
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9
1 design. We find it to be too large to code .
2 Just trying to determine from you, why you
3 need to have this size . What you determine to
4 do with it, and how large of a boat you will
5 keep in there . Are you committing yourself to
6 keeping it in there all through the winter?
7 MR. BRITTMAN : Yeah.
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : So basically pull your
9 boat inside?
10 MR. BRITTMAN : Yeah.
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : And there is no other
12 commercial business going on inside?
13 MR. BRITTMAN : No .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the garage
15 finished or unfinished?
16 MR. BRITTMAN : The structure is like a
17 barn . So it ' s an unfinished -- not even
18 sheetrock on the inside .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you ' re
20 planning on keeping it that way?
21 MR. BRITTMAN : Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s ( In Audible)
23 frame construction?
24 MR. BRITTMAN : No, it ' s actually
25 post-barn. It ' s actually -- like an
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 10
1 equestrian barn.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else?
3 Any mechanical systems?
4 MR. BRITTMAN : Nope . No plumbing .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No plumbing? No
6 heat?
7 MR. BRITTMAN : No .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this is a
9 one-story, meaning it is not a second-story?
10 MR. BRITTMAN : No . No, second floor .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have the
12 plans . It hasn' t changed since the
13 original --
14 MR. BRITTMAN : No .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, any
16 questions?
17 MEMBER HORNING : Well, I think the
18 question came up at the last hearing, but
.19 let ' s go over that again. Is there some
20 reason why you can not attach the garage to
21 the house? Find some way to do that?
22 MR. BRITTMAN : No . Not for any reasons
23 you would want to . I mean, it ' s going to cut
24 out the whole water view from the road, which
25 is nice . Right now, when you drive by Main
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 11
1 Bayview Road, you could look right down the
2 creek. It would make the house look like a
3 factory rather then a country house .
4 Ascetically, it would be ugly. I mean, I am
5 in the design business, my business , there is
6 really no way to make the design structure
7 work. As though make it in kind with the rest
8 of the surrounding neighborhood . This would
9 be truly like a country barn .
10 MEMBER HORNING : Okay .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
14 else in the audience who would like to address
15 this application?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
18 further comments , I will make a motion to
19 close this hearing and reserve decision to a
20 later date .
21 Is there a second?
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Ken.
24 All in favor?
25 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 12
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
4 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
5 ** ********************************* *********
6 HEARING #6515 - DAVID MOORE
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
8 application is for David Moore and that is a
9 carryover. So I am not going to read the
10 legal notice .
11 Good morning, to Ms . Martin . Would you
12 please just state your name .
13 MS . MARTIN : Any Martin,
14 Fairweather-Brown, representing David Moore in
15 this application . I was ill and then away,
16 and I apologize to the things getting to Mr .
17 Richter only yesterday. And there is a
18 further clarification that I will submit,
19 which has the setbacks from the bluff and
20 existing, which you requested last time, that
21 I didn ' t see until this morning. I have some
22 documentation, but it ' s not appropriately
23 signed and everything. That I will submit
24 later today .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just ask
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 13
1 you, the latest survey summarizes the
2 discussions about the setback variances and
3 the proposed porch . Both the existing and the
4 cutback, and I believe it ' s overall 11 --
5 MS . MARTIN: 11 foot from the house in
6 depth, which is 19 feet from the top of the
7 slope .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like
9 it ' s 16 feet?
10 MS . MARTIN : It ' s 11 feet from the
11 existing house .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s the depth?
13 MS . MARTIN: The depth of the deck.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the setback
15 from that deck to the non-turf buffer, is that
16 16 feet?
17 MS . MARTIN : It is now -- with the
18 exception of the brick, sand and walkway, now
19 there will be a -- yes, 16 feet .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just received
21 comments via e-mail from Jamie Richter,
22 indicating that the amended Site Plan showed
23 no property and drainage calculations on it .
24 Has been prepared by the office of Robert I .
25 Brown, dated 1/31/12 . He reviewed the plan
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 14
1 and drainage calculations and found them to be
2 in compliance with Chapter 236; however, there
3 was one thing that was not mentioned, that we
4 need to talk to you about .
5 MS . MARTIN : Okay.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is that the
7 outdoor pipes that exist and went over the
8 bluff, are not mentioned.
9 MS . MARTIN: They ' re already removed.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They ' re removed?
11 MS . MARTIN : They were removed by a
12 Costello Marine because they were a serious
13 problem and they felt that was a detriment to
14 the environment, and that was done prior . It
15 has already been remediated, and directed to
16 an existing drywell .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . So
18 that drainage is now --
19 MS . MARTIN : Is no longer part of the
20 problem. It was a follow-up with the building
21 -- the new stairs down the face of the bluff,
22 when that pipe was discovered. And they did
23 that apparently shortly thereafter . So it ' s
24 no longer there .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 15
1 MS . MARTIN : And I can note that on the
2 plan for Jamie and get that back to him?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that
4 would be very good.
5 MS . MARTIN : Okay.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You don ' t have an
7 issue then if the Board -- just to make sure
8 that we ' re all on the same page, conditioned
9 the decision based upon final --
10 MS . MARTIN : Inspection .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- approval by
12 the Town Engineer?
13 MS . MARTIN: Not at all .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
15 Questions from anybody? George?
16 MEMBER HORNING : No .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
22 MS . MARTIN : ( In Audible . )
23 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
24 MS . MARTIN: One is the existing deck,
25 the 11 feet . It is going to be re-decked in
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16
1 our application to the Building Department .
2 It will be for that because there is no real
3 spacing between the boards and -- I forget
4 what they use but it is really deteriorated.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it Trex?
6 MS . MARTIN : It was Trex . It ' s now
7 going to be Azek with proper spacing for
8 drainage below there . So there is no runoff
9 of the edge situation. And the other thing
10 is, it is reflected and reflected on the plans
11 that we gave to Jamie, which is one small
12 berm. Most of this property -- once it ' s back
13 from the bluff, all the runoff is really to
14 flat areas because of the planting beds . It ' s
15 very well terraced and everything. There is
16 none that goes out to the road, except for
17 where we ' re putting the trench drain by the
18 driveway. And there is one more planting bed
19 that we ' re recommending because there is a
20 natural gully on the west front corner of the
21 property. Where the pool equipment is and
22 we ' re just going to suggest that David put
23 another planting bed there to help make sure
24 that nothing goes to the road.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 17
1 anyone else in the audience that would like to
2 address this application?
3 (No Response . )
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
5 further comments , I will make a motion to
6 close this hearing and reserve decision to a
7 later date .
8 MEMBER HORNING : Seconded.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
10 George .
11 All in favor?
12 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
16 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
17 **********************************************
18 HEARING #6531 - ANTHONY S . CAMPO
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
20 application before the Board is for
21 Anthony S . Campo, #6531 . Request for variance
22 from Article XXIII Code Section 280-122 , based
23 on an application for building permit and the
24 Building Inspector ' s April 13, 2011 , updated
25 December 2, 2011 Notice of Disapproval
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 18
1 concerning "as built" alterations to existing
2 shed and deck, at : 1 ) nothing in this article
3 shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling,
4 reconstruction or enlargement of a
5 nonconforming building containing a conforming
6 use, provided that such action does not create
7 any new nonconformance or increase the degree
8 of nonconformance with regard to the
9 regulations pertaining to such buildings , the
10 "as built" structure has no record of a CO;
11 at : 1165 Fisherman ' s Beach Road, adjacent to
12 Cutchogue Harbor, Cutchogue .
13 Would you please state your name for
14 the record, Mark?
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz, architect
16 for the building . The only -- we were using
17 the existing deck of this cottage . We call it
18 the "guest cottage . " That is how it ' s been
19 used for the past four years or so . We got a
20 Stop Work Order by the Bay Constable . So
21 we ' re here trying to straighten this out . The
22 structure was approved by the Zoning Board
23 back in 1976, this guest house . And they
24 moved the main house also in the same
25 decision, but for some reason never got a CO
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 19
1 from the Building Department . Clearly, it ' s
2 on the Tax Assessor ' s card, as well as the
3 deck . So the only thing that we would like to ,
4 do is replace the existing, restructure, bring
5 it up to code and in the meantime, we ' re going
6 to take out the existing half-bathroom that is
7 there . So it ' s really just a Garden Room and
8 storage structure .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Mark, one question
10 here . You say an existing bath, where is the
11 septic for that?
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : There is an existing
13 septic system adjacent to this cottage . That
14 is going to be removed at some point . We ' re
15 going to redo the house and at that point,
16 we ' re going to redo another septic system for
17 the house . So we no longer need that septic,
18 which is right next to the cottage .
19 MEMBER HORNING: And you ' re proposing
20 no attachment to the new septic system?
21 MR. SCHWARTZ : No .
22 MEMBER HORNING: Will you have running
23 water out there? Nothing?
24 MR. SCHWARTZ : I think he is going to
25 want to have some electric, some lighting in
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 20
1 the shed and maybe a hose there .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Just curious .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just out of
4 curiosity, what is the status on the house
5 construction that we --
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : We have all our permits .
7 We have . to go back to the Trustees because
8 that expired. We have the DEC approval and
9 the Department of Health.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you need a
11 renewal?
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yeah. Still not
13 planning on going for some time . Maybe
14 another six months or so, another year .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. And do you
16 propose to continue to work on the -- should
17 that be permitted on the "shed" or "garden
18 shed?"
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : What do you mean, work
20 on it?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well right now
22 nothing is happening . It just has tar paper on
23 it . Would you be continuing construction after
24 the Board renders its decision, should the
25 Board grant this?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 21
1 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yeah, we ' re going to
2 need to go to the Trustees and the Department
3 of Health.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
5 MR. SCHWARTZ : I mean, the DEC . This
6 is to do the residing, new roofing and new
7 windows .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what about
9 the CO? It is clear that there is a history
10 here with the Zoning Board treating these two
11 lots as one, for the purposes of a guest
12 cottage . And you did clarify my request
13 through an e-mail because the application
14 refers to a "guest cottage" and it refers to
15 it as "a shed. " So it ' s very inconsistent
16 language . So we ' re now clarifying for the
17 public record that this is going to be an
18 accessory building used for garden storage,
19 other kinds of storage only. No plumbing .
20 Just electric and the other possibility of,
21 you know, hose there?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Finished,
24 unfinished interior?
25 MR. SCHWARTZ : We may finish it with
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 22
1 some wood paneling. I have not discussed that
2 really.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Might be
4 finished. No heat?
5 MR. SCHWARTZ : No heat .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I am
7 interested if you can obtain a CO for the
8 structure . How do you go about doing that?
9 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, if we get approved
10 from your Board, we will go to the Trustees
11 and we will go to the DEC, and hopefully get
12 their approval and then to the Building
13 Department for a permit .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : Again, it has been there
16 for 40 , 50 years unchanged, until we started
17 doing work on the deck.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a long
19 history. Does this have to be FEMA compliant?
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : I think it ' s maybe under
21 the flood zone . I would have to look at the
22 survey. I don ' t think so .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . Who
24 has questions? Just one other thing . The
25 right-of-way, which is really a dead-end, but
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 23
1 nevertheless, I believe on the dwelling, we
2 conditioned that there be no structure in that
3 right-of-way --
4 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I know that
6 there is a flat paved path that is now going
7 from a dwelling over there . To be consistent,
8 I think the Board would want to stay the same
9 thing . I am not speaking for the Board. How
10 do you feel about that?
11 MR. SCHWARTZ : That ' s fine . I think
12 it ' s kind of vegetated. It will remain flat .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, any
14 questions?
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
17 MEMBER HORNING: Is there a possibility
18 of relocating that building? It ' s not very
19 big. It doesn ' t have much of a foundation. to
20 do -- to do maybe a more conforming location
21 on the property? Is there a possibility of
22 doing that?
23 MR. SCHWARTZ : It could be shifted more
24 towards the right-of-way, maybe 15 feet .
25 MEMBER HORNING : Right, then there are
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 24
1 conditions of setbacks . What are your
2 required setbacks?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it is a
4 shed. They ' re different . Technically, I
5 think George has a point . The right-of-way,
6 even though in reality, it ' s something odd and
7 ridiculous . Something that is just basically
8 Scrub, constitutes as a right-of-way, but
9 legally, I believe there will be setback
10 requirements of the right-of-way. It ' s kind
11 of what it is . The property is so constrained
12 by wetlands and water, anywhere is going to be
13 a setback issue .
14 MEMBER HORNING : So you ' re saying in
15 response to the idea, considering relocating
16 it to -- let ' s say a non-less conforming
17 location? What is the possibility and what is
18 your answer?
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, as Leslie
20 mentioned, if you do move it closer to the
21 right-of-way, you ' re making it more
22 nonconforming to the front yard. Really, if
23 you do to the other side, you ' re going to have
24 the same situation with the side yard setback.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably less
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 25
1 disturbance in leaving it where it sits , then
2 lifting it up and move it over . You know,
3 have to excavate and so on . It doesn ' t look
4 like it on the survey, but on the field
5 inspection, it shows it pretty close to the
6 edge of what would be a beach .
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : I would say it ' s
8 probably about 25 , 30 feet .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Which brings up the
10 LWRP, recommendation for inconsistency. Don ' t
11 we have that?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
13 MEMBER HORNING: How would you do
14 address that?
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, we would be able
16 to put a drywell in between the right-of-way
17 and the structure, for the runoff of the roof .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, now that
19 you mentioned that, it ' s interesting . You
20 show a drywell . But wait a minute, you got on
21 the survey that we got, existing cesspools as
22 per old survey to remain . Do you see that?
23 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . Right now, that is
24 being used by the main house .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s remaining
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 26
1 until the new construction takes place?
2 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, clearly
4 you ' re proposing a less intense, you know, of
5 the structure, and under the circumstances of
6 the possibility of getting a CO . I don ' t have
7 any further questions . Does anybody on the
8 Board have any questions?
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don ' t have
11 any problem, I presume -- let me ask you
12 differently. Do you have any problem with
13 this decision, if conditioned upon obtaining a
14 CO for the structure?
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : No, not at all .
16 MEMBER HORNING: On the record, you ' re
17 not considering making this any larger or
18 another use then what you ' re stating --
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : No .
20 MEMBER HORNING : There is no habitable
21 space in there anymore?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : No . None intended.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in
24 the audience -- which there isn ' t anyone .
25 Hearing no further comment , I will make
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 27
1 a motion to close the hearing and reserve
2 decision to a later date .
3 Is there a second?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second that .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, seconded it .
6 All in favor?
7 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
11 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
12 **********************************************
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like to
14 make a motion for a five minute recess .
15 Is there a second?
16 MEMBER HORNING : Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
18 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
22
23 (Whereupon, a recess was taken at
24 this time . )
25 *************************** ******************
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 28
1 HEARING #6536 - DOUGLAS C . &
2 KATHLEEN M. FOLTS
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
4 application. is for Douglas C . & Kathleen M.
5 Folts , #6536 .
6 Request for variance from Article XXII ,
7 Code Section 280-116B and the Building
8 Inspector ' s December 15, 2011, Notice of
9 Disapproval based on a building permit
10 application to construct addition and
11 alteration to a single family dwelling, at :
12 Less than the code required riprap setback of
13 75 feet . Located at : 90 Oak Street, Harbor
14 Lane . Adjacent to East Creek, a . k. a .
15 Eugene ' s Creek, Cutchogue .
16 Just checking to see if there is
17 correspondence that you don ' t have .
18 Mark, for the transcript, would you,
19 please just enter your name again?
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : Sure . Mark Schwartz,
21 architect for the project .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let me
23 give you this memorandum, this LWRP
24 recommendation, saying that the proposed
25 action is consistent . And also recommendation
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 29
1 for Suffolk County local determination .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What was the date of
3 the Suffolk County date of determination?
4 January something?
5 MR. SCHWARTZ : Memo was the 24th .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right . Mark,
8 what would you like to tell us about this
9 application?
10 MR. SCHWARTZ : The owner ' s of this
11 property would like to expand the existing
12 cottage, which is quite small . They' re
13 planning on moving out here full-time .
14 They ' re in the sixties and they have a lot of
15 stuff that has accumulated over the years .
16 They want to move in, and with no basement
17 they want to leave the existing detached
18 garage and build a two-story house with an
19 attached garage also . There is no basement in
20 it because it ' s in a -- partially in a flood
21 zone . The existing setback from the house to
22 the riprap is 52 feet . We ' re proposing a
23 slightly smaller setback of 49 feet setback to
24 -- actually to the proposed deck. So we ' re
25 going to move some of the house, one-story
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 30
1 house and create an open deck in that area .
2 So the setback from the main house is actually
3 58 feet . We ' re here only because of the
4 setback from the riprap . The existing house
5 is much closer than the 35 feet required .
6 We ' re complying with all the other setbacks .
7 The height is within code and we ' re less than
8 the 200 lot coverage . Putting in a new septic
9 system and drywells for the drainage system
10 runoff . We are a little bit restricted on the
11 site, because of the garage that they would
12 like to keep and a proposed setback for the
13 proposed septic system that is required, at
14 least a hundred feet away from the water . So
15 that ' s why we ' re sticking to the same
16 location . The foundation will remain, and the
17 first floor will definitely remain .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Ken, any
19 questions?
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . I see the
21 riprap curved around and everything. What
22 would be the average setback of the riprap to
23 the proposed house?
24 MR. SCHWARTZ : The average setback
25 would be somewhere around 55 , 56 feet .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 31
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
2 MR. SCHWARTZ : And that is actually the
3 dimension to the porch, what you get from the
4 wrap around porch .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no other
6 questions at this point .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
8 MEMBER HORNING: The renovation process
9 has begun or not?
10 MR. SCHWARTZ : No .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Not at all?
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : No .
13 MEMBER HORNING : Okay. Then my notes
14 say that we ' re missing certain things . The
15 LWRP, do we have that?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, we do . '
17 MEMBER HORNING: And the Trustees?
18 MR. SCHWARTZ : I had submitted to the
19 Trustees and they would not accept it because
20 they wanted to get your decision first .
21 MEMBER HORNING : Okay. And the DEC, do
22 they have anything?
23 MR. SCHWARTZ : I have submitted, but I
24 don ' t have anything back from them yet . As
25 well as the Department of Health, that has
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 32
1 also been applied for, for the septic system.
2 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. The LWRP says
3 it ' s consistent, and recommends a 15 foot wide
4 landscaped buffer made of vegetation from the
5 existing riprap . Do you have that, Mark?
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes , I do .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is your
8 reaction to that?
9 MR. SCHWARTZ : Looks fine to me . I am
10 not sure where the edge of the ( In Audible)
11 is . It ' s not shown on the site plan here, but
12 the 15 feet seems reasonable .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Jim?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don ' t have any.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The house
16 is going to be substantially larger, but in
17 the character of the neighborhood, driving
18 around, there were a number of modest cottages
19 like the one your client has now, but there
20 are also buildings that have renovated, that
21 are much larger.
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yeah, the setback from
23 the water of this house is similar to the two
24 next to it .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right . Okay.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 33
1 Does the Board have any other questions? Ken?
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Nope .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
4 in the audience that would like to address
5 this application?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
8 further comments , I will make a motion to
9 close the hearing and reserve decision to a
10 later date .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by
13 George .
14 All in favor?
15 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
19 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
20 **********************************************
21 HEARING #6537 - PAUL NADEL
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our next
23 application is for Paul Nadel , #6537 . Request
24 for variance from Article IV, Code Section
25 280-18 and the Building Inspector ' s
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 34
1 December 15, 2011, Notice of Disapproval based
2 on a building permit application to construct
3 a carport addition to a single family
4 dwelling, at : 1 ) side yard setback less than
5 the code required 15 feet, located at : 220
6 Broadwaters Road, adjacent Broadwaters Cove,
7 Cutchogue .
8 Mark?
9 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz,
10 architect .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, they ' re proposing
13 to construct a 10 . 6 X 24 by a 20 foot open
14 carport, adjacent to the existing home . There
15 is a side yard entry -- it ' s a side entry to
16 the house, which is convenient . If we put it
17 on the other side of the house, the bedrooms
18 are on the other end. Kind of would block any
19 emergency vehicle access to that side . The
20 setback is about 4 . 7 feet from the side yard,
21 which is the same as the house, and it kind of
22 nestles into an L-shape of the house, and
23 leave the garage existing as it is . So the
24 height of the ridge and the soffit heights, 8
25 feet . And this is made out for an emergency
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 35
1 room doctor . So in the snowy weather, at
2 least a covered car would help in an
3 emergency.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim, questions?
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . I have some
6 questions . You know, we granted a variance a
7 while ago to join the back building, I don ' t
8 want to call it a garage . I suspect at some
9 point -- this is a detached garage and then
10 turn it into an apartment or something . And
11 now, you join it together with a breezeway and
12 now you have a principal structure there 4
13 feet away from the side yard. I read the
14 decision, it said 5 feet, 5 inches . I am
15 assuming that the carport comes over a little
16 more -- it looks like it does . More than the
17 existing building? A-1, the overhang looks
18 like it makes it go a little closer to the
19 property line . In any case, it ' s extremely
20 close to that property line . You can park a
21 car there on asphalt, but I am looking for
22 some more reasons why you would need to
23 sustain that nonconformity because this is,
24 you know -- could it be put in the front of
25 the yard? I mean, I understand the other side
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 36
1 because the bedrooms are there, but if you ' re
2 just covering up a car, that is not
3 necessarily -- that would not make it ( In
4 Audible) to get into that side to cover a car,
5 or even around the back. Can you give me a
6 little more reasons why?
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, again, on the east
8 side, anything -- any kind of addition to the
9 east side of the house is really going to
10 block any kind of machinery or emergency
11 vehicles on that side . Even though this is a
12 big property, and you have been to the site,
13 there is a small rear yard between the deck
14 and the pool . And that wouldn ' t make any
15 sense there . The front yard setback kind of
16 restricts you there, any accessory building in
17 the front .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, no more than a
19 side yard.
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : The only thing on the
21 side yard is that the existing house has to be
22 at least 40 , 50 or 60 feet back from the
23 structure, and it is heavily vegetated. And
24 if this gets approved and built , you won ' t
25 even see this thing .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 37
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : But it will be 4 . 7
2 feet away.
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, the intent was to
4 not go any close to the existing structure .
5 If you look at it that way -- I mean, I can
6 detail it where it is not going to go any
7 closer .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : You already needed a
9 variance to have that building adjoined. Now,
10 you ' re asking for further variances to further
11 cover up the yard, per se . You know, I am
12 just looking for some strong reasons why it
13 shouldn ' t be denied?
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : I just don ' t see it any
15 where else it makes sense to put it, honestly.
16 The front yard is not going to work with the
17 setback to the side .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO: Why wouldn ' t the front
19 yard work?
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : I think you need at
21 least a 50 foot setback or we need to get a
22 variance for a front yard setback.
23 MEMBER DINIZIO: To what extent?
24 MR. SCHWARTZ : I am not sure really how
25 to describe to what extent .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 38
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : ( In Audible) circular
2 driveway, what if we give you a variance to
3 put it right at end of that?
4 MR. SCHWARTZ : That would be an option .
5 To me, I think that is more in your face,
6 rather then putting it in the corner here
7 where you couldn ' t see it .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : I am not worried about
9 in your face, as I am worried about the amount
10 of variances and the amount of nonconformity .
11 I ' m trying to minimize that . I ' m looking for
12 reasons why to maintain it in that location .
13 There is quite some distance between the front
14 yard and the house .
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : That is 65 feet .
16 MEMBER DINIZIO: 65 feet?
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yeah, to the front of
18 the house .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : See where the driveway
20 is that goes directly to the side of the
21 house?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Uh-huh .
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : From that point, right
24 where the driveway starts , that would be the
25 east side -- west, from here to here .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 39
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is the west
2 side .
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : From this point here,
4 to this point, what is the distance? Any
5 reason why you can ' t attach it to the front of
6 the house, Mike?
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : We did consider all
8 these options . It ' s just not going to look
9 right in front of the bedrooms --
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : What I am trying to
11 get from you, what you considered and why you
12 decided against those?
13 MR. SCHWARTZ : To the east side of --
14 the east wing, they ' re basically all bedrooms .
15 And the access to the front -- front entry is
16 not even all that close . The closest option
17 for them to come in on the side, the breezeway
18 that connects the two, and goes right into the
19 kitchen area . That is just the most
20 convenient on that side . Like I said, to me
21 this seems like another variance . Sounds
22 severe, if you ' re supposed to have a 15 foot
23 setback existing and we are really not going
24 any closer . Visually, it has to be the best
25 option,.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 40
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : You ' re going closer .
2 You ' re going 4 . 7 feet . You have 5 . 5 .
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : Like I said, I revised
4 that . We ' re not intending going any closer --
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : It just looks like to
6 me, it ' s the overhang .
7 MR . SCHWARTZ : Well, I am sure there is
8 an overhang on the back part of that house
9 also . We would match that . I would clearly
10 define that we would not go any closer then
11 what is there .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : I don ' t know how you
13 could match that .
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : Well --
15 MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not trying to
16 solve that problem for you . I am trying to
17 wonder why this can ' t be put some place else .
18 You ' re saying that it ' s convenient to get in
19 and out of your car there . You have to have
20 it covered for what reason? Why you can ' t
21 just pull the car up and get out --
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : That is what they do
23 now. They would just like it covered. They
24 spend twenty-eight in Florida . It ' s cold.
25 They don ' t like the snow. They would like to
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 41
1 have a covered carport .
2 MEMBER DINIZIO : That is all I have .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This carportn is
4 just really a roof with posts?
5 MR. SCHWARTZ : A roof with two columns
6 and it ' s connected to the main house .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If the Board
8 conditioned that it should never be enclosed,
9 how is that?
10 MR. SCHWARTZ : That would not be a
11 problem.
12 MEMBER HORNING: Would it be enclosed
13 with these windows?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those are just
15 sliding glass doors or something on the side
16 of the house; is that right?
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what does it
19 lead to?
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : That is just a big room
21 right now that has a ping-pong table in the
22 middle of the room.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that is kind
24 of a recreational space of some sort?
25 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 42
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would be able
2 to provide us with a survey or a site plan of
3 some sort, that shows the carport as proposed?
4 Exactly the same size setback as the existing
5 dwelling?
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would clear
8 that up?
9 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes , I would.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On site
11 inspection, it would appear that the property
12 to the west is wooded with a very long
13 driveway, that leads to the neighbors house?
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you know how
16 far that driveway property, the residential
17 property is -- the dwelling rather?
18 MR. SCHWARTZ : With the detached
19 garage, I would say 30 or 40 feet from the
20 rear of the Nadel ' s house and the principal
21 house, maybe 50 to 60 feet back.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. And you ' re
23 suggesting, I believe, I am just summarizing
24 my understanding of your testimony, which is ,
25 this proposed carport is to remain open, other
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 43
1 then the roof and no enclosures on the sides ,
2 no increase, as well as , decrease in the
3 degree of nonconformity because you ' re simply
4 extending it farther? You ' re not going to
5 have a smaller side yard setback as a result
6 of this carport, that exists at the moment?
7 The height of the ridge is 13 1/2 feet . To
8 the soffit, 8 feet, and you believe this to be
9 the most functional location, with the least
10 visual impact on the neighbors or the roads ,
11 from the subject property itself, is that
12 accurate?
13 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes, it is .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t have any
15 further questions .
16 George?
17 MEMBER HORNING: Just a little bit of
18 conversation on the character of the
19 neighborhood that Leslie was asking about .
20 The neighbors to the west and the visual
21 inspection shows they ' re down a driveway. On
22 the survey that you provided, it doesn ' t show
23 the neighbors house or anything like that . If
24 you were going to update a survey to show the
25 exact measurements of the carport, it might be
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 44
1 easy if you can provide approximately the
2 location of that neighbor, so that the Board
3 could understand that this little bit of an
4 addition is not advantageous to the neighbor
5 in any way, because their house is not
6 immediately next door . It ' s not immediately
7 adjacent . It ' s down towards the cove more,
8 isn ' t that about right?
9 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . You can see it
10 kind of on the survey. There is a shed shown
11 on the property, partially shown . The house
12 is at least 20 feet north then from the shed.
13 MEMBER HORNING: The shed on the
14 applicants property?
15 MR. SCHWARTZ : The shed on the
16 neighbor ' s property.
17 MEMBER HORNING : The shed on the
18 neighbor ' s property?
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yeah .
20 MEMBER HORNING: Oh, yes . I see that .
21 MR. SCHWARTZ : I certainly can give you
22 that information .
23 MEMBER HORNING : I think that would be
24 beneficial for this application to note that .
25 You know, to address the character of the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 45
1 neighborhood. The house is quite a distance
2 away from the immediately adjacent ; correct?
3 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes , it is .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The width of the
5 proposed carport is 10 1/2 feet?
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : 10 . 6 .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 10 . 6, okay. And
8 the other side yard is 22 feet . So that would
9 be reducing that side yard, should it be on
10 that side yard by 10 . 6 feet . So that would
11 make it 11 . 6 feet side yard, which is not a
12 conforming -- are you following what I am
13 saying, Mike?
14 MR. SCHWARTZ : No . No .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other side
16 yard, the westerly side yard, is currently 22
17 feet . The house is --
18 MR. SCHWARTZ : Got it, yep .
19 MEMBER HORNING : Really the easterly
20 side .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : East side, which
22 is conforming, and if you were to put the shed
23 over there and the shed is 10 . 6 feet in width,
24 it would reduce that side yard by 10 . 6 feet,
25 which would then make .it nonconforming; is
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 46
1 that correct?
2 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right .
4 Ken, any questions?
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : No, other then the
8 building that you ' re attaching it to, which is
9 that breezeway, was built as required by a
10 variance, which you got . So I am having a
11 hard time to expanding that anymore . I think
12 you need to find another way. You ' re really
13 packing it in on that side, and you ' re relying
14 on more variances to do it . I think if you
15 have more options , you would kind of explore
16 them a little bit .
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : I understand, Jim. With
18 different owners , I went through that variance
19 process .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : I understand. You got
21 a bigger house because of a variance . You did
22 this because of a variance . The breezeway
23 exists ,. because we required it . The Town
24 required that you have that there . Now to
25 expand that more, regardless of whether it is
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 47
1 a carport or a building, I mean, it still
2 covers the ground. It takes up lot coverage .
3 It is a lot to ask for a carport . I
4 understand what it does . We have other
5 applications before us, that are asking for a
6 lot less than you ' re now. I just don ' t -- I
7 wish you could give me another reason why you
8 couldn ' t put it in the front other then that .
9 That allows you to get in and out . I
10 understand you want to keep your feet dry . To
11 put it in the front yard, it would certainly
12 accomplish all of that . You had a driveway at
13 the location already. You continue to use it .
14 You ' re relying on the fact that, that
15 particular house is setback farther, both
16 people have a right to tare down that house
17 and rebuild it . Just like you have . You
18 know, they ' re going to be looking at us when
19 they want to build their house --
20 MR. SCHWARTZ : Right . I went through
21 this with the owner and it didn ' t make sense
22 to put it in the front of the house . First,
23 it ' s still going to need a variance and it ' s
24 going to look odd. I mean, it ' s just nestled
25 in this spot . Just makes sense . You barely
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 48
1 notice it, in my mind, and in the owners view.
2 And if this gets turned down, I don ' t think he
3 is going to want it any place else . He would
4 probably not have it at all .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Thank you .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the
7 audience that wants to address this
8 application?
9 . (No Response . )
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
11 further comments , I will make a motion to
12 close this hearing, subject to receipt of a
i
13 survey showing side yard setback of the
14 proposed carport , the same as the dwelling and
15 the adjacent neighbors dwelling .
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a
18 second?
19 MEMBER HORNING : Second.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
21 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
25 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 49
2 HEARING #6538 - 9105 SKUNK LANE, LLC .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is for 9105
4 Skunk Lane, LLC . The Board to consider
5 adjourning to a new date, revised Notice of
6 Disapproval received on 1/19/12 . Need to
7 re-notice and re-post it, the application . I
8 am going to open it . Mark, please state your
9 name for the record?
10 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz, architect
11 for the project .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will read the
13 legal notice, just so that it is in the
14 record, and then the Board can discuss the
15 request for adjournment and re-noticing .
16 Request for variance from Article III Code
17 Section 280-13 (C) 4 (b) and Article XXII
18 280-105A, and the Building Inspector ' s
19 December 20 , 2011 Notice of Disapproval based
20 on an application for building permit to build
21 a tennis court with fence surround on a vacant
22 lot, at : 1 ) use of a tennis court is not
23 permitted on a vacant lot, without a principal
24 dwelling, 2 ) tennis court fence at more than
25 the code required maximum height of 4 feet in
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 50
1 a front yard, located at : 9105 Skunk Lane,
2 adjacent to Little Creek, dredged canal, in
3 Cutchogue .
4 Okay, Mark, what is happening with this
5 change in Notice of Disapproval?
6 MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay. Mark Schwartz for
7 the project . The owners wanted to push the
8 tennis court closer to the road then what we
9 had originally submitted. Therefore, we have
10 altered the plans and resubmitted it, but I
11 didn ' t get a chance to notice the neighbor ' s
12 properly. So we would like to adjourn it to
13 the next meeting .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so it ' s not
15 legally noticed. Will this be creating a
16 front yard setback variance also?
17 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then it will
19 be three variances, a vacant lot, fence at
20 6 1/2 feet in the front yard, and a front yard
21 setback?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I
24 don ' t think there is no point in taking
25 testimony at this point . We haven ' t received
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 51
1 your amended survey and Notice of Disapproval,
2 so unless the Board has questions at this
3 point, I think we should adjourn it to March .
4 Is that acceptable to Board?
5 MEMBER HORNING: Yes .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I am going to
8 make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
9 March 1st, at 1 : 00 o ' clock. So moved .
10 Is there a second?
11 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
13 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
15 .MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
17 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
18 ******************** *************************
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our next hearing
20 is scheduled for 11 : 40 , so I am going to make
21 a motion for a 10 minute recess .
22 Is there a second?
23 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
25 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 52
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
4 (Whereupon, a recess was taken at this time . )
5 **********************************************
6 HEARING #6535 - DAVID M. HALL
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our next hearing
8 is for David M. Hall, #6535 . Request for
9 variance from Article III , Code Section 280-15
10 and 15 (C) and the Building Inspector ' s
11 November 29, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based
12 on an application for building permit for an
- 13 accessory in-ground swimming pool and
14 accessory garage; 1 ) proposed accessory garage
15 at more than the code required maximum square
16 footage of 750 square feet on lots
17 20 , 000-60 , 000 square feet, located at : 1800
18 Westphalia Road, Mattituck.
19 Would you please state your name for
20 the record?
21 MR. NOTARO: Frank Notaro . I am the
22 architect and agent for the Hall ' s . David
23 Hall is here, to answer any additional
24 questions . Just a little background on it,
25 obviously it has a very huge side yard and
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 53
1 there is not too many places that we can put
2 the accessory garage and pool . So basically,
3 what we started off with was the possibility
4 connecting the structures , but right now we
5 wanted to keep it kind of a lower budget . So
6 in the future there might be a connection made
7 between the garage and the main house . So
8 again, that would be another application .
9 That is not what we ' re here for today, but
10 basically, the Hall ' s, you know, want enough
11 room for a two-car garage and a small little
12 changing room for the pool . So that they
13 don ' t have to trace in and out of the main
14 house, and if I could answer any questions?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . The
16 correction has been made on these new plans
17 that you have submitted --
18 MR. NOTARO: Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you recall ,
20 the first floor plan indicated a full bathroom
21 in the garage, which is not permitted . So the
22 shower has been removed from what I see .
23 MR. NOTARO: Yep.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you planning
25 any outdoor shower someplace?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 54
1 MR. NOTARO: You know, we never really
2 discussed it . It probably makes sense to
3 place on the backside facing the pool, but
4 right now, it ' s not in the plans .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it is
6 permitted, provided no variance is required.
7 That issue is taking care of . Let ' s see what
8 the Board has . I see mostly this is front
9 yard. That is all one piece of property, that
10 side yard, that goes all the way to the
11 private road?
12 MR. NOTARO : Yep .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. George,
14 any questions?
15 MEMBER HORNING: Yes . You started
16 mentioning about attaching the garage and it
17 sort of being more costly, and yet, if you
18 attach it at a later date, wouldn ' t it be more
19 costly then it would be if you did it --
20 MR. NOTARO : I probably spoke out of
21 hand there . They ' re not going to do it
22 because when they started getting prices on
23 pools , it ' s just -- it ' s out of the ballpark.
24 So they -- we have it as an accessory
25 separated garage .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 55
1 MEMBER HORNING: Except if you did
2 attach it, you may not need a variance?
3 MR. NOTARO : Yeah, but unfortunately,
4 where it attaches is two bedrooms and the
5 bedrooms aren ' t large to begin with . We
6 looked at it . It upsets a third of the
7 existing house, and the Hall ' s didn ' t want to
8 go down that road.
9 MEMBER HORNING: Our job is to grant
10 the least amount of variance possible .
11 MR. NOTARO: Right .
12 MEMBER HORNING: If the garage were
13 attached, then it would be a completely
14 different application, if you even needed to
15 have an application .
16 MR. NOTARO : Well, you would still -- I
17 believe with the pool .
18 MEMBER HORNING : The pool .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: My one question was
21 about attaching the garage to the house, but
22 that was addressed already. At this point, I
23 have no other questions .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
25 MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we just had an
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 56
1 application where the ( In Audible) reason for
2 the side yard was to put a breezeway in, and I
3 was wondering if that was a possibility, a
4 heated breezeway? You were mentioning
5 something about corridors and ( In Audible) so
6 I guess my assumption is that, is talking
7 about having to access the garage from inside
8 of the house?
9 MR. NOTARO: Correct .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that a code, if
11 that is attached, it actually has to be inside
12 the house?
13 MR. NOTARO : You would literally just
14 use the breezeway.
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : We had an application,
16 many, many, years -- we solved the problem of
17 that particular problem by attaching the house
18 and a garage as an apartment, and that it
19 would all become a principal structure . In'
20 that particular, you can walk from one end,
21 the house to the garage through this
22 breezeway. I was just wondering if there was
23 any code that says that you couldn ' t just
24 attach, let ' s say, a -- I don ' t know a 6 by
25 whatever the distance is between the house, 4
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 57
1 feet , 5 feet .
2 MR. NOTARO : Between the house is about
3 8 feet .
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : You can build a
5 structure here and then you ' re all principal .
6 MR. NOTARO: Right .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO: To my mind, there is
8 certainly enough here to make a decision on .
9 You could -- if you have no other alternatives
10 to put that garage, that wouldn ' t require a
11 variance . I see that pretty clearly.
12 Certainly going towards Westphalia . Then you
13 got the septic system there . You would have
14 to come forward with that . I see all of that .
15 That is much less of a variance needed. Could
16 that be a possibility?
17 MR. NOTARO: I think that is something
18 that we might address to Mr. Hall . Basically,
19 I never put anything in, that is trying to get
20 around the code . It is an additional cost,
21 and I believe it would involve moving windows
22 in this bedroom. So it would mean an actual
23 change in that side of the house .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : So you would be
25 eliminating windows on both sides?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 58
1 MR. NOTARO: Yes . They weren ' t
2 interested in doing it at this time .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you are going
4 to testify, you have to come forward.
5 MR. NOTARO: If I could say one other
6 thing? We didn ' t even put dog houses
7 upstairs . It is strictly storage . You know,
8 they don ' t need the .room, basically.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was going to
10 ask you, you show now on this set of plans,
11 the original didn ' t have much in the way of a
12 second-story plan. This now shows attic
13 space . Unheated?
14 MR. NOTARO : Unheated .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Plumbing in there
16 yes, because of the bathroom.
17 MR. NOTARO : Right .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And electric .
19 Unfinished attic space?
20 MR. NOTARO : At this point, yes . We
21 would actually put 5/8 sheetrock around the
22 garage, interior .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of the garage?
24 MR. NOTARO: Garage .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The attic space
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 59
1 would remain unfinished?
2 MR., NOTARO : Yeah, at this point, there
3 is really no need for it . It is just strictly
4 storage . I mean, David, can address it .
5 Really, at this point, we ' re just looking to
6 do a budget on that, because it is supposed to
7 be a combined project with the pool .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The proposed size
9 is 819 square feet . The code allows a maximum
10 of 750 square feet . So it ' s 69 square feet
11 beyond what the code permits . Is there any
12 way that you can make this more smaller and a
13 little more conforming?
14 MR. NOTARO : Well, anything could be
15 modified, obviously. It was a comfortable
16 size for a two-car garage and a changing room.
17 We looked at it and we said, this is what ' s
18 ideal and we ran with that .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What ' s the -- I
20 don ' t have it on here, the bathroom --
21 MR. NOTARO : I don ' t have it on this
22 plan . It ' s small . The bathroom is -- it is
23 8 x 7 foot .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s pretty
25 small .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 60
1 MEMBER HORNING: Does that have
-- 2 anything to do with the pool, by the way?
3 MR. NOTARO: Yes, the changing room.
4 So that they don ' t have to go through the
5 house .
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : And it ' s not
7 accessible from the inside of the garage;
8 right?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a door
10 way.
11 MEMBER HORNING : They would have to
12 walk around to it .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly it is a
14 big lot . Let ' s see, there is an existing, 4
15 foot high fence along the side yard -- that is
16 a rear yard.
17 MR. NOTARO : Right . Chain Link.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And pretty much
19 just open land over there .
20 MR. NOTARO: Yeah .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing that I
22 could see from there .
23 MR. NOTARO : From the neighbor ' s
24 property?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 61
1 MR. NOTARO: I think they' re pretty
2 far .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there would
4 not be much in the way of noise --
5 MR. NOTARO: Right . The garage would
6 be the buffer towards the front too .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Any Board
8 members have any further questions?
9 (No Response . )
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
11 in the audience that wishes to address this
12 application? Please come forward.
13 MS . HART : Hi, my name is Catherine
14 Hart and I am here with my husband Richard in
15 the back, and we ' re all neighbors .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will you spell
17 your name, please?
18 MS . HART : Sure . Hart, H-A-R-T, and
19 Catherine with a "C . " I have two concerns .
20 Not about the structure . This is a great
21 thing . They will get a lot of great use of
22 the garage, and the kids of the pool . We have
23 an existing water problem, stormwater problem
24 and runoff problem, and it was made a lot
25 worse when the Hall ' s had paved a stone
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 62
1 driveway, and in doing that, they had lined
2 the driveway area . Which is very large . They
3 can accommodate eight vehicle ' s . So it ' s a
4 driveway parking area . They lined the
5 driveway with Belgium Block and in one area,
6 they lowered the Belgium Block to the level of
7 the driveway. So all the water comes off of
8 their house from the leaders , directly away
9 from the house, and some of it is directed to
10 the driveway. And it goes through this
11 opening, like a spruce way. Comes into our
12 driveway.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me,
14 exactly where are you located?
15 MS . HART : We ' re own the same driveway.
16 We share a common driveway that has three
17 houses on it . We ' re the red house at the
18 bottom of the driveway. So the water comes
19 through that area, down this opening, down our
20 driveway, and our house was flooded -- since
21 they paved their driveway, it flooded three
22 times . The first was the worst, with inches
23 of water in our basement, furnace . You know,
24 wells , whole nine yards . So what we did is we
25 talked to David and his wife, and they said
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 63
1 that they didn ' t feel the problem was their ' s .
2 You know, that it was just water, and didn ' t
3 want to participate in correcting it . So what
4 we did is, we put in a 40 foot French long
5 drain across the front of our driveway that
6 meets to our house . That goes to a catch in
7 the basin, that goes to a much larger drywell
8 in the front of our lawn. So I don ' t feel
9 that there is really anything else that we
10 could do to contain that water . So the
11 concern is with the garage, the roof and the
12 ( In Audible) around the pool . Where is that
13 water going to go? I have pictures if you
14 want to see it .
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : They ' re required to
16 contain all water on their property.
17 MS . HART : I have to be honest with
18 you, when this happened, and we had spoken, I
19 realized that we weren ' t going to get further
20 with our discussions . I went to the Building
21 Department and I was told by the Building
22 Department at that time, this was about seven
23 or eight years ago, that they couldn ' t
24 regulate existing structure runoff, but any
25 new building and structure, has to contain the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 64
1 water and that is why I am here today. So I
2 see on the plans , because we did get notified,
3 that there is provision for the water that is
4 going to be dumped out of the pool, with
5 watering the level and backwashing and that
6 case . I didn ' t see anything in the plans that
7 we got, that shows that there is anything to
8 contain that water .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the roof of
10 the garage?
11 MS . HART : Right .
12 MEMBER HORNING : May I ask a question?
13 When you had your French drain put in to
14 somewhat solve the water problem that was
15 partially contributed by runoff from a
16 neighbors property, did you get a survey? Do
17 you have any kind of a survey of the property
18 showing those installations?
19 MS . HART : With me now?
20 MEMBER HORNING: No, at the time that
21 you did it? If you could, I think it would be
22 beneficial for you to submit it, your property
23 showing those kinds of details to us, so that
24 we could review that .
25 MS . HART : I can, and you can do that,
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 65
1 but if you look at the grade of the property,
2 the height of the property at the beginning of
3 the driveway to where we are, there is 10-15
4 feet down . So I know water runs downhill .
5 MEMBER HORNING: Right .
6 MS . HART : But -- can I show you a
7 picture?
8 MEMBER HORNING : Sure . With the
9 survey, we can see where your house was, for
10 example .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I have the
12 plans , and I am just going to ask her to show
13 that to us, when she brings the picture up .
14 MS . HART : ( In Audible) .
15 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
16 MS . HART : So I think the sidewalk
17 replaces the ( In Audible) . That is when we
18 did the drainage .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : How does the drainage
20 work?
21 MS . HART : You know what , I will tell
22 you, it works pretty good, but I have to tell
23 you, six sand bags that I have delivered in my
24 garage that we have to move . My house has a
25 basement and two windows . The west side of
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 66
1 the house and the south side of the house,
2 goes down the driveway and down my front walk
3 and it surrounds the house . We can ' t stop it .
4 So sand bags, it helps a little bit but it
5 doesn ' t really stop .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This drain that
7 appears to be in this driveway, the drain --
8 MS . HART : That is the drain that we
9 put in.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That you put in .
11 MS . HART : And you see the sidewalks
12 there?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . There is ,
14 as you can point out, a proposal for a drywell
15 for pool water . We don ' t see on the survey
16 any drywell proposed for the garage . So nor,
17 do I see on the drawings , any gutters or
18 leaders . The code does require that . There
19 is an onsite drainage code in order for them
20 to get a building permit and a CO .
21 MS . HART : Right .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And so let ' s ask
23 the architect or the property owner to come up
24 and address your concerns .
25 MR. NOTARO : We always contain any
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 67
1 runoff from any structure . There are actually
2 little gutters shown on the side elevation.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To small for my
4 eyes .
5 MR. NOTARO: It will be contained. One
6 comment I do have, I do alterations to a lot
7 of existing houses . When people say to me I
8 am getting water along the basement wall, the
9 first thing that I do is walk around the
10 house . What happens over time and I am not
11 saying this is what has happened to their
12 house, is what -- is supposed to be a run a
13 grade away from the home . It actually
14 sometimes winds up going towards the home .
15 You know, so that probably doesn ' t help the
16 situation. If that ' s the case, I have no
17 idea . This is the first I am hearing of this .
18 MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, first, I think
19 how you ' re handling the driveway might be of
20 concern to us . So I think you should address
21 that?
22 MR. NOTARO : Okay . Well, we ' re not
23 really touching the driveway. We ' re getting
24 rid of some of the driveway where the garage
25 goes . Again, I am only addressing it because
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 68
1 I am just hearing it right now. It is
2 substantial water . That is something that we
3 can discuss , on that non-pervious -- the
4 driveway.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am assuming
6 that there is gutters and leaders on the
7 dwelling?
8 MR. NOTARO: I am not 100o sure .
9 MS . HART : Yes , there are .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we need to
11 know is where they' re being discharged.
12 They' re probably being discharged on the
13 property somewhere and then the grade is in an
14 impervious driveway.
15 MR. NOTARO: Actually, I think the
16 homeowner can probably --
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please enter your
18 name?
19 MR. HALL : David Hall . The house is a
20 very old house . We have actually installed
21 new gutters and down spouts after we bought
22 the house, which was in the year 2000 . There
23 are some old catch bases , if you will . Some
24 old metal drums that are down in the ground,
25 next to the house . And that is where the down
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 69
1 spouts is discharging the water and then it
2 gets absorbed into the property. We didn ' t
3 change anything . It was that design when we
4 bought it . I don ' t recall if the gutters were
5 an exact .replacement . We didn ' t change the
6 house . So I am assuming they were . When we
7 paved the driveway, at least on the side that
8 she was , we went over the old outline of the
9 stone driveway and the part where the Belgium
10 Block is down leveled with the ground was and
11 is a concrete walkway. It has been there for
12 years . So the only reason why it was
13 depressed, was so you could walk on the
14 driveway to the concrete walkway and not trip .
15 We kept open an area where there was a
16 drainage outlet, and we also spaced some of
17 the Belgium Block so that the water can slowly
18 dissipate . But there was an old design, I
19 have no idea when it was done, you may know,
20 but it allowed for water to travel from the
21 driveway area into an old catch basin, and
22 that was left open . We set the Belgium Blocks
23 ' so that the water could go down that way. You
24 know, one of the things that I don ' t recall
25 exactly is at some point we paved, they came
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 70
1 to me and said that we would like to pave the
2 road, because the road was also stone .
3 MS . HART : 2006 .
4 MR. HALL : It was certainly after I .
5 paved my driveway, and -- but it was before
6 you put the French drains in, and all of --
7 MS . HART : We put the drains in there
8 the first year that we had the flood.
9 MR. HALL: Okay.
10 MS . HART : The common driveway was
11 paved after we had the first flood.
12 MR. HALL : Okay. I understand that
13 there is water that comes from my property and
14 that it is unavoidable because we ' re up hill
15 from them, but I had nothing to do with this .
16 They came to me and asked if I would
17 contribute to the road.
18 MS . HART : And that is fine, the road
19 is not the problem.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to
21 address the Board.
22 MS . HART : Sorry. The common
23 driveway --
24 MR. HALL : So after they solved their
25 drainage issue or at least attempted to solve
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 71
1 their drainage with drywells and French drains
2 and things, they decided that it would be a
3 good idea to pave the road, which clearly is
4 in my view, is a lot larger surface that has
5 no obstacles in it . That the water chose to
6 come down and right into their property, it
7 was going to do that .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just point
9 out that the code was changed in 2008 , for
10 just these reasons because the more
11 development takes place, the more impervious
12 surfaces there are . We have road runoff and
13 pollution. So the code now requires that
14 every property owner control their own
15 stormwater runoff onsite . Ms . Hart has done
16 what she could do with the issues on her
17 property. All we can do is deal with the
18 issues on your property runoff . Certainly
19 with the proposal of the pool and structure,
20 it ' s time to be code compliant, and necessary
21 on your property, to take care of those, the
22 stormwater runoff, as per Town Code . Maybe,
23 one thing that we might be able to do is ask
24 your architect to provide us with an amended
25 survey, perhaps additional information, as to
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 72
1 you will be code compliant with regards to
2 containment on site of all stormwater runoff,
3 as well as the pool, which you ' re already
4 proposing. So that we could be assured that
5 you ' re up to date on what is required .
6 MR. HALL : Okay.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But certainly
8 that would go a long way, not only protecting
9 your neighbor ' s, but the common road that you
10 share, and make sure that you adhere to the
11 code .
12 Frank, how about -- does the Board want
13 to close subject to receipt of that or carry
14 this over just in case there are questions
15 that the neighbor has?
16 MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we should
17 carry it over .
18 MEMBER HORNING : I agree with that too .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . Then
20 I will tell you what, let ' s give you an
21 opportunity to collaborate on how you want to
22 do this . Talk to the Town Engineer, if you
23 want to, or whatever . Have the Town Engineer
24 take a look at whatever you have proposed,
25 which is fairly standard and make sure that it
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 73
1 conforms to the code . We will receive
2 comments from him, and we will adjourn this to
3 next month, and we can always reconvene at
4 that time and talk about how you will address
5 this issue . Is that okay with the Board? Is
6 that okay with the two of you?
7 MR. HALL : Sure .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the meantime,
9 let ' s see if there are any other questions
10 that pertain to this, at the moment that are
11 before us . George, did you want to --
12 MEMBER HORNING: I just wanted to get a
13 little more clarification from Mr . Hall . He
14 was testifying of the common driveway and it
15 was paverstone ' s (sic) at one point .
16 MR. HALL : Yes .
17 MEMBER HORNING: And then you talked
18 with the neighbor and the neighbor also wanted
19 it paved? Did you say that?
20 MR. HALL : Yes . Yes , after I paved my
21 driveway, at some point they had -- the Hart ' s
22 had discussed and came to me and asked if I
23 wanted to pave the driveway and contribute and
24 I said, "sure . "
25 MEMBER HORNING: There was a road there
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 74
1 that was gravel?
2 MR. HALL : Yes .
3 MEMBER HORNING: And it is now paved?
4 MR. HALL : Yes .
5 MEMBER HORNING : And that is the
6 picture with a big drainage tank in the middle
7 of that?
8 MR. HALL : Yes .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Are there more than
10 one?
11 MR. HALL : Just one .
12 MEMBER HORNING: And again, to
13 alleviate confusion on my part, what is it
14 about your driveway that your neighbor is
15 saying is contributing to the runoff? Not
16 that common right-of-way?
17 MR. HALL : Yes . That is my
18 understanding .
19 MEMBER HORNING : Not the road; is that
20 correct, Ma ' am? His driveway, not --
21 MS . HART : His driveway parking area .
22 It causes a drainage problem for us . The
23 common driveway that we all share the cost of
24 paving, that big drain that is in the picture,
25 we put that drain there . We put that big
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 75
1 drywell in .
2 MEMBER HORNING : When it was paved?
3 MS . HART : Prior to it being paved. So
4 that water that would come down the common
5 driveway would go into that drywell , which is
6 kind of on a flat area of that driveway.
7 MEMBER HORNING: But it is not runoff
8 from that common right-of-way, that you --
9 MS . HART : No . You know, it ' s from the
10 house and the parking area . Water runs down
11 hill, you know.
12 MEMBER HORNING: Just so I wanted to
13 get that clear in my mind.
14 MS . HART : It ' s kind of hard to
15 describe . You have to take the opportunity to
16 come and look.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we have
18 been there . Every application before this
19 Board, prior to a public hearing, each Board
20 member does do a site inspection . So we have
21 seen the area .
22 MS . HART : Okay.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is part of
24 our job . But the architect and the homeowner,
25 you know, will have a chance to talk about it
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 76
1 and see whether they need to put some drains
2 someplace else .
3 MS . HART : Okay.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How they can do
5 it, because the code now requires it .
6 MS . HART : Okay.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is the
8 reason why the Town Board, environmental
9 awareness has increased dramatically. There
10 are adverse consequences for not controlling
11 water . There is pollution as a result and
12 erosion . The code has been updated and
13 everyone will have to comply to it for those
14 reasons .
15 MS . HART : I have a question? Are you
16 talking about leaders and gutters or something
17 more significant?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, leaders and
19 gutters are one way of taking the rain off of
20 a roof . Where it discharges is important .
21 MS . HART : Okay.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If it ' s
23 discharging over a bluff or onto a neighbors
24 property, then it ' s not code compliant and it
25 has to be taken care of on that property. I
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 77
1 am sure they will come back with a proposal
2 that will address those issues and you will
3 have a chance to look at it .
4 MS . HART : Thank you .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
6 else in the audience that would like to
7 address this application?
8 (No Response . )
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
10 further questions . I am going to make a
11 motion to adjourn this hearing to March 1st at
12 1 : 20 .
13 Is there a second?
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
16 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
19 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
20 **********************************************
21 HEARING #6433 - LIPA and T-MOBILE
22 NORTHEAST, LLC
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
24 application before the Board is for LIPA and
25 T-Mobile Northeast, LLC, #6433 . Request for
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 78
1 variances from Article XVII Code Section
2 280-70J, based on an application for building
3 permit to upgrade and maintain a wireless
4 telecommunication facility and the Building
5 Inspector ' s September 3 , 2010 , amended
6 October 12 , 2010 , updated June 10 , 2011 Notice
7 of Disapproval concerning proposed antenna
8 support structures at; 1 ) more than the
9 maximum code required height of 45 feet,
10 2 ) location of mounted antenna not located in
11 the code required interior, 3 ) less than the
12 code required distance to adjacent residential
13 property line of 500 feet . Location : 69685
14 Route 25 and Chapel Lane in Greenport .
15 Is there someone here to represent this
16 application?
17 MR. COUGHLIN : Yes . Good afternoon .
18 Thank you Madam Chairperson and Members of the
19 Board. My name is John Coughlin . I am from
20 the firm of Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin this
21 afternoon on behalf of the applicant, T-Mobile
22 Northeast, LLC . To summarize --
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just
24 present to you, for your records , we just
25 received from the Planning Board. So we all
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 79
1 have the same documentation.
2 MR. COUGHLIN : Very good. As to
3 summarize, T-Mobile proposes to maintain and
4 upgrade the existing facility at the premises,
5 by replacing three existing antennas , with
6 three new antennas, on the existing 84 foot
7 pole . The new antennas are replaced similar,
8 in terms of size . The dimensions are depicted
9 in the drawings that were filed with the
10 Board. Additionally, T-Mobile puts to add
11 some equipment, to the ground, inside and to
12 the existing fence, in an area to support the
13 proposed upgrade . I would just note that
14 although the denial does call out three basis
15 for relief, one being that the height is
16 greater than 45 feet, then the maximum height
17 allowed, and the other being in proximity to
18 residential, and this being less than 500
19 feet . The third basis , identified at
20 280-70J ( 3) , although the denial says that
21 interior mounted antennas are required. The
22 way the code is actually written, it says
23 interior mounted antennas or a substantially
24 suitably unobtrusive design. I think the
25 experts who are here with me this afternoon
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 80
1 will attest that this facility is in fact
2 suitably unobtrusive . To the extent that the
3 Board agrees with that , we would submit that
4 relief from that provision isn ' t required. If
5 the Board does not agree, we will seek relief
6 for that basis as well . A little background
7 on the facility, it was first erected in 1997 ,
8 and has been operational from that date to the
9 present, and the application that T-Mobile is
10 pursuing with this Board, and with other
11 Boards within the Town, is to maintain that
12 facility in order to upgrade it . T-Mobile by
13 nature of denial and the proposed changes , are
14 often to obtain Site Plan approval and permit
15 approval, as noted in the Planning Board
16 memorandum. And additionally due to wetlands
17 on the property, there is a separate
18 application to the Board of Trustees that will
19 be made . I am told that almost all those
20 applications are ready and will be filed in
21 the very near future, but none of that limits
22 this Board ' s ability to act on the application
23 before it . By nature of the fact that these
24 are variances , the Board is very well versed.
25 The requirements of Town Law 267B are what
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 81
1 control the analysis of whether T-Mobile is
2 entitled to those variances . We have
3 submitted in our Zoning Board application,
4 material explaining how T-Mobile satisfies the
5 criteria, and I think our experts here can
6 further elaborate on the different factors .
7 By nature of the sites location, and design,
8 we submit that it is not a detriment to the
9 community. It is not undesirable . It is very
10 minimally visible, and again, the proposal
11 will not have an adverse impact on global or
12 environmental conditions in the area .
13 T-Mobile is licensed by the FCC and maintains
14 and operations a wireless telecommunications
15 system throughout New York City and Suffolk
16 County. Under Zoning Law, T-Mobile is
17 considered a public utility for zoning
18 purposes . T-Mobile as other carriers do,
19 strive to provide reliable service in their
20 areas . At present, T-Mobile provides 2G or
21 second generation from services to the
22 surrounding areas of the premises . However,
23 T-Mobile ' s network over these 15 years has
24 evolved substantially, and T-Mobile now holds
25 newer licenses to provide 3G UMTS Service .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 82
1 That is Uniformed Mobile Telecommunication
2 Services , and also AAV Services, Alternate
3 Access Vendor Capabilities . I have an expert
4 witness here who can explain those more . The
5 short version, the proposed modification
6 upgrade, will allow T-Mobile to provide the
7 newer services that are expected by the user
8 and that are needed in this area, and that the
9 current facility is unable to do . The
10 services that T-M-obile does provide are really
11 important and a benefit to the community,
12 especially where traditional landline ' s would
13 not be available . This site, as proposed to
14 be upgraded, will allow us to provide those
15 services . As it has been, the site will be
16 remotely monitored, 24 hours a day, 7 days a
17 week. A technician will visit the site,
18 approximately every 4 to 6 weeks . There is
19 minimal impact on traffic . There is existing
20 access by nature of LIPA facilities on the
21 premises . And the type of vehicles that would
22 be visiting the premises is generally a
23 passenger vehicle . Additionally, T-Mobile has
24 done an analysis to the existing facility and
25 with the proposed changes , in terms of
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 83
1 compliance with FCC regulations and I have a
2 report here and a witness, who can explain the
3 report summarizing that the proposed
4 modifications will comply with the FCC
5 regulations . Actually leads me to a point,
6 where I would like to introduce to you the
7 team of experts here this afternoon . I will
8 tell you a little bit about their background
9 and the materials that they have prepared. I
10 believe, the only materials the Board has
11 received are the drawings that were prepared
12 by William F. Collins, Architect . Neil
13 McDonald, he is a registered architect from
14 that firm and he can testify in more detail
15 about the design of the facility, if the Board
16 so desires . In addition, we have Mr . Dave
17 Collins . He is the FCC Compliance expert . He
18 has prepared a report analyzing the proposed
19 modification and all radio frequency
20 emissions, and his analysis concludes that the
21 facilities will be well below the FCC limits .
22 In fact, assuming a 100o threshold, this
23 facility will be 0 . 23150 of that limit or
24 430 times below the applicable limit . So I
25 will submit those materials as well . I also
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 84
1 have Mr . Michael Lynch here this afternoon.
2 He is a licensed real estate appraiser, and he
3 will testify that the proposed modification to
4 this facility will not adversely effect real
5 estate value in the vicinity. And Mr . Lynch
6 prepared a real estate report, and it even
7 goes into a little more detail . It cites some
8 studies from other providers . Additionally, I
9 have Mr . Raymond McKelvey here . He is the
10 engineer who is available to address and
11 further explain the modification and the
12 upgrade of this facility. Mr . McKelvey' s
13 associate a gentleman named Uday Malencapa
14 (phenetic) prepared an affidavit and a series
15 of propagation maps that are attached to the
16 affidavit . That I will also submit .
17 Mr . McKelvey has reviewed those materials and
18 agrees with the findings therein . He ' s very
19 familiar with the way it was prepared, but the
20 affidavit and supporting walk a little more
21 through the need of the upgrade of this
22 facility. I would like to submit those
23 materials . Considering the nature of this
24 application, this is a minor change to an
25 existing facility. I can have Mr . McDonald
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 85
1 come up and present the drawings and walk
2 through it in a little more detail, if it
3 would please the Board, otherwise I will move
4 on to any of the other witnesses that you
5 would like . I know you ' re just getting the
6 materials now, so I am not sure, which folks
7 you may have specific questions for .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to read
9 all of this .
10 MR. COUGHLIN : Madam Chairperson, if
11 you would like, I can have each individual
12 come up --
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And give a
14 summary, that would be useful?
15 MR. COUGHLIN : Sure . Mr . McDonald, I
16 will have him come up first .
17 MR. MCDONALD: Good afternoon. My name
18 is Neil McDonald . ( In Audible) Most of what
19 you see there will remain . There is a fence
20 approximately ( In Audible) .
21 (Whereupon, the speaker was not near
22 a microphone . )
23 MR. MCDONALD: Replace them with --
24 we ' re adding an additional ( In Audible) about
25 the same size . The pole itself has been
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 86
1 analyzed ( In Audible) to do them on the tower .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Sir, that is
3 structurally sound?
4 MR. MCDONALD: Yes .
5 MEMBER HORNING: How deep in the ground
6 is it?
7 MR. MCDONALD : I would have to go
8 through the ( In Audible) .
9 MEMBER HORNING: When you ' re saying 84
10 feet, 84 feet out of the ground?
11 MR. MCDONALD : Yeah.
12 MEMBER HORNING : It has to be 5 or 6
13 feet in the ground. It would be a long pole .
14 If we could have how deep it is in the
15 ground --
16 MR. MCDONALD: Sure .
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : What was the date you
18 said about --
19 MR. MCDONALD : 197 .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : And it was a cell
21 tower then?
22 MR. MCDONALD: Well, it has always been
23 a substation for LIPA. I believe the pole was
24 there .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : When did cellular
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 87
1 service get on that tower?
2 MR. COUGHLIN : That is the 1997 date .
3 That is when the first antenna was on .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can I request
5 that you please speak up as loudly as you can
6 because you ' re not by the mic and we ' re
7 recording this for our transcriptionist .
8 MR. MCDONALD : No problem. The pole
9 setting depth is 11 feet .
10 MEMBER HORNING: 11 feet . Thank you .
11 And do you know when that pole was installed?
12 MR. MCDONALD: I believe it was
13 predated the initial installation, ' 97 .
14 MEMBER HORNING: And the condition is
15 sound, that you ' re reporting?
16 MR. COUGHLIN : Yes . A structural
17 report was submitted to the Building
18 Department . For purposes of that, the
19 department ' s review previous to the issue of
20 the denial . I can submit an extra report if
21 you would like to see it, but it has been
22 reviewed.
23 MEMBER HORNING: How are you making out
24 with the LWRP? Did you get any feedback from
25 them?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 88
1 MR. COUGHLIN : We have not yet filed
2 our application with the Board of Trustees for
3 purposes of review of the wetlands
4 considerations , but separately a New York
5 State DEC application is pending .
6 Mr . McDonald' s office has been in contact with
7 DEC, as to its review of the application . As
8 the Board is aware, no final approval
9 authorizing any upgrade or modification can ' t
10 issue until we have all of those records and
11 approvals in hand. So we ' re pursuing that
12 simultaneously to shorten the timeline, but
13 that is an additional review .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask the
15 Chairperson, do we get any feedback from LWRP
16 or not?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t think so .
18 MEMBER HORNING : But the Trustees and
19 the DEC --
20 MR. COUGHLIN : Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How far along are
22 you with the Planning Board?
23 MR. COUGHLIN : We have not yet filed
24 the revised application .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are aware of
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 89
1 it because I just gave you a copy of the
2 comments --
3 MR. COUGHLIN : They are .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : -- they submitted
5 at our request .
6 MR. COUGHLIN : And I have attended
7 multiple work sessions before the Planning
8 Board on this matter . They are aware and I am
9 hopeful that we will have all materials in to
10 them within the next couple of days .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have any
12 questions, Jim?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions at this
14 point .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions at this
17 point .
18 MEMBER HORNING: I have a couple of
19 more . Nowadays, people are putting manifolds ,
20 metallic manifolds , structural steel or
21 something . Did you think or consider
22 replacing the pole with a different kind of a
23 pole?
24 MR. MCDONALD: To my knowledge, no . We
25 were just looking to upgrade the existing
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 90
1 pole .
i
2 MEMBER HORNING: And you don ' t
3 anticipate the need to replace it in the near
4 future?
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I? My
6 understanding, wasn ' t that an antenna at one
7 point in time?
8 MR. COUGHLIN : I don ' t believe that
9 there was a LIPA antenna on that pole . It is
10 a wood pole within that LIPA property. I
11 don ' t believe that there was ever any LIPA
12 equipment affixed to that . We went --
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : LIPA property?
14 MR. COUGHLIN : Yes , LIPA property.
15 MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what I wanted
16 to know .
17 MR. COUGHLIN : LIPA owns the premises .
18 The wood pole, that is consistent with the
19 various utility poles that are on site, and
20 because it passed under the structural
21 analysis , there was no need to consider
22 replacing it with a steel structure .
23 MEMBER HORNING : Understood.
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : There is a transfer
25 station there . I am sure they just threw it
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 91
1 up there at one point in time .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we can do a
3 little bit of comments from the Planning Board
4 and also from your application, which
5 essentially deals with the history of the
6 subject premises . The parcel -- you are
7 proposing no change in use at all . There are
8 no other residential buildings in close
9 proximity. The parcel is surrounded with
10 similar uses and the ( In Audible) Zone, MTA
11 owns the parcel to the north . The County owns
12 the east and Zoned R80 . The existing pole is
13 84 feet high but is set back at 100 feet from
14 State Road 25 . So it ' s virtually not visible
15 through the dense vegetation and existing
16 trees on the property, and then there is the
17 fact that the antennas are flush mounted,
18 which is a consequence to reduce visibility,
19 as I understand it .
20 MR. COUGHLIN : That is absolutely
21 correct . In fact, hot off the press, I have
22 an additional item that I would like to
23 submit, which is an visual research evaluation
24 report prepared by DMS Consulting. The
25 photographs of the existing facility and ( In
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 92
1 Audible) of the very minor changes of the
2 antennas . You can actually see how subtle the
3 differences are . There is also a simulated
4 view point of equipment additions that will be
5 made, assuming that this proposed modification
6 is approved by the necessary authorities . And
7 Madam Chair, about the flush mounting reducing
8 visibility, which I think is an important one,
9 to allow an interior mounted antenna would
10 require much larger pole to fit all the cable
11 and antennas on. This flush mount allows for
12 a much smaller, in terms of diameter pole . So
13 I would submit that it is a suitably
14 unobtrusive design and in accord with J3 , as I
15 mentioned earlier . If the Board would like, I
16 can have Mr . McKelvey come up and speak about
17 the need or the upgrade for this facility?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
19 MR. MCKELVEY : Good afternoon . My name
20 is Raymond McKelvey. I am an engineer for
21 T-Mobile and amongst others . Basically the
22 alterations required ( In Audible) we ' re going
23 to upgrade it to 3G, which is a third
24 generation system causing universal mobile
25 telecommunications . The only difference, they
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 93
1 both have data capabilities . The data
2 capabilities only of the 2G, which is 384
3 kilobits per second. Whereas, this 3G system
4 provides data rate at up to 14 megabits per
5 second. And what that means, basically ( In
6 Audible) video conferencing, SKYPE, website ' s .
7 What you have with your IPhone or Smart Phone .
8 So that is the basic reason for the upgrade of
9 2G to 3G. And that is what I wanted to
10 present, these maps . These maps show the need
11 for the site . So ultimately this site is to
12 provide ( In Audible) coverage and reliable
13 coverage, along Southold and Greenport . So
14 this map shows the reliable in-vehicle service
15 along those two routes . The reliable service
16 is in blue and the areas that aren ' t reliable
17 or considered unreliable, are the flag areas
18 in white . So this map actually shows the ( In
19 Audible) including the LIPA site that we ' re
20 talking about today . The red dots mark the
21 LIPA site . The black dots mark the ( In
22 Audible) site . So even with the existing
23 site, on-air, which is what we have today, ( In
24 Audible) that don ' t have 100% in-vehicle
25 coverage . There is a gap of about . 5 or . 7
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 94
1 miles from Route 25 and a gap of about 1 . 2
2 miles along Route 48 . Now, if we were to
3 remove the LIPA site and take it down, those
4 gaps actually increase . So along Route 48 ,
5 the gap would increase to about 2 . 5 miles and
6 the gap along Route 25 would be about 2 miles ,
7 and also there would be a bigger gap along the
8 railroad.
9 MR. COUGHLIN : And Ray, would it be
10 fair to say that is representative to a 3G gap
11 without the upgrade right now?
12 MR. MCKELVEY : Yes , so this --
13 basically, the 2G and the 3G produce similar
14 amounts of coverage . The coverage pattern is
15 different . So this upgrade will show you what
16 our 3G service or third generation of service
17 is today . We would have a significant gap
18 along these major roadways .
19 MR. COUGHLIN : So that first overlay in
20 addition to showing the existing 2G, also
21 shows the proposed 3G?
22 MR. MCKELVEY: Yes , that ' s correct . So
23 if we can go back, we can see there is a
24 significant improvement . So that is the
25 significance in providing the 3G service on
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 95
1 those major roads . The other thing I wanted
2 to show you was this range represents building
3 reliable services . So ( In Audible) . Those
4 are the four maps that I wanted to show you .
5 MEMBER HORNING: Someone standing on
6 their front lawn in that .whited out area, what
7 effect would they have with your service?
8 MR. MCKELVEY : You know, I am not sure
9 ( In Audible) .
10 (Whereupon, the speaker not close to
11 the microphone . )
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : What if you didn ' t
13 have any power?
14 MR. MCKELVEY : We may still have ( In
15 Audible) but we wouldn ' t be able to guarantee
16 and service in the vehicles .
17 MR. COUGHLIN : And as I think the Board
18 is aware and as you heard me say before, ( In
19 Audible) to just wonder outside and get a
20 signal, as people expect . ( In Audible) there
21 has been a big change in the way people expect
22 to use their phone .
23 MEMBER HORNING : May I ask a question
24 regarding the setbacks?
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 96
1 MEMBER HORNING: The Notice of
2 Disapproval states something to the effect
3 that your minimum setback from a residential
4 property line is 70 feet, and it should be
5 500 . And yet, your 500 foot radius from the
6 tower, you ' re testifying from what the
7 Planning Board said in their memorandum, that
8 there is no residences within the 500 foot
9 radius of the tower; is that correct?
10 MR. COUGHLIN : I believe the
11 distinction is the way the code section is
12 written, is that we can not be closer than 500
13 feet residential zoned property line . I
14 believe the Planning Board has made a finding
15 actual residential structure that is utilized
16 within that radius .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is exactly
18 right .
19 MEMBER HORNING: So there are some
20 measurements of distances , like one is 1277
21 feet away, etcetera . And again, we ' re saying
22 that there is no residential structure within
23 500 feet of the tower?
24 MR. COUGHLIN : I saw the same Planning
25 Board memorandum. I don ' t know that our
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 97
1 experts have that same determination .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Based on your
3 submission of the William Collins, you do have
4 some distances , but you don ' t show the
5 distance to a couple of these places . For
6 example, there is a motel there, a retail
7 building, and these are not residential
8 properties . So maybe that is the difference?
9 These are in the Business District . The
10 Kuwalski ' s residence, and you ' re showing some
11 distances to some other places . The one to
12 the northeast, for example --
13 MR. COUGHLIN: Yes , much of the
14 surrounding area ' s are of main roads . It - then
15 starts to move into the residential zone and
16 that ' s preserved or agricultural . The uses of
17 those properties aren ' t necessarily the
18 residential uses that typically might be
19 expected in the residential zone .
20 MEMBER HORNING : Would it be fair to
21 suggest, at least, this requirement -- if the
22 property line should be 500 feet from the
23 residential property line, that doesn ' t
24 include business properties ; is that a fair
25 assessment or not?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 98
-- 1 MR. COUGHLIN : I don ' t know. My
2 reading is it of a residential zoned area --
3 MEMBER HORNING: Residential zoned.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The number of
5 reasons for those setbacks have to do with
6 call zones and levels of radiation --
7 MR. COUGHLIN : In fact, I can bring up
8 with Mr . Collins now, unless you would like to
9 hear from someone else first?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No . The fall
11 zone is going to have to be addressed with
12 Site Plan --
13 MR. COUGHLIN : That is actually part of
14 the Planning Board. And I believe, my initial
15 review of the Planning Board memorandum,
16 indicates that they don ' t have an issue with
17 fall zone concerns .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, because
19 you ' re going to be addressing that before
20 them. All right, why don ' t you continue .
21 MR. COUGHLIN : Mr . Collins, would you
22 like to come up, and present your findings?
23 MR. COLLINS : Good afternoon . My name
24 is Dave Collins . I work for a company called
25 Pinnacle Telecom. We ' re the one who published
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 99
1 the report concerning compliance with RH
2 safety. I have been -- my work has been
3 accepted . I have never testified here, but my
4 work has been accepted here on prior
5 occasions . Federal Government sets a standard
6 for maximum permissible radiation levels for
7 radio frequency energy around the sites . They
8 also provide a mathematical engineering
9 formula for determining that level . The
10 standard itself, the maximum permitted level
11 is a very conservative number . It ' s
12 exceedingly low of the maximum permitted
13 level, and the mathematical formula is such
14 that the result of calculations are always the
15 worse case . The highest possible output from
16 the antennas shown as part of the calculated
17 results . Okay, having said that, we did the
18 calculated volumes on this site and this is as
19 proposed with this modification, and we wiere
20 able to determine that the maximum output: with
21 100% . Earlier we mentioned a threshold of
22 reference point of 100% . We convert the
23 figure into -- the milliwatts percentage
24 figure into a percentage of what the FCC
25 allows for the frequency level . In this
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 100
1 particular case, having done those
2 calculations, we determined that the maximum
3 calculated level for this site is 0 . 2315% .
4 That is less than one quarter of 1% of the
5 applicable standard allowed by law . In terms
6 of the times below, how many times below?
7 More than 430 times below the maximum level
8 permitted. This is typical of sites of this
9 type . It ' s not unexpected at all . You can
10 almost guess at it . From an expert
11 standpoint, based on the height and the amount
12 of power involved. So having said all that,
13 we do comply with all the rules and
14 regulations by a very, very large amount, in
15 terms of the protection of the public from
16 radio frequency energy. Any questions?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No . Thank you .
18 MR. COUGHLIN : I would like Michael to
19 come up, he is the licensed real estate
20 appraiser. I would like for him to come up .
21 MR. LYNCH : Good afternoon, Members of
22 the Board. My name is Michael Lynch and I am
23 a certified real estate appraiser . I have
24 been here many times in the past before this
25 Board. Mr . Coughlin did submit the report
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 101 '
1 that I have prepared for this project . As you
2 are aware, the property sits on an existing
3 LIPA substation, and the wooden pole, where we
4 would be swapping out the antennas . The site
5 itself, the communications end has been there
6 since 1997 . The property site itself is 8 . 3
7 acres . It ' s primary within an LB Business
8 Zoning . It ' s surrounded on three quarters of
9 side by watered land and a County preserve
10 immediately to the north . And to the
11 southwest is a Thrift Shop, a mini-golf center
12 and a hotel along Bay Avenue . To the east is
13 Chapel Lane . Just to the south of the
14 property, on the south side of Main Road, are
15 Light Industrial Zoned. From my observation,
16 I was out there twice, one in late summer and
17 most recently, this past month. I could not
18 observe the wooden pole itself from Main Road,
19 also from Chapel Lane . In the summer, I also
20 walked the Preserve and due to the heavily
21 wooded nature, again, the pole was not visible
22 from many of my advantage points . Given its
23 placement within the LIPA substation, and the
24 other existing conditions in the area, and the
25 fact the pole has been up since 1997 , I don ' t
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 102
1 believe that the swapping out of these
2 antennas will result in any adverse effect to
3 the surrounding property value, nor to the
4 essential character of the area .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions
6 from the Board?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
9 MR. LYNCH : Thank you .
10 MR. COUGHLIN : And last, I would like
11 to have Donna Marie Stipo come up . And I know
12 it was just handed to the Board a few moments
13 ago, but I would like her to present the
14 simulations, so that you can see at this
15 point, all the changes to the equipment there .
16 To get a little more of the idea of what
17 Mr . McDonald summarized in the drawings .
18 MS . STIPO : Good afternoon . The
19 Board --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you just --
21 we ' re recording this, please state and spell
22 your name .
23 MS . STIPO : Donna Marie Stipo,
24 S-T-I-P-O . DMS Consultanting Services . The
25 board that is -- just has been put up, are the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 103
1 actual photographs in the packet that you have
2 just received. They ' re laid out sequentially
3 with a Key Map, to assist you with the overall
4 view . As most of my colleagues have already
5 discussed, . the change is diminutus (phenetic)
6 with respect to the actual change on the
7 antenna . When you look at the two photographs
8 together, you will see a slight difference .
9 You will notice that simply because the
10 computer graphics will give you the details ,
11 but from the view point of the human eye at
12 certain distances, there would pretty much be
13 no change with respect to the visibility that
14 they would see, if and where available . We
15 took a look at the surrounding environment, we
16 took approximately a half a mile radii, and
17 photographed where we could actually see the
18 pole and it was during the month of October,
19 the five view points that are provided show
20 you where and limited views of what the
21 existing site looks like and when it ' s
22 changed. There should be no change with
23 respect to the level of visibility. There is
24 no change in the height . There is just a
25 small change in the antenna . We have been
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 104
1 also discussing the adjacent property, that- is
2 across the street and zoned in a Commercial
3 District . There is a residential structure
4 set back. The existing pole is also set back
5 and into the wooded property. View #4 would
6 show you what you would see from the roadside,
7 which respect to residential use and there is
8 no visibility. What we did try and take a
9 look at , is if the change would be visible
10 from the outside surrounding areas, and there
11 would not be any visible change . The
12 replacement of the antennas on the existing
13 structure will not necessarily alter what is
14 currently being viewed by the community and
15 there is also no physical changes to the
16 community itself .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions?
18 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you .
21 MR. COUGHLIN : Just to summarize, you
22 have heard from a group of experts, and their
23 various fields , and I believe each of those
24 folks have weighed in on the 267-B (2 ) Town Law
25 criteria . That really guides this Board on
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 105
1 review of the two or three variances,
2 depending on the interpretation of the
3 unobtrusiveness of the flush mount panel
4 antennas . And we submit by nature that the
5 design is an undesirable change and will not
6 result, and we also submit that this benefit,
7 that we need to provide greater service and
8 can not be achieved other then a variance
9 because if this site does not upgrade, another
10 facility will need to be erected in the near
11 field. And that will likewise require the
12 height and likely area variances from
13 residential areas, just by nature of the make
14 up of this part of Greenport . Additionally,
15 we submit that the amount of relief is not
16 substantial . The changes are very minimal .
17 This is an existing pole in a LIPA property,
18 in a series of LIPA poles . This will not have
19 an adverse impact on physical or environmental
20 conditions , and moreover on environmental
21 conditions that you heard from Mr . Collins
22 about compliance with the FCC limits . So we
23 respectfully ask that the Board approve the
24 application .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Question . In the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 106
1 past and I am sure you ' re familiar with this,
2 in order to make sure that we don ' t on our end
3 hold up the various procedures that you need
4 to go through and Site Plan Review, we have
5 put in a condition that approvals will be
6 subject to Site Plan approval from the
7 Planning Board, and proof of acceptance of the
8 location. How do you react to that?
9 MR. COUGHLIN : I have no problem with
10 that sort of condition . As I said, on the
11 onset, we need all these Board ' s approvals
12 before we proceed to modify the site in any
13 way. So a condition as part of the Zoning
t
\ 14 Board ' s decision or not, we ' re still unable to
15 pursue our building permit , without the
16 Planning Board ' s decision in hand. So with
17 that being said, I have no objection to that
18 decision .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board
20 have any other questions?
21 MEMBER HORNING: No .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
23 in the audience that would like to address
24 this application, other then the experts who
25 have testified?
- 1
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 107
1 (No Response . )
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
3 further comments, I will make a motion to
4 close this hearing and reserve decision to a
5 later date .
6 Is there a second?
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
9 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye .
13 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
14 ******************************** *** ********
15 HEARING #6533 - MGH ENTERPRISES,
16 INC . /NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS , LLC
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our next
18 application is for MGH Enterprises , Inc. , New
19 Cingular Wireless, LLC, #6533 . Request for
20 variances from Article XVII Code Section
21 280-70i ( 3 ) and Article XIII Section 280-56,
22 Bulk Schedule, based on an application for
23 building permit to install a wireless
24 telecommunication tower and equipment and the
25 Building Inspector ' s October 17 , 2011 , amended
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 108
1 November 9, 2011 Notice of Disapproval at ;
2 1) less than the code required distance to
3 adjacent residential property line of 500
4 feet, 2 ) less than the code required side yard
5 setback of 25 feet, located at : 40200 Main
6 Road, adjacent to Gardiners Bay.
7 Good afternoon, would you please just
8 state your name for the record?
9 MR. RE: Sure . Good afternoon, Madam
10 Chair, Members of the Board. Appearing for
11 the applicant, Lawrence Re, from Re, Nielsen,
12 Huber & Coughlin, 36 North New York Avenue,
13 Huntington .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what I just
15 handed to you was a recent receipt of an LWRP
16 recommendation, indicating that the proposed
17 action is consistent .
18 MR. RE : Yes , thank you very much .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re welcome .
20 MR. RE : This is an application in
21 connection with a proposal to erect a 70 foot
22 monopole at Orient By The Sea Restaurant in
23 Orient Point, and it requires two variances in
24 addition to the Special Exception approval by
25 the Planning Board, the Site Plan approval by
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 109
1 the Planning Board, and approval by the Town
2 Trustees . The two variances are that the
3 proposed site are within 500 feet of a
4 Residential Zoning District, and 25 feet from
5 a property line . The proposed site will
6 indeed be 500 feet of a residence zoned zoning
7 district, not be within 500 feet of any
8 property for residents purposes . The property
9 that is zoned residence and within 500 feet is
10 the Orient State Park, and it ' s entirely park
11 land. There are no residences on that parcel .
12 AT & T, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC does
13 business as AT & T and is licensed by the
14 Federal Communications Commission to construct
15 and maintain wireless communication services
16 here in Suffolk County. Throughout much of
17 the United States, AT & T strives to provide
18 reliable service, licensed coverage area .
19 While AT & T has coverage in Orient, it ' s on a
20 reliable basis out to the point . The purpose
21 of this site would be to complete the reliable
22 service out to the point and I have an expert
23 witness who will address that in more detail .
24 The site will operate at very low power level,
25 and will comply with FCC standards , and we
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 110
1 will also address that in more detail . The
2 nearest residence to the proposed site is
3 approximately 860 feet to the north . We have
4 tried to locate this site out near the Point
5 on a parcel, and it will have as minimal
6 impact on residences as possible . You are all
7 aware of the uses in that area . In that area,
8 you have the ferry terminals , State Parks,
9 residences and this parcel . And this was
10 deemed to be most appropriate, based on the
11 Town Code priorities . There are no Town
12 structures or Town properties suitable, and
13 there is no property industrially zoned in
14 this area . I have a number of witnesses with
15 me this evening -- or this afternoon. I have
16 some documentation that I would like to hand
17 out . I have, as was true in the hearing, a
18 report completed by Pinnacle Telecom Group
19 addressing the FCC compliance, and
20 Mr . McDonald is here and he will address
21 those . I also have the appraisal report
22 prepared by Mr . Lynch, with respect to this
23 proposal . And I have an affidavit of our
24 radio frequencies engineer and maps prepared
25 by him, with respect to the coverage that
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 111
1 would be afforded by this site . The name ,of
2 the expert is Stephane Guillabert . He has
3 also provided information . And finally, I
4 also have a determination from the FAA that
5 there will be no hazards to air navigation, if
6 this application were to be approved. Plans
7 have already been submitted with respect to
8 this application . They have been prepared by
9 William F. Collins, Architect, and with the
10 Board ' s permission, my first witness would be
11 Neil McDonald and he would provide a
12 description of the proposal, and I will have
13 him come up now. Mr . McDonald?
14 MR. MCDONALD: Good afternoon . My name
15 is Neil McDonald. I am the architect . My
16 office has prepared ( In Audible) on this site .
17 This site is at the rear of an existing
18 parcel .
19 (Whereupon, the speaker was not near a
20 microphone . )
21 MR. MCDONALD: The antennas will be
22 stacked vertically on the pole . The bottom
23 portion of the pole would be a steel portion.
24 The top portion would be a removable shell ( In
25 Audible) . The site is situated in the rear of
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 112
1 the parcel of the western portion of the
2 property line . That is really adjacent to the
3 parking lot . (In Audible) it ' s very minimum.
4 There are no distant structures .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have two
6 questions .
7 Somewhere in the plans, I noted that
8 although you ' re proposing the tower at 70
9 feet, the code permits 80 feet as a maximum
10 height, but the plans that I looked at, unless
11 I am not correct, a telescoping pole that
12 could go up to 90 feet?
13 MR. MCDONALD : Correct .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that were the
15 case, then you would need a height variance?
16 MR. RE : Yes . If I could interject?
17 We have designed the pole this way so that in
18 the event another carrier wished to co-locate,
19 they would have to bring an application to the
20 Town and appear before all the various Boards,
21 and get authority to permit such co-location .
22 And if you were to grant it, the pole would be
23 capable of supporting that, rather then to
24 take the pole down and put up another pole .
25 But needless to say, because it would actually
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 113
1 exceed the height requirement where this is
2 zoned, they would have to appear before you,
3 and you would have to judge that for yourself .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine . I just
5 wanted to clarify that . Another question, if
6 you could address or have one of your experts
7 address , the impact that this pole may have on
8 scene view shed?
9 MR. RE : Yes . We have a different
10 witness . He is not good enough .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What a
12 compliment . Then I will wait until he
13 presents that .
14 MR. RE : Okay.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board
16 have any questions at this moment?
17 (No Response . )
18 MR. RE : Then why don ' t I just jump
19 into my next witness . My next witness would
20 be Ginny Watral of VHB Planning . She has a
21 prepared an apprehensive planning report . I
22 will submit this to each one of the Board
23 members .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You certainly do
25 give us a lot of homework.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 114
1 MS . WATRAL : Good afternoon, Madam
2 Chair and Members of the Board. For the
3 record, my name is Ginny Watral, Senior
4 Technical Advisor with VHB Engineering,
5 Surveying and Landscaping Architecture . Our
6 offices are at 2150 Joshua ' s Path in
7 Hauppauge, 11788 .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you please
9 spell your name?
10 MS . WATRAL : Certainly. The last name
11 is Watral, W-A-T-R-A-L . There is actually a
12 copy of my curriculum in the back of the
13 report that was just submitted, if you need
14 spellings or anything. As Mr . Re indicated,
15 the report that was just submitted to you that
16 we prepared is a Planning, Zoning & Visual
17 Analysis . We have reviewed the application
18 and the proposal before you, with respect to
19 its planning elements, environmental impact
20 and the potential visual impact . So as Mr . Re
21 explained, the subject property is situated
22 between Orient State Park and Sound Ferry.
23 The property, because of the limited
24 commercial area in this area and the need for
25 AT & T to have reliable service up through the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 115
1 Point , we felt that this was an appropriate
2 location. We also feel that it is situated on
3 the property itself to benefit both the
4 location without inhibiting any use of the
5 property marina and restaurant use . With
6 respect to visuals, I would like to step up
7 here to the Board. In front of you are
8 photographic simulations that are contained in
9 my report . And I would like to go through
10 them briefly with you . The photographs were
11 taken using a crane in the proposed location
12 with balloons attached to the end of it ( In
13 Audible . ) To find suitable locations in the
14 community, we drive around and take those
15 photographs and use computer technology, ( In
16 Audible) pole to represent post-construction .
17 To show you want it would look like . View
18 Point A, was taken from the intersection of
19 Three Waters Lane and the pole was not
20 visible . The proposed pole would not be
21 visible . View Point B, was taken from the
.22 adjacent parking area of the end of Lands End,
23 again, this is another not visible location .
24 View Point C, was taken from 965 ( In Audible)
25 Lane, at the intersection of (In Audible)
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 116
1 Lane, the crane was not visible and the
2 proposed pole was not visible . View Point D,
3 is taken from the intersection of Ryder Farm
4 Lane and Route 25 , again, this is not visible
5 location . View Point E, was taken from 1410
6 Cedar Birch Lane, and from this location, you
7 can see the existing vegetation in the area
8 and this is a photograph of what the proposed
9 location would look like, and as you can see
10 there is no antennas visible on the outside .
11 You can see a pole structure but it is a wood
12 pole structure and there is no equipment
13 sticking out . View Point F, is taken from the
14 entrance of Cross Sound Ferry, and the
15 existing photograph shows the parking spaces
16 of the open area, and as you can see in the
17 simulation, there is some visibility of the
18 pole from this location . Again, no ( In
19 Audible) , but there would be visibility of the
20 pole . View Point G, was taken from Lands End
21 Lane . You can see existing poles and overhead
22 wires . The pole is visible in the horizon of
23 this location . The proposed monopole would
24 also be visible ( In Audible) then the existing
25 utility pole . View Point H, was taken from
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 117
1 Parkview Lane, taken from the intersection of
2 Plum Island Lane, you can see the existing
3 vegetation and utility pole . I assure you
4 that we represent this because there is
5 potential visibility here, but it is very
6 difficult to see, and it is centered with the
7 Evergreen bush in the middle, but visibility
8 from the pole . View Point I , was taken from
9 the entrance of Orient Beach State Park, and
10 the photograph and simulations illustrate that
11 there is no visibility of the pole from the
12 Orient Beach State Park. View Point J, was
13 also taken from the park, and on the entrance
14 road, and again, there is a viewpoint of what
15 the visibility of - this monopole would look
16 like from this location . And View K, is taken
17 from the Gardiners Bay, looking back towards
18 . the land, and you can see there would be some
19 visibility in the horizon of the pole from
20 that location . And finally from Viewpoint L,
21 again taken from the Gardiners Bay, closer to
22 the shore, and you could see what this
23 proposed pole would look like .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The height that
25 you ' re simulating, what is the proposed --
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 118
1 MS . WATRAL : The proposed 70 foot
2 height . Other elements of the report, went
3 into extensive analysis, relevant codes . As
4 Mr . Re indicated, the two variances that we
5 are here for, with regard to the side yard and
6 the Residential District, we feel are not
7 significant variances with respect to this
8 application given the fact that there is no
9 residential development in that near property.
10 There is the park, and it would not be
11 developed residentially. We do not feel that
12 it is a substantial variance . If the location
13 is approved, we feel that there would not be a
14 significant adverse change in the
15 environmental conditions area or the
16 neighborhood character, and I would be very
17 happy to answer any questions that you may
18 have?
19 MEMBER HORNING: Since you show in
20 these nine photos , the tower, and to my
21 knowledge, there are some cell towers, in
22 Westchester County along the parkways and
23 stuff like that . ( In Audible) . Did you have
24 any consideration so that we could look at a
25 very large Pine Tree instead of --
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 119
1 MS . WATRAL: I don ' t believe that it
2 was considered in this application . The
3 applications for Pine Trees are received with
4 mixed reviews , depending on where they ' re
5 proposed. In this case, I don ' t think it
6 would be an inappropriate use of it because
7 there are no other Pine Trees of similar
8 height . So it would be out of character . I
9 feel that the concealment pole more closely
10 blends with utility poles and because of the
11 coloring, it can also be lost, if you will ,
12 depending on the -- what the surround view is .
13 What the sky condition is .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What color are
15 you proposing this?
16 MS . WATRAL : It is proposed at this
17 point to be natural blue steel . I say
18 "natural" but a blue steel color, but we would
19 leave it up to the Board, if they feel there
20 is a more appropriate color to it . I just
21 feel that, again, given the surrounding
22 horizon, that color tends to blend with the
23 sky better, in my opinion .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you tell me-
25 what the diameter is of the basin and the top
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 120
1 of the monopole?
2 MS . WATRAL: Mr . McDonald had given
3 that before .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have it in the
5 drawing, but I would rather you enter it into
6 the record. Just come to the podium.
7 MR. MCDONALD: Sure . We had listed it
8 at approximately 48 inches at the base and 38
9 inches at the top .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Any
11 other questions?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : I don ' t know if this
1.3 is an appropriate one . You know, you
1.4 mentioned the State Park next to this site, I
1.5 was wondering if there is any way to obtain
1.6 some type of comment from them about
1.7 developing matter or not developing the
1.8 matter? Just something for our record.
1.9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the County?
20 MEMBER DINIZIO: From whomever .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s the State
22 Park.
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes .
24 MR. RE : I know that with respect to
25 this application, a complete NEPA was filed
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 121
1 and so communications were had with the State
2 of New York, with respect to this proposal and
3 no objections were raised.
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : Do we have a copy of
5 that?
6 MR. RE : I can provide a copy for you .
7- MEMBER DINIZIO: If we could just have
8 it for the record?
9 MR. RE : Sure .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : In reference to the
11 70 feet, why that particular location?
12 MR. RE : It ' s interesting. This
13 particular application pending for quite some
14 time in one form or another . Originally
15 proposed at a greater height, at one point .
16 And we already appeared before the Town
17 Trustees , and it was proposed a little farther
18 to the north on the property. A little
19 farther over towards the east end. The Town
z Trustees preferred this location . The use of
21 the property, if we go any farther north, we
22 would be moving closer to the residences , and
23 we would also be interfering with the parking .
24 If we go to the east a little bit, we can ' t go
25 very far because that is where the boat slips
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 122
1 are and the water is there . It ' s a rather
2 long skinny parcel . The location that we
3 chose was as far from the residences as
4 possible . As far as the uses from the
5 property as possible . The drawback was that
6 we did have that 70 foot setback, but it was
7 thought that because of the two undeveloped
8 lands that whether it was 7 feet or 25 feet ,
9 it wouldn ' t make a huge difference, as far as
10 day to day use .
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : And what about the
12 steel platform? Can you just elaborate on
13 that?
14 MR. RE : I will bring Neil back upon
1.5 that .
1.6 MR. MCDONALD: The steel platform is
1.7 open grate . It ' s made of galvanized steel, so
1.8 that it won ' t rust . Very similar to
1.9 applications that we would propose on a
20 rooftop for supporting the structure . In this
21 case, it makes the most sense given the
22 proximity of the water and just trying to get
23 the equipment up a little bit .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Any standard on how
25 high it is?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 123
1 MR. MCDONALD: We proposed it, I
2 believe, at 4 feet above ground.
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : And do you know how
4 high you are above sea level?
5 MR. MCDONALD: We ' re pretty close to
6 sea level there .
7 MEMBER DINIZIO: You are 4 feet above
8 sea level then your cabinet?
9 MR. MCDONALD : Yep .
10 MEMBER DINIZIO : Then 8 foot fence,
.11 Chain Link fence?
12 MR. MCDONALD: Right .
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : All right . That is
14 all I have .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When we did field
16 inspection, it was pretty clear where you ' re
7.7 proposing to put the equipment is already
1_8 elevated. The topography is already elevated.
1_9 MR. MCDONALD: Yep .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : ( In Audible)
21 propose clearing of the natural vegetation on
22 that site?
23 MR. MCDONALD: We actually marked out
24 the vegetation that is proposed for this site,
25 and it ' s currently clear . It ' s a gravel
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 124
1 mixture . For the most part, it is already
2 clear . No need to take down any trees or
3 anything .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to
5 know what amount of land disturbance would be
6 involved.
7 MR. MCDONALD : The methods that are
8 going to be used here are pretty minimally
9 invasive because we ' re not pouring a large
10 concrete slab . So the steel platform will be
:11 supported on typically 2 foot diameter
12 concrete case-on ' s, which would sort of be
13 drilled into the earth there . The pole
14 structure would be a drilled case-on. There
15 is no need to bring in big excavating
16 equipment or -- I would imagine, there is not
1_7 going to be any need to clear anything
1_8 significant in the area that we ' re working .
1.9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The existing wood
210 retaining wall that is there, is that being
2:1 replaced?
22 MR. MCDONALD: I would have to take a
23 second look at that .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s more
25 elevated from the parking area, then the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 125
1 regular grade .
2 MR. MCDONALD : I don ' t believe that we
3 were proposing to replace that .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
5 MR. RE : And if I could just add, there
6 is a fence that is being proposed and that is
7 going to be surrounded by 14 foot Junipers .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, any
9 questions?
10 MEMBER HORNING: No .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, any
.12 questions?
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
=L5 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
1.6 MR. RE : If the Board would allow, I
1.7 would also like to bring up our radio
1.8 frequency engineer . I have distributed his
1.9 affidavit and the propagation maps . I can
20 have him go through those for you. This
21 improvement would provide reliable service
22 in-building and in-vehicle coverage, and it
23 would also allow AT & T to provide 4G
24 coverage, so that people with Smart Phones ,
25 IPhone ' s could use their fullest capability.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 126
1 MR. GUILLABERT : Good afternoon.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon .
3 MR. GUILLABERT : My name is Stephane
4 Guillabert . I am the Radio Frequency Engineer
5 for Bechtel Communications .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you please
7 spell your name?
r
8 MR. GUILLABERT : Yeah, sure .
9 G-U-I-L-L-A-B-E-R-T . I have testified already
10 at least before 100 applications for Planning
11 and Zoning Board. First time, before your
12 Board. I have prepared some propagation maps,
13 I can present to you . It would be done like
14 the presentation that was done before .
1.5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before you- start,
1.6 let me just explain that Member Horning has to
1.7 catch the ferry. Back to Fishers Island.
1.8 Thank you, George .
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. GUILLABERT : ( In Audible . )
21 (Whereupon, the speaker was away from
22 the microphone . )
23 MR. GUILLABERT : What I did on this
24 map, the green color is our 3G coverage . The
2.5 Yellow is the ( In Audible) coverage . The Blue
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 127
1 is ( In Audible) . Over the White area is no
2 coverage . This area would be a like a drop, I
3 have no coverage . You can see with the change
4 in color, change in coverage . Now you can see
5 the more coverage along Route 25 . You will
6 have AT & T coverage in-house coverage . ( In
7 Audible . )
8 Does the Board have any questions?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seems clear to
10 me . Very good.
11 MR. RE : I have Mr . Collins . You heard
12 his testimony on the last application. I can
13 have him briefly come up, and explain the
14 report that was submitted with respect to FCC
15 Compliance as to omissions . Mr . Collins?
16 MR. COLLINS : Hello, again . As stated
17 before, the FCC Federal Government has a
18 standard, very strict to limit the amount of
19 radio frequency levels around the antenna
20 sites , in order to protect the public . And
21 also has a mathematical engineering formula to
22 determine the level , which will then compare
23 to the standard. In this particular case,
24 there are three frequencies involved. In the
25 prior case, there was only two . Each
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 128
1 frequency is assigned, it ' s FCC license, a
2 maximum power output . In all our
3 calculations, we always use the maximum amount
4 because it ' s always the worse case scenario,
5 but essentially there is more total power in
6 addition to these antennas , are mounted lower .
7 Having said all that, we have performed the
8 calculations, and determined based upon a 100%
9 reference point per maximum permitted level,
10 the highest level with all three antenna
11 frequencies giving out their maximum licensed,
12 I came up with 2 . 0650% . This is higher then
13 the other level; however, we are still 48
14 times below limits . We ' re well within the
15 restrictions of the limits . The numbers are
1.6 higher because there is' more power involved
1.7 and slightly closer to the ground, some 15 or
1.8 so feet . And the third thing that would cause
1.9 these levels -- just in comparison, the types
20 of levels . In this case versus the other, and
21 what is called, the vertical discrimination .
22 It ' s how much of the power is aimed in a
23 slightly different area, as opposed to just
24 straight up . These have different antenna
25 patterns then the other ones and this would
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 129
1 cause that slightly higher number. But again,
2 highly protected, and to give this every day
3 reference, because the water line mumbo jumbo
4 here high-tech talk, everything that has
5 electricity in it, including human beings , but
6 all electrical things emit radio energy. It ' s
7 the Law of Physics . It transmits
8 electromagnetic waves . We have measured
9 hundreds of homes because no doubt you have
10 been approached by people concerned about
11 radio energy levels for antenna sites . There
12 are instruments available that will measure
13 the levels . Typically inside a home, in a
14 kitchen, the levels run 3% of the same that
15 was applied in the levels that were determined
1.6 in here . The refrigerator is the biggest
1.7 culprit . Almost 3% to 7% of the limit,
1.8 depending it ' s age, make, model, but also the
19 defrost part of it . Which is nothing but a
20 big metal plate that they heat, which becomes
21 a very inefficient but usable antenna . But
22 again that is 3% minimum inside your house .
23 This is 2% outside . Well, within the confines
24 of FCC restrictions . That ' s it .
215 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a quick
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 130
1 question .
2 MR. COLLINS : Yes , sir?
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is there a
4 difference between a 3G and 4G radiofrequency
5 transmissions?
6 MR. COLLINS : There is no difference .
7 The only difference there would be in terms of
8 you receiving and acting as an antenna to you
9 receiving radiowave ' s . The fellows who design
10 this, result the standards that were set,
11 result of at least 50 years of research . It
12 started shortly after World War II , but part
13 of it ' s parameters is age, height, the size of
14 a human body. All of this was taken into
15 consideration in the setting of the standard
16 in the mathematics to determine the exposure
1-7 to humans . Your height determines which
1_8 particular frequency you might be acceptable
1.9 to . Some more then others . For the 815 ,
210 750 megahertz, we ' re actually more receptive
21 to that then the higher frequencies . So the r
22 protective part of the standard is more so for
23 the lower frequencies and less so for the
24 high, because the high, has a higher effect,
25 but the 4G, 3G, just in terms of frequency.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 131
1 The frequencies they use to determine the
2 maximum levels permitted for those
3 frequencies , and then the power that they use
4 for each frequency determines what level they
5 would be for the maximum level for that
6 frequency. So it isn ' t a question that 4G,
7 oh, we have to be more concerned with. In
8 terms of concerns about where you have a
9 different frequency and use, it is merely
10 added, when we take all the calculations , we
11 take into account every frequency at their
12 maximum amount of power and add up all those
13 percentages into one, which is what the FCC
14 recommends .
.15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I will be honest
16 with you, I really don ' t understand all of
17 that . You ' re the specialist . If you were to
18 compare for instance like a home router, a
1_9 wireless home router, does that admits the
20 same type of frequency that we have in these
21 towers?
22 MR. COLLINS : I think they ' re actually
23 higher . The same like wireless -- cordless
24 phones at home, 2 . 3 , 2 . 7 gigahertz .
25 Significantly higher . But however anything
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 132
1 over 1500 megahertz, the same standard
2 applies . It is one milliwatt per square
3 centimeter . So regardless of what frequency
4 you go up to, above 1500 , the standard is the
5 same because the ability to the humans is the
6 same .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And when a tower is
8 lower, it is required to push out more power?
9 MR. COLLINS : No, I can ' t answer as to
10 what particular power it may set up a site
11 for .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
13 MR. COLLINS : By law, they ' re limited
1.4 to so much power regardless of elevation of
1.5 site . We take all of our calculations based
1.6 on their maximum level .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So power, height and
18 function of range?
19 MR. COLLINS : Yeah. The power --
20 again, if you are given a license to operate ,
2.1 say 1900 megahertz, any carrier, not just
22 AT & T, they would also be assigned a maximum
23 level . So you can ' t go any higher than that .
24 They may chose at a particular site, we don ' t
25 need that much power in order to cover the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 133
1 propagated area we wish to cover . And if we
2 use more than that maximum level, but more
3 than a minimus let ' s say, we satisfy the needs
4 of that area we wish to . They don ' t want to
5 transmit beyond it, because they might cause
6 interference issues within their own network.
7 Not with anything else, only within their own
8 network.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
10 MR. COLLINS : All the cellular network
11 is low power for a reason. It doesn ' t wish _ to
.12 interfere with its own network elsewhere .
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And what would be
14 the optimum height for a tower?
1_5 MR. COLLINS : Not for me . I am not a
1.6 radio engineer .
1.7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay .
18 MR. COLLINS : And that is also
19 dependent upon the needs of that particular
20 area .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
22 MR. RE : In order to answer your
23 question, I can bring Stephane up, but I can
24 give you layman ' s answer .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yeah, I am a layman .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 134
1 MR. RE : The topography, the density of
2 the structures and trees in the area, how big
3 the gap is . That if it ' s a perfectly flat
4 area and it ' s desert, for example, there would
5 be no obstructions and easier to cover . If
6 you ' re in a hilly area with a lot of trees , a
7 lot of buildings , then there is a lot more
8 that is diminishing the coverage, and so you
9 may need a little bit more height . So if you
10 want a more sophisticated answer --
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No, it ' s fine .
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : In any case, the
13 gentleman that just testified, testified to
14 the maximum allowed limits . What you operate
15 on has to be lower then --
16 MR. RE: Yeah, he assumed worse case in
17 every respect . So you have to assume 40 times '
18 below the limit .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : You would have to
20 achieve coverage another way . In other words ,
21 another tower . You can ' t just boost up your
22 power to make your information go first?
23 MR. RE : You have to remember that the
24 antenna sites have to be capable of receiving
25 a call from a little phone . And so you can ' t
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 135
1 be too far away because even if you have a lot
2 of antennas on a tower, the little phone has
3 to reach the site, so it has to be relatively
4 close .
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : Thank you .
6 MR. RE : I have Mr. Lynch. I have
7 distributed his report .
8 MR. LYNCH : Good afternoon again . It ' s
9 Michael Lynch, State Certified Real Estate
10 Appraiser . So again, the property is located
11 at 40200 Main Road, approximately 1, 050 east
12 of Cedar Birch Road in the Hamlet of Orient
13 Point . The proposal is for a stealth
14 monopole, at the southwest corner of the
15 property. Adjacent to Gardiners Bay and
16 Orient State Park . It ' s abutted on its east
17 by Federal Government property that is Plum
18 Island Facility, and just beyond that to the
19 east is the Orient Point Ferry. And to the
20 north of the property, the nearest residence
21 -- on the north side of Main Road is again,
22 approximately 800 feet away to the proposed
23 communications facility. The marina facility .
24 itself with the restaurant, is approximately
25 4 . 7 acres . It ' s in a Marine Two Zoning
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 136
1 District . Again, the antennas will be fully
2 concealed within the monopole structure of a
3 stealth design. I have prepared a report with
4 photos of the subject property, and of the
5 surrounding area, as well as an aerial
6 photograph . I have also included a couple of
7 studies that I have prepared on the east-end
8 of Long Island. I know one of the gentlemen,
9 Mr . Horning, I think left, was interested in
10 the design of the stealth monopole, and we
11 have worked on a couple of similar type
12 structures on the east-end . One was in the
13 Penny Lumber facility. The other one was in
14 the Town of Riverhead, was built in 2003 on
15 the Cherry Creek Golf Club . Just off Sound
16 Avenue . That was built in 2003 . That is
17 nearly double the height of this proposal .
18 Nearly 130 feet . I did a study for the
19 Homeowners Association, that was built
20 subsequent to the erection of that monopole .
21 Just to the east of that, approximately a mile
22 and half, is another very similar development
23 to the Highland' s Cherry Creek. The other
24 development is by the same developer, I think.,
25 It was the Highland ' s at Aquebogue . It abuts
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 137
1 a golf course, commenced at a very similar
2 type . I looked at sales at the Cherry Creek
3 development that abutted the 130 monopole
4 versus the other development, which was
5 similar in all other respects , but for the
6 stealth monopole and over a course of six or
7 seven years, the square foot basis on the two
8 samples , I didn ' t find an appreciable
9 difference in the price per square footage
10 sample . So based upon that study -- again,
11 the existence of that stealth monopole, which
12 was roughly twice the height of what we have
13 proposed here, did not have an adverse effect
14 to the surrounding community. So in
15 conclusion, I don ' t feel that this application
16 should be approved with the result of any
17 adverse affect to the surrounding residential
1L8 community.
3.9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you .
20 MR. LYNCH : Thanks .
21 MR. RE : That would conclude our
22 presentation. As you know, we still must
23 obtain a Special Exception permit and Site
24 Plan review approval by the Planning Board, as
25 well as, Town Trustees approval . We believe
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 138
1 that the proposal is the least obtrusive means
2 by coverage to the eastern part of Orient .
3 We ' re within the height limits and the only
4 variances required are in proximity to the
5 residentially zoned State Park. I would be
6 happy to answer any other questions that you
7 might have?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, my only ,
9 other question is the same one that I asked
10 the last time, which is once again, so that we
11 can proceed with our determination, any
12 problems conditioning based on Site Plan
13 approval from the Planning Board --
14 MR. RE : No, no . No problem
15 whatsoever.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, questions?
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone in the
21 audience. that wishes to address this
22 application?
23 MR. ELSKY : My name is Normal Elsky,
24 E-L-S-K-Y, and I live across the street from
25 this proposed project . And my concern is one
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 139
1 whether it be an eyesore to the view of the
2 property and that it will decrease the value
3 of my house . One never knows when a person
4 wants to purchase a house, we look at all
5 kinds of things and when you see a pole
6 sticking up and antennas coming out, my
7 assumption is at some point they ' re going to
8 have antennas sticking out, is a negative in
9 selling the house . So that --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where exactly are
11 you located?
12 MR. ELSKY: Across the street .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In Orient By The
14 Sea?
15 MR. ELSKY : Yeah. I live in the
16 original farm house .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know it .
18 We ' re locals too .
19 MR. ELSKY : So that is my concern and
20 there are other areas along the coast to the
21 east of that location that would be much --
22 that can easily be used just the same way that
23 they would like to be used, and want to do the
24 project at this point .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perhaps the
M
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 140
1 applicant ' s attorney will address some of the
2 issues that you brought up . They have had
3 experts testify about the likelihood of any
4 adverse impact on any real estate value, what
5 the gentleman just did before .
6 MR. ELSKY : Yeah .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there was a
8 woman that came up and addressed what it was
9 going to look like from various points of
10 view, where it would be noticed and where you
11 wouldn ' t be able to see it . But perhaps,
12 Counsel, would like to talk further and
13 clarify what your concerns are?
14 MR. ELSKY : Yeah.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let him respond
16 to your comments .
17 MR. ELSKY : I can talk to him outside .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Once you ' re out
19 of here, you can do whatever you want .
20 MR. RE : Yes, Mr . Elsky ' s house is
21 diagonally across from the proposed site, but
22 it ' s at over 860 feet from the proposed site .
23 Our search for a site led us to this location
24 because there really are not many choices in
25 the area . The Ferry' s are next door, and
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 141
1 these properties are the only ones that could
2 be really considered. And we have moved the
3 pole as far away from the houses as possible .
4 We have made the height to a height less than
5 the maximum -- under the code . We had
6 Mr . Lynch testify to the property value
7 effect, and we believe that it will have no
8 property value effect on Mr . Elsky ' s property
9 value .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . Is
11 there anyone else in the audience that would
12 like to address this application?
13 (No Response . )
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any further
15 questions from the Board?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
18 further questions or comments, I will make a
19 motion to close this hearing and reserve
20 decision, subject to receipt of a letter of
21 correspondence from the State regarding no
22 objection to the setback from their property
23 line .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Ken.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 142
1 All in favor?
2 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
5 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
6 *********************************************
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have one last
8 application, we have been at this for a very
9 long time . We ' re going to recess for five
10 minutes . So moved.
11 Is there a second?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO : Second.
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
14 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
17 (Whereupon, a recess was taken at
18 this time . )
19 ******************* **************************
20 HEARING #6534 - NICHOLAS GORGONE
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
22 application is for Nicholas Gorgone, #6534 .
23 Request for variance from Article III
24 Section 280-15 and Article XXIII Section
25 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s November
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 143
1 18 , 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an
2 application for building permit for an
3 accessory in-ground swimming pool at :
4 1 ) location other than the code required rear
5 yard, 2 ) lot coverage more than the code
6 required 20o maximum, located at : 825 Smith
7 Drive South, Terry Place, Southold.
8 Is there someone here to represent this
9 application?
10 MR. PLANAMENTO : Good afternoon,
11 Chairperson Weisman, Members of the Board,
12 Ms . Toth, this is the first time I have ever
13 spoken in this type of an application or
14 helping a client in this way.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just state your
16 name and spell your last name?
17 MR. PLANAMENTO : Nicholas Planamento,
18 and my last is spelled P-L-A-N-A-M-E-N-T-O . I
19 am representing Mr . Gorgone in sort of two
20 ways . I was hired by him as a realtor to help
21 him with the sale of his home . Incidental, Z
22 am also the sitting president of HANFRA, which
23 is the Hampton ' s and Northfork Realtor ' s
24 Association, which represents the five
25 east-end Towns . All professional practicing
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 144
1 realtors in our community are members of our
2 Board. And that is to say that I am really
3 knowledgeable person on both personal interest
4 such as this , also real estate . Mr . Gorgone
5 has a property that was recently built --
6 pretty much new construction on a former lot
7 that he had purchased previously. And I think
8 in all fairness, he built a beautiful home,
9 where he hired more of an upscale builder to
10 service his needs by improving the lot to such
11 a degree that one didn ' t think about what the
12 future might hold, as far as from a resale
13 standpoint . It was his goal to remain in the
14 house for longevity. The house was only
15 recently built, -in less than half a decade .
16 With that said, a situation outside his own
17 desires , forced him to make a sale of the
18 property and we have been marketing it in
19 excess of seven months . A prospective
20 purchaser has come by, who has an interest in
21 acquiring the property, however, one of their
22 needs is different then his needs, which
23 prompted us to make an application for 'a
24 swimming pool . Unfortunately because of the
25 lot size, he is at basically his allowed
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 145
1 usage, based upon Town Code, therefore
2 prompting the need for these two requests .
3 The pool itself, which is applied for, would
4 sit in what I would call, professionally
5 speaking, and I think most people would look
6 at it as a backyard, unfortunately the Town
7 views it differently because this is a corner
8 lot . So again, we have a situation where
9 there is a buyer that is interested to
10 purchase the home, in a rather depressed
11 market, from a standpoint of sales . The house
12 is actively marketed. The prospective buyers
13 are aware of this information also . We have
14 not been able to procure any other positive
15 offers or interested parties for Mr . Gorgone .
16 The buyers have requested -- actually it ' s
17 part of the contract, in order to purchase the
18 property to have a building permit for the
19 swimming pool . So basically I am here
20 speaking for Mr . Gorgone . Speaking favorably
21 for this application and -for the buyers who
22 wish to purchase the home for two reasons .
23 And it basically boils down to just financial
24 lost . Should Mr. Gorgone not be able to sell
25 his home as a result of being denied an
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 146
1 application for a swimming pool, he will have
2 suffered part of what we ' re experiencing right
3 now in the real estate market . Just a few
4 buyers are out there . He has a wonderful {`
5 home, but people have just not stepped
6 forward. So the setback for him would
7 potentially be catastrophic . He also might
8 share perhaps a his personal reasons, which
9 has forced the sale . I will leave that to him
10 when he speaks, but also for the buyer, they
11 would like to acquire the home but need a
12 swimming pool for them to meet their setback
13 requirements, spacial issues . We would still
14 have to apply for a variance for lot coverage
15 but not for the setback. However, to engage
16 in services of a custom pool designer, other
17 then a stock certain standard size, which
18 would fit this sort of property. It ' s a
19 lovely home in a wonderful neighborhood but ;
20 we ' re not dealing with an upscale waterfront
21 lot that could support custom features, such
22 as a Gunite pool . So I politely request you
23 review the information, the application as
24 submitted, and you generously grant a positive
�; 25 response to this application . And I would be
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 147
1 glad to answer any questions you might have,
2 and I would also like to say that this is the .
3 first time speaking here and I am a little bit
4 nervous in speaking on behalf of a real estate
5 client . I am not a paid expeditor . This is
6 the first time I have ever helped a client to
7 submit and I do hope --
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So far so good.
9 MR. PLANAMENTO : Thank you . I
10 appreciate the encouragement . It is a little
11 intimidating.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we don ' t
13 mean to be intimidating. Let me give you two
14 letters that were received by neighbors .
15 MR. PLANAMENTO : Are these copies for
16 me and Mr . Gorgone?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes . We have a,
18 copy. We just wanted to make sure you had the
19 benefit of the same information .
20 MR. PLANAMENTO : Thank you . I have not
21 seen this before .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably not .
23 That is why you ' re getting them. We might
24 give you and your client perhaps a minute or
25 two to look over them, but let me ask you a
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 148
1 few questions anyway. The proposed pool is
2 16 X 32 , pretty much a standard size; is that
3 right?
4 MR. PLANAMENTO: Yes , it ' s a standard ,
5 sort of pool size .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The 32 foot
7 length is what ' s causing one of the variances .
8 There is two, one is for the side yard. This
9 diagram shows what the Building Department has
10 determined to be the rear yard and the side
11 yard. So it ' s showing of the 32 feet, 2 of
12 those feet would be designated side yard.
13 MR. PLANAMENTO : Exactly, this is my
14 understanding, yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that ' s 2 out
16 of 32 feet in a side yard. The other is 24 . 3%
17 lot coverage, where the code allows a maximum
18 of 20% . Do you know what the existing lot
19 coverage is?
20 MR. PLANAMENTO : In all fairness, it ' s
21 at 20% . It ' s just a hair over.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 20 . 9 existing.
r
23 Anything you put on there at all is going to
24 increase that lot coverage .
25 MR. PLANAMENTO : Yes , and this was one
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 149
1 of the things that I think as a home designer,
2 if you will, the current occupant, he built
3 the house for his specific need at the time he
4 built it . There had been a smaller house on ,
5 the lot, actually right at the corner of Smith
6 Drive South and Terry Place . In order to get
7 the existing building permit, the Town
8 requested that he had to meet all the setback
9 requirements . To demolish the existing home
10 and to set the house at what they considered
11 to be an appropriate location, instead of that
12 time just doing an addition to an existing
13 house, which sat on the shoulder of the road.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Another question,
15 on field inspection, we all go . Every Board
16 member goes out to inspect all the properties
17 that are before us, a public hearing. I
18 noticed that there was a shed, a small shed,
19 very close to where the proposed swimming pool
f
20 would be located. It doesn ' t show up on the
21 survey.
22 MR. PLANAMENTO : I think, if I may, and
23 perhaps this is an error on my submission, but
24 the shed is less than 100 square feet .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 150
1 MR. PLANAMENTO : I didn ' t realize that
2 the shed needs to be there . One reason, as I ,
3 understand it, the buyers would be relocating
4 or abandoning the shed. The Smythe ' s , they
5 have a contract of sale to buy the property, �I
6 am sure they would like to also speak. They
7 would probably address that . If I could just•
8 back up about the lot coverage, and the two
9 foot sort of issue . In my conversation, again
10 representing Mr . Gorgone, there is another
11 realtor here who brought the customers , we
12 discussed different size pools . Different
13 placement and tried to see what would work,
14 and we could make the pool a little more
15 smaller, but then that also makes the pool
16 more narrower . One of the thoughts as I
17 understand it, in having a smaller pool, like
18 a lap pool, which would not be suitable for ,
19 children ' s play and -- well, other uses . So
20 the prospective buyer might speak about that .
21 The lot coverage issue, without a doubt --
22 again, it ' s a tough one, but Mr . Gorgone and
23 his design element, for the house, planned
24 them for his own uses . He did not think that
25 someone would ever need a tennis court, a
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 151
1 large shed, perhaps a garage building. Who
2 knows what somebody might have in the future .
3 I think that the particular buyers are going
4 to speak to that, but the idea is that there
5 is this gorgeous house, which we ' re in a
6 rather depressing, certainly oppressed real
7 estate market . It was built and designed by
8 Mr . Bertani, who is a local builder . You
9 know, has a great representation . The site is
10 really over developed, considering the
11 neighborhood. The character of this really ,
12 beautiful place -- but houses tend to be
13 smaller gated houses . It ' s just an
14 unfortunate reality that this particular owner
15 has -- well, he --
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If the shed were
i
17 removed, then two options . You ' re proposing
18 5 foot setbacks for both property lines at the
19 moment . With the shed gone, it ' s a small
1 20 amount, but it could potentially increase the
21 overall lot coverage .
22 MR. PLANAMENTO : I can ' t answer this
23 but I will leave it to -- their intent ' --
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s probably not
25 on the calculations either .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 152
1 MR. PLANAMENTO : No, it ' s not on any- ,'
2 calculations . Again, less than 100 square
3 feet . I will let them answer that question,
4 whether they chose to keep it or not, but the
5 thought being kept on site, it would seem
6 appropriate to keep it at the end of the
7 garage, would be closer to the Terry Place
8 side of the property, rather then the other
9 side yard. Depending on where the Board feels
c
10 is an appropriate location .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It needs to be in
12 a conforming location, which would be the rear .
13 yard someplace . Unless you got a variance for
14 locating it in the front --
r
15 MR. PLANAMENTO: No, and I don ' t think
16 the buyer wants to do that . So I think the ,
17 easier thing would be to abandon the use of ,'
18 the shed. I will let them answer that . The
19 thought that you brought forward about the
t
20 2 feet, you just said something a moment ago
21 that sparked something in my mind --
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, if the shed
23 is not there, then it makes it a 3 foot,
24 setback from a property line, but it takes it
25 out of the side yard entirely and removes a
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 153
1 variance for the side yard.
2 MR. PLANAMENTO : If that is the
3 solution, I think our party would certainly
4 appreciate that .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because since
6 it ' s not a vertical structure, it does count("
7 for lot coverage but it certainly has an
8 impact if the code doesn ' t say how far from
9 the property line . It ' s not a setback issue.
10 It ' s 2 feet in the side yard . y
11 MR. PLANAMENTO : The problem is that,
12 the pool would extend south two feet closer to
13 the house, which I suppose an alternative
14 might be, I don ' t know -- this is again
15 suitable to the Board, but perhaps instead df
16 having a 5 foot setback, perhaps that they can
17 be granted 3 feet, so it ' s then clearly in the
r
18 rear yard. We ' re really talking about inches
19 here . You know, the major demand is the
20 possibility of having a swimming pool, for ,
21 this transaction to move forward.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Let ' s see
23 what other people have to say. Does the Board
24 have any questions of Mr. Planamento at this
25 point?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 154
1 MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to
2 comment that at 24%, it ' s a lot of lot
3 coverage . That is a lot of additional lot
4 coverage and you know, any way that you think
5 you can reduce that, I would like to see it . ,,
6 MR. PLANAMENTO : I think that would be
7 virtually impossible given the structure, the
8 garage is attached to the house . It ' s all a
9 continuos piece of residence . Short of doing
10 something with the swimming pool, which is
11 again, I think the thought would be to have,
12 the particular pool that this particular buyer
13 is requesting . Short of having to create a
x
14 custom pool, which would be fairly more
15 expensive . I don ' t know that there is a
r
16 solution, and that would be a particular
17 hardship for this applicant . I would also
18 think that being a Town resident, and active
r
19 in the real estate community, it seems that
20 there are many lots that are substantially _
21 smaller . You have some properties that have
22 Sound front , water front . There are strenuous
23 situations where people are forced to have
24 things in their front yards, instead of their
25 back yard. It doesn ' t seem that that is so
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 155
1 unreasonable . I don ' t disagree from what
2 you ' re saying from a square footage standpoint
3 and percentages, but it doesn ' t seem to be out
4 of character for the property or other homes
5 in the township of homes for the Town of
6 Southold.
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, other then the;
8 fact for lot coverage, that is what we ' re here
9 talking about . The rest of it, pools in the;
s
10 front yard, side yard, backyard, you know.
11 There are instances where we have granted
12 front yard pools . There are some instances
13 where they are allowed in the front yard
s
14 because of the water . Your reasons when I go
15 over them, it says proposed in-ground swimming
16 pool, fit in the lot is not obtrusive to the
17 character of the neighborhood. Well , we have
18 two people that live in the neighborhood that
19 say that it is . You also say that lot size
r
20 restrictions due to small size of lot in the
21 Town of Southold, side yard and rear yard
22 setbacks . Yeah, that is why you ' re here . _
r'
23 MR. PLANAMENTO : I think if we go back
24 to the historical origin of this -- I don ' t
25 want to say problem, but the property owner ' s
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS . 156
1 decision, rather then extending the existing
2 house that he owned, which is his right, he
3 was counseled through the Town to meet the
4 current setback requirements . We all know
5 that today, to have a single-family residence,
6 as you ' re carving out a new lot, you can not,-
7 carve out this lot .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : It has no effect at
9 all on lot coverage .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s look at
11 some other options . We just looked at the `
12 code, and 5 foot setbacks are conforming . So
13 we may lose the side yard variance, but then
14 you would have the setback variance . So --
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : No, you would have a
16 lot coverage variance?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they scooted
18 back to get it out of the side yard, they are
19 going to have a 3 instead of a 5 foot code.
20 conforming setback from the property line . ,
21 You have a wooden deck?
22 MR. PLANAMENTO : Yeah, there is an
23 existing deck attached --
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : An elevated deck
25 with some steps --
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 157
.1 MR. GORGONE : Yes , there is .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on a second.
3 If you would like to speak, you need to come
4 to the mic and identify yourself, sir . We ' re
5 looking at ways to reducing lot coverage, but
6 that counts as lot coverage . If it ' s at '
7 grade, then it does not . Patio, for example .
8 The possibility of removing that deck and
9 putting steps down to an all stone patio is
10 one . It ' s only about the only way that I can
11 see to reduce lot coverage, but that is an
12 option to discuss .
13 MR. PLANAMENTO: Absolutely. And if
14 it ' s okay, and you don ' t have further
15 questions for me, I would like Mr . Gorgone,
16 the actual applicant to speak for a minute .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely .
18 MR. PLANAMENTO : Thank you .
19 MR. GORGONE : I am Nicholas Gorgone the
20 owner of the property. What is the ruling,. on
21 the pool -- how close can it be to a
22 structure?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To mean, 'like a
24 house?
25 MR. GORGONE : Yeah . What ' s the space
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 158
1 between a house and a swimming pool?
2 MEMBER DINIZIO: We ' re not really
3 qualified to answer that question . ti
4 MR. GORGONE : No? Is there an Town
5 ordinance on it?
6 MEMBER DINIZIO : I think that would be
7 a State Building Code question .
8 MR. GORGONE : Okay. All right . The
9 hole deal --
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are you asking about
11 the property line?
12 MR. GORGONE : No, when you put a
13 swimming pool in, how close can it be to a
14 structure, of a part of the house?
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well , I have seen them
16 in houses, sir .
17 MR. GORGONE : I have seen them in
18 houses too .
19 MEMBER DINIZIO : I don ' t think it ' s
20 really a problem on how close it could be --
21 MR. GORGONE : Well, that was the only
22 question that I had and as I said, the whole
23 deal is contingent on this swimming pool, so
24 -- and I have been trying to sell that place .
25 Both for medical reasons and everything else .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 159
1 I can ' t stay here any longer . Okay?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we have
3 further questions of you, we will ask you to.
4 come back up .
i
5 MR. GORGONE : Thank you .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like 'to
7 come forward, potential buyer?
8 MS . VAN GORDON : Hi . I am' Peggy Van
9 Gordon. I represent the buyer .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And would you '
11 please spell your name for the record?
12 MS . VAN GORDON : Sure . It ' s -- my last
13 name? V-A-N G-O-R-D-O-N . In retrospect, like
14 Nicholas had given you his information, my
15 concern is with being the corner lot, with if
16 the house had been situated differently, then
17 this would not -- they ' re kind of losing it .
18 The corner lot is suffering with the exposure
19 on both side and at the same time, losing the
20 square footage that they need. If it wasn' t
21 -- I think what Nicholas was trying to point
22 out is , that some of the lots that have been
23 granted pools in the past, aren ' t on corner
24 lots . They ' re situated throughout the block.
25 The house next door, which is on a corner lot,
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 160
1 which is a little higher ground was granted an
2 in-ground pool .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I 'm sorry, which
4 one are you referring to? {
i
t
5 MS . VAN GORDON : Right behind him, I
6 don ' t know if that ' s Terry Place .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot 121 or is it
8 Lot 198 ? Would you like to look at the survey
9 and tell us which one you ' re referring to? c
10 MS . VAN GORDON : I just know that it ' s
11 directly behind Nick ' s house .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that the house
t
13 that has a stockade fence?
14 MS . VAN GORDON : Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s a little
16 higher in elevation?
17 MS . VAN GORDON : Yes . There is a
18 swimming pool there .
19 MR. PLANAMENTO : I have a survey of
20 Lot 198 , if you would like to see it?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, if you
22 would just let this woman finish her testimony
23 and if you would like to submit that survey,
24 then it ' s fine . I would like for them to have
25 an opportunity to see it as well .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `. 161
f
1 MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I do a little
2 cross here?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure . cr
4 MEMBER DINIZIO : Because this is a i
5 corner lot, that is really not your problem.
6 MS . VAN GORDON : It ' s not?
7 MEMBER DINIZIO : No, it ' s the fact that
8 the house is taking up so much of the lot .
9 You know, that is not your problem.
r
10 MS . VAN GORDON : You don ' t think that
11 is a set back because it was a corner?
12 MEMBER DINIZIO: Even the setback is
13 not a problem.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I think
15 what she is pointing out is because she has
16 two front yards, the setback is greater on
17 those two --
18 MS . VAN GORDON: It is, 15 feet on each
19 side .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : -- then what a
21 side yard would be .
22 MEMBER DINIZIO : Lot coverage is the
23 sticking point .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I agree .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, whether this
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ` , 162
r
1 is a corner lot or not, it ' s still 240 of the
2 lot coverage that is being filled up . And I,
3 am just looking to put pressure to try and
4 reduce that some . Then we have to try and
t
5 look -- we have to go down the road. The
6 people have to come in, and you know, ask us
7 things . And I kind of want to keep that
8 percentage as low as we possibly can, or at
9 least have good hard excuses for granting such
10 a large variance . So to my mind, I am looking
11 at this , and thinking, you know, get rid of a
12 deck. Get rid of a patio . Tuck the pool
13 right inside there and you probably have --
14 you ' re going to go over that lot coverage but
15 it ' s going to be less then what you ' re asking
16 for right now. And that ' s where I am trying
17 to go .
18 MS . VAN GORDON : What is the actual -
r
19 size of the deck because I don ' t have it? ,
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : I don ' t know.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks as
22 though it ' s 21 . 4 feet wide and 30 , but I don ' t
23 know .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : That ' s the garage .
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Maybe 12 .
r
t
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 163
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So maybe, it ' s
2 about half .
3 MS . VAN GORDON : And if they reduce the
4 size of the deck, would that be something that
5 you would consider then?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
7 MS . VAN GORDON : I am not saying take
8 the whole thing away . It would be nice to
9 walk out on the landing .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The landing
11 doesn ' t count . In other words , a small
12 landing with steps, do not count in lot
13 coverage . If that existing deck is removed,
14 anything with grade does not count as lot
15 coverage . A driveway, a patio, that kind of
16 thing . That is why I suggest as a
17 possibility, if you wanted to bring the lot
18 coverage down and cause less of -- if the
19 potential owners or the potential buyers would
20 consider that, then we ' re going to have much
21 less of a substantial lot coverage . We don ' t
22 know what yet . We would have to have a survey
23 calculate the size of the deck and remove it
24 and see how it reduces the lot coverage .
25 MS . VAN GORDON : Okay.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 164
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Then I think you would
2 be able to find out how close you can build a
e
L.
3 pool .
4 MS . VAN GORDON: Okay.
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : You can leave the pool
6 where it is . Get a 2 or 3 foot variance . I
7 am really looking to move the pool, just
8 looking to reduce the amount of lot coverage .
9 You can take that entire deck down and put
10 three steps down there and tell me what it ;is, '
11 and that may just sound fine .
12 MS . VAN GORDON : And if they decided
13 * that they wanted half of that, would that
14 still be fine?
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, what can you
16 live with? That is what we ' re looking for
17 now.
18 MS . VAN GORDON : Okay.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only way ,that
i
20 I can see that you can reduce lot coverage,
21 the shed exists but they may be removing that,
22 but it wasn ' t really calculated in lot
23 coverage any way. So it ' s kind of moot . So
24 why don ' t we take a moment -- is there
25 something else that you would like to say?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 165
1 MS . VAN GORDON : I would like the
2 Smythe ' s who are considering purchasing be
r'
3 able to speak as well .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly, they
5 will have a chance to do that . Maybe this
6 gentleman --
7 MR. MONTGOMERY: I am Kenneth
8 Montgomery. I am the neighbor adjacent to the
9 property. I am --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On what side,
11 sir?
12 MR. MONTGOMERY: I am the one who wrote
f
13 the letter .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, we got your
15 letter . We just got copies of it .
16 MR. MONTGOMERY : That is to show you
17 the placement of our pool and the proposed
18 placement of the pool that the Gorgone
19 residence -- basically on top of each other .
20 The setback, I see from my property and
21 according to what was included, the survey map
22 that was included, request for the variance
23 was 3 feet from the property line . Not 5 . 3
24 feet from my property line .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know what, it
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 166
1 is 5 foot and 5 foot . I had to question that
2 too . The way that it was drawn, it looks
r
3 like --
4 MR. MONTGOMERY : Yeah. . So its a
5 little bit further . Any numbers that I may'
6 have quoted, might be a little off in my
7 letter . As I pointed out in my letter, my
r
8 concern is not the fact that Mr . Gorgone can
9 not sell his house without erecting a pool .
10 That is not my concern. It ' s a depressed
11 market, and it ' s unfortunate for everybody.
c
12 Everybody has lost the value of their homes
13 because of the depressed real estate . My
14 concern is my quality of life . The pool
15 situated within feet of my own patio, because
16 my patio goes around our pool . Just sitting
17 out in the summer, would practically put the
18 other people who would be using the pool
19 practically in my patio . If someone decided
20 to do a cannonball in the pool, it would
21 probably wet my people sitting in my back ,
22 yard. That is what my concern is . My concern
23 is also, for the general quality of the
24 neighborhood. We ' re trying to preserve in the
25 Town of Southold. Open space and the ( In
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 167
1 Audible) of the area and this would just -- in
2 my opinion, overbuild the lot and make it
r
3 crowded. And as I pointed out, I moved from
4 Western Suffolk, Western Nassau, and one of
5 the primary motivations was to escape the same
6 type of crowding, and I thought I had
7 accomplished that . But it looks like it ' s
8 trying to be defeated. And I see no purpose
9 in rules and regulations in place, at every
10 turn, one can just apply for a variance . The
11 intent of those rules and laws put into place .
12 That ' s it .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . Would
14 you like to come forward?
15 MR. GORGONE : Okay. Let me add a
16 little light on this subject . I just read -.the
17 two letters of objection. I don ' t know ( In
18 Audible) two years, I have been going through
19 a very nasty divorce . Okay. These two people
20 are the friends of the other half . What he is
21 talking about his pool, according to his map,
22 his pool is 12 . 1 from his property line, which
23 would put my pool another 5 feet from that .
24 So you ' re talking 17 feet away from each
25 other . All right, so anybody that does a
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 168
1 cannonball or whatever, his property is almost
2 4 to 5 feet at the top of his pool, because my
3 property is lower . So if somebody is going to
4 be in my pool and go up another 4 or 5 feet
5 and then another 17 feet, that ' s nonsense .
6 That is where this letter is coming from.
7 Both of them, all right . So it ' s very clear
8 with his own map, the pools are not as close
9 as they appear to be . All right . So -- but
10 that ' s the reason for these two letters .
11 That ' s the reason for these two objections . I
12 went to all my neighbors and these are the
_ 13 only two I didn ' t go to, for specific reasons,
14 okay. But that is where the objection letters
15 are coming from. And this is way off from `
16 what he just said about the pool and that
17 quote about a person doing cannonballs is
18 ridiculous, because his pool is about as high
19 as that counter from my property line . In
20 fact, this is getting to be nonsense . Thank
21 you very much .
i
22 MS . VAN GORDON : I would just like to
23 reiterate that the gentleman that has the pool
24 and just spoke, it seems like the first
25 person, it ' s okay for and the next person it
FEBRUARY 2, 2012. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 169
1 isn ' t . He came from Nassau County, a lot of
2 people came from Nassau County looking for a
3 better quality of life . We live in a
4 beautiful area and to enjoy your yard,
5 everybody should have that opportunity. And I
6 just think that it ' s a little bit odd, that if
7 it was on the other foot, one would expect
8 somebody else to okay the pool in his yard. ,
9 Somebody okayed the pool in his yard. These
10 people are coming from Nassau County too, and
11 they would like a pool in their yard. And I
12 think that if they are willing to ( In Audible)
13 they should be granted it .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s just make
15 sure the record reflects that this pool is not
16 before us for a 5 foot setback from the
17 property line . Those are conforming. It is
18 before us, 2 out of 30 feet and the much more
19 significant issue is the lot coverage, as' Jim
20 and I have pointed out . So if there is a way
21 to remove the deck or reconfigure it or change
22 the size of the swimming pool , to reduce that
23 lot coverage, this Board would like to obtain
24 an amended proposal . To see if that can be
25 accomplished. The law requires us to grant
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 170
1 the least relief from the code as we possibly
2 can . And we have six State statutes that
3 guide us in that . So what we try to do is
4 work out something to operate under the
5 requirements of the law .
6 MS . VAN GORDON : Thank you .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like
8 the potential buyers to say something?
i
9 MS . VAN GORDON : Yes .
10 MR. SMYTHE : Good afternoon . I am
11 Richard Smythe, I am the guy that wants the
12 pool . My wife, Linda . We have been looking
13 for a couple of months and we love the area .
14 We love the Town of Southold. We fell in love
15 with Mr . Gorgone ' s house, and everything about
16 it, we thought was absolutely wonderful . f
17 Although when we started out, a pool is
18 something that is very important to us . For
19 children, grandchildren and as we eventually
20 retire, that is something that is important to
.21 us , and the ultimate house. So it is
22 something that we think is an important part
23 of this house . And we said that from the
24 beginning, if we can ' t have a pool, then we
25 would just politely say no, thank you and go
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 171
1 elsewhere . When we walked in here today, wd
2 were pretty excited and thought, this is going
3 to happen . We felt that -- we don ' t know much
4 about it, but two feet, doesn ' t sound like
5 we ' re asking for much of that variance . I
6 understand where you ' re coming from now with
7 the square footage, which is a bigger
8 concerned. Also this is the first time that
9 we have heard that there is an objection in
10 the neighborhood. It ' s a little disconcern.ing
11 because one of the things that we liked about
12 it, is that neighborhood is something that we
13 thought we would fall in love with and want to
14 spend the rest of our life here . Hearing
15 there is some resistance, is a little bit
16 disconcerning . We would look at alternatives,
17 but quite frankly to cut the deck in half is
18 not something that we would like to do . We
19 look to be able to spend time outside, to
20 barbecue and sit with the family. The deck is
21 a very integral part of the house . Is that a
r
22 deal breaker? I don ' t know . The shed, that
23 we can move it or make it go away. That is
24 not a problem, whatever the Board desires . I
25 think that the deck -- I hate to call it
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 172
1 semantics, whether it is up here or down
2 there, but that is something that would be
3 important to us . So I think we would be
4 concerned if we would be back to the drawing;
5 board. It took us a long time, summer till
6 now, to get where we are today, and if it ' s
7 another four or five months, we would
8 respectfully probably look elsewhere . Thank
9 you.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Other comments?
11 MR. MONTGOMERY : I would just liketo
12 clarify . Our pool was in existence before we
13 bought the house . If I didn ' t have the pool ,
14 I would be happier . It has also been there
15 since 1985 , well before any adjoining houses ,
16 except the one house, which is very far away
17 from it . Mr . Gorgone ' s house didn ' t exist ,at
18 that point . Thank you .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . ',Ken,
20 any questions?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jim?
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : No .
r
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what we --
25 MR. PLANAMENTO : Sorry. Just again, I
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 173
1 know that these things sometimes have a lot of
2 personal issues at stake here . It ' s very
3 disheartening . My heart goes out to the
4 Smythe ' s . We all love and appreciate our
5 community. This dispute, which I think it ' s
6 unfortunate that we have to stand before the
7 Board to request a variance for swimming pool
8 so that a house can be sold, in a less than
9 perfect market . Certainly your point about
10 lot coverage, Mr . Dinizio, is important . ( In
11 Audible . ) These lots were carved out right
12 after the second World War. The development
13 of the house was again between the then ;
14 Mr . & Mrs . Gorgone, was that this place was
15 their retirement . The home was built with
16 every perfect amenity. Everything done
17 without the forethought of what would happen,
18 if and when, the house was to be sold. So I
19 really ask that you give special thought to
20 this particular application, so that
21 Mr . Gorgone can move on with his life on a
22 personal level also .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you a
24 question, and see how the Board feels about
25 this . Based upon what Mr . Smythe has said, we
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 174
1 can close this hearing and we will make a
2 determination within 62 days , but we ' re
3 likely to do it in two weeks . That ' s the next
4 time that we meet on a Special Meeting on the
5 15th . So we can do that, we can also give
6 you, say a week, to discuss the matter of lot
7 coverage that we have --
8 MR. PLANAMENTO : I didn ' t mean to
9 interrupt your train of thought, but I think
10 the decision, and this is more -- and I
11 understand that this is an unusual situation
12 where you have a buyer and a house for sale .
13 There are so many uncertainties . And to the
14 neighbors point, we don ' t know who the
15 Smythe ' s are . I think these are all
16 reasonable but in a normal transaction,
17 parties are not involved in this sort of
18 situation . I think that it is really a
19 question that might be posed of the Smythe ' s .
20 In all fairness, they have been extremely
21 patient . To get to contract was an extremely
22 long time . Unusually long just given the
23 hostilities between the two parties . So they
24 have been extremely patient and very 'polite .
25 In my professional opinion, doing all the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 175
1 right things, along the road to get to where
2 we are today. I don ' t know what their
3 tolerance is to wait . I do know it ' s a
4 reasonable thing for your two week
5 deliberation or whatever is appropriate . But
6 I think that is a question, and I don ' t mean
7 to put them on the spot , if you would ask
8 them, I believe Nick Gorgone and I , as the
9 applicant would prefer to move forward
10 expeditiously today. So that we know it ' s a
11 possibility or it ' s not . .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, here ' s the
13 thing. Let me just finish my thought, which
14 was as follows ; we can do exactly that, which
15 is close this hearing, and based upon the
16 public hearing, it ' s transcript and the
17 information as presented, proceed to make a
18 determination on exactly what you ' re
19 proposing . The alternative, so it ' s not -to
20 delay, to close this subject to receipt of a
21 either amended lot coverage from you, after
22 you have time to talk to your client, and move
23 that in or out, and let us know.. You will
24 either then, say in a weeks time, produce a
25 reduced lot coverage for the Board to consider
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 176
1 or you will say, no, it ' s this or not at all'.
2 We can do it either way.
3 MEMBER DINIZIO : Or we can just grant a
4 certain amount of percentage .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . That ' s
6 another option .
7 MR. PLANAMENTO : And then just
8 structure the pool around where ever the grant
9 is?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board has
11 often what we call "alternative relief . " In
12 other words, you apply for 24% , and we say
13 22% . Figure it out yourself on how you want
14 to do it .
15 MR. PLANAMENTO: In all fairness , I '
r
16 appreciate the alternatives you have given . me
17 and I think it ' s necessarily our decision, , the
18 buyers, and they ' re not even party to this
19 application, and then that is a constituency
20 to actually consummate a sale . So would you
21 allow us just a few . minutes . Can we just
22 speak for a minute?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, you can do
24 that .
25 MR. SMYTHE : Yes . Richard Smythe, I
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 177
1 just had a question. What would be the
2 process -- the cycle, if we did have to go
3 back and redesign? Would we come back for
t
4 another application to the Board?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, sir . You
r
6 don ' t have to do that . We can close this
7 hearing and give you a certain amount of
8 time .
9 MR. SMYTHE : Okay.
S
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A week, two
11 weeks, three weeks? If we close this subject
12 to receipt of an amended proposal, for the lot
13 coverage, then we will begin to make a
S
14 decision when we receive your amended
15 application . You won ' t have to come back
{
16 before us again . We have 62 days , by law, ,
r
17 after we receive that, the clock starts . We
18 usually - we meet twice a week, and we
19 deliberate at either one of those meetings --
20 twice a month.
21 MR. SMYTHE : Okay.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the next
23 meeting is two weeks from today, and that
24 would be the earliest at which point ' we would
25 deliberate and make a determination. If you
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 178
1 can get it in before that --
2 MR. SMYTHE : Two weeks .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- within a
4 reasonable amount of time, give us a chance to
5 look it over, because we have to write a draft
6 decision and then the Board looks at it,
7 agrees with it, disagrees with it . You know,
8 and then we vote collectively.
9 MR. SMYTHE : Okay. And just so you
10 understand, the reason for the question is,
1
11 from our end, we kind of missed last summer,
12 and this house is going to require
13 construction of a pool, and we really don ' t
14 want to miss this summer. ,
F
15 MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I just clear
{
16 something up? I am looking for less lot
17 coverage . If we eliminate that deck, and `you
18 have two or three steps to go down to a patio,
19 I don ' t care how much patio you make . You can
20 make what you need --
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can cover the
22 whole lot .
23 MR. SMYTHE : I understand.
r
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : If that is something
25 that you can live with -- r
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 179
1 MR. SMYTHE: To be honest with you, the
2 collective visual, it takes away a lot of the
3 character of the house . The living area is
4 right there . There are French doors that open
5 right onto that deck. We just have to get
r
6 pass that, and honestly that might be hard to
7 get pass .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : I just want you to be
9 aware, that is the only place where I feel 'you
10 can gain a percentage .
11 MR. SMYTHE : Right . Even making the
12 pool smaller will not do it?
13 MEMBER DINIZIO : If you make the pool
14 smaller, sure it will do it .
15 MR. SMYTHE : I thought you said that I
16 would have to go away with the deck? `
r
17 MEMBER DINIZIO : Because of the 16 -X 32
18 pool, you look where you can gain. Where you
19 can gain is from a patio as opposed to of-deck.
20 That is where we look at that . We know what
21 lot coverage is . I know that sounds a little
22 bit ridiculous , how you cut up land and goes
23 to lot coverage, but you know, evidently, the
24 Town supports that a patio is not a structure .
25 And that is how they look it . So if you can
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 180
1 live with that, if you can somehow come to
2 grips with that . I know there is a French
3 door there . I think it ' s 10 X 10 , can ' t
4 remember what an actual landing is , three
5 steps down to a patio . That can all be
S
6 brickway to a pool . Probably wouldn ' t make a
7 difference to the Building Inspector .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here is the
9 point, we can also just simply make a decision
10 and say this is the maximum lot coverage that
11 this Board will allow, and then it would be up
12 to you to decide how or it ' s easier for you to
13 proceed . Maybe you cut back the deck a
14 certain amount and you cut back the pool a,
15 certain amount . And that would be entirely, up
16 to you. We ' re not going to design it for you.
17 MR. SMYTHE : I understand.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is the ,-
19 maximum. That is another option .
20 MEMBER DINIZIO : If we can decide in
21 the next two weeks, and you guys can takelit
22 or leave it, he will still have the decision .
23 MR. SMYTHE : Yeah, I will turn it over
24 to them. Maybe we will leave it up to you and
25 leave the application as it is andchear back
c
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 181
1 from you, either approved or disapproved.
2 Here is what we can live with .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
4 MR. SMYTHE : I 'm sorry, just adding it
5 a note from our end. The request for the pool
6 did add, it ' s not that we can take a few feet
7 off the pool . Then it becomes, you know a
8 custom pool, - and that much more money for
9 everything . To build it and put covers on it,
10 and so we would like to stick with a standard
11 size pool . Again, the cost of deconstructing
12 a deck, would also be a concern .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to ask you
14 a question, one of our Board members wanted in
15 the public record.
16 MR . SMYTHE : Sure .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He had to leave .
18 He had suggested the possibility of rotating
19 the pool 90 degrees , keeping the setback, but
20 that would take it entirely out of the side
21 yard, and we can put it completely within : the
22 rear yard. Are you following me? In other
23 words, instead of going this way, it would go
24 this way.
25 MR. SMYTHE : I see what you ' re saying .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 182
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Instead of going
2 this, way, it would go this way.
3 MR. SMYTHE: Okay . And that would be
4 better?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would take
6 away a variance . In other words , I don ' t
7 believe you ' re hearing two much concern about
8 two feet from the side yard; however, if you
9 want to look at this , you can propose that and
10 then you would eliminate a variance?
11 MR. SMYTHE : We can look at it .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please you have
y 13 to come to the microphone .
14 MR. PLANAMENTO: Of course . Hi . I
15 would like just to add a thought to that and I
16 might be mistaken . This goes back to my
17 conversation with Vicki, the sort of
.18 designated area given the lot setbacks ,
19 because the way the Town views the garage side
20 of the house, because is where you ' re
21 proposing, because I had thought about that , I
22 spoke with the buyers originally through Peggy
23 Van Gordon, I think they ' re open to that , and
24 I am welcome to that . If you look it , the
25 buildable is 30 X 30 square, not a rectangle .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 183
1 And this pool is 32 feet . So you would always
2 have 2 feet, whether it ' s going south towards
3 the living room or 2 feet into the garage
4 area . So I think the bigger thing that I have
5 heard here, and we ' re going to deliberate in
6 full circle, ad nauseam, the point is what
7 Mr . Dinizio brought forward is lot coverage .
8 I don ' t fault his opinion . I completely hear
9 it . I think everyone in this room understands
10 it . The bigger question is, and what I have
11 heard from the buyers, that has prompted this
12 whole application, is they want to get on with
13 an answer, whether they can buy this house or
14 not buy this house . And I think to expedite
15 things and rather asking the Board to say what
16 you would grant us or say us coming back and
17 deliberating for a week about removing the
18 deck. Quite honestly, they don ' t want to
19 remove and I will share, whether it was an
20 oversight or mistake with the initial building
21 permit, it would have been my opinion,
22 unfortunately, that should have been
23 incorporated. Because it was attached to the
24 house, it kind of fell through the crack and
25 when we came up with the original lot
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 184
1 coverage, that the surveyor provided us with,
2 I don ' t want to suggest it ' s a glitch, but in
3 the application we knew that it would be under
4 25% lot coverage . Again, it ' s over the 20% ,, 4
5 point -- I forgot the exact number, but the .
6 intent, given the location and the square
7 footage . And I think I am speaking for the
8 applicant and the procuring cost to do this,
9 we would rather just leave it in your able'
10 hands . And we would again, request that you
11 politely reflect on sort of the neighborly
12 dispute issue, which I don ' t want to
13 disqualify again, but there is more at play
14 here then the suggestion of lot coverage in
r
15 any normal neighborhood situation.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually our
17 Board Assistant, Ms . Toth has just pointed out
18 when you look at it , it ' s pretty obvious , ,, the
19 reason why it ' s not so reasonably to rotate it
20 is because coming out and backing out of the
21 garage --
22 MR. PLANAMENTO : There is a turnaround.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have that
24 turnaround. So it ' s placed properly� 'in the
25 most functional location as proposed.
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 185
1 MR. PLANAMENTO : This still goes back
2 to the original building permit for the house .
3 The owner, Mr . Gorgone just added onto the
4 house . It was literally on the shoulder of ,
5 the road. It would never be a question. Of
6 course the lot coverage would still be there,
7 if such a large house was built , but again, in
8 desire of developing this site for his own(
9 retirement , he built the house that would meet
10 his needs . It ' s a gorgeous home . It ' s a true
11 asset to the Gooseneck Estates Community. ' And
12 if you drive through the neighborhood, there
13 is a lot of irregularities . Some have -- (and
14 I don ' t want to sound like a whistleblower,
15 but sheds on their front lawn . I don ' t know
16 if the permits are there or not . They ' re
17 under 10 feet . I think the pool is only
r
18 increasing the value of the home and
r
19 increasing the value of the neighborhood,,
20 overall . It ' s a beautiful home, and there is
21 a very lovely eager couple wanting to live in
22 the home, but to be a part of our community.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you
24 something. Can you supply the Board with a
25 list of nonconforming lot coverage ' s in the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 186
1 particular area?
2 MR. PLANAMENTO: As a realtor, I think
3 I can find out which houses are on smaller
4 lots, but these lots were carved out before
5 the current zoning . So I don ' t know how
6 pertinent that is .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , one of o,ur
8 -- I will tell you why. One of the State
9 statutes that we have to address is character
10 of the neighborhood, and if there are a number
11 of lots that have excessive lot coverage, ' then
12 it is characteristic of the neighborhood. If
13 all the other properties are conforming to the
14 code, then excessive lot coverage is not
15 characteristic .
16 MR. PLANAMENTO: I can certainly look
17 at size, but wouldn ' t it be one of two things,
18 and certainly I can go to the Clerk ' s Office,
19 or rather the Assessor ' s to get property cards
20 and research things , but wouldn ' t this Board
21 be privy to all of this information based, on
22 whatever history of applicant ' s?
23 MEMBER DINIZIO : No, we wouldn ' t be .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we are
25 privy, but we don ' t do research for the
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 187
1 applicant ' s .
2 MR. PLANAMENT0 : I was just saying if I
3 don ' t have access to that information, on
4 particular streets --
5 MEMBER DINIZIO : You can get property
6 cards of the neighborhood.
7 MR. PLANAMENTO : I can certainly do
8 that .
9 MS . TOTH : That is what we would do .
10 MR. PLANAMENTO : I don ' t mind doing,
11 this to facilitate the application moving
12 forward, but I still think and perhaps it ' s an
13 integral component of the discussion, but
14 again, a Board decision, I think the decision,
15 as I understood from just speaking with the
16 people involved, that we prefer to just
17 request that the application be reviewed as
18 submitted and to please understand that there
19 are extraneous circumstances in regard to this
20 application, with regard to this application .
21 That , I personally again speaking as a
22 realtor, have seen things occurring of this
-23 nature, short of somebody trying to do
24 something outlandish with their property. You
25 know, you don ' t have neighborly disputes,
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 188
1 maybe unmistaken . You sit on this Board . You
2 see these things on a daily basis, but I don ' t
3 think that this request -- you know, we ' re not
4 talking about the building effecting
5 somebody ' s sunlight . We ' re not talking about
6 the way a dock might impede the use of another
7 boater ' s dock . This is just a very quiet and
8 drawn up swimming pool . It ' s a seasonal use .
9 It ' s a personal decision to have or not to
10 have . And again, it really starts with the
11 fact that the home that was built is of the
12 maximum lot coverage . So in order to keep
13 everything as is , the integral offering of the
14 house that Nick Gorgone built, the only
15 solution is to grant the pool or to deny it .
16 I would hate to see that happen for reasons
17 that I shared before . It is the Board ' s
18 jurisdiction to make that decision and I think
19 everyone in this room would respect that
20 decision. There is a community quality of
21 life issue at stake here . And it does
22 perhaps , I don ' t want to say set a precedent,
23 but I do think that I do what the Board had
24 suggested whether as a hobby or part of this
25 conversation, I think I will find many
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , 189
1 irregularities as a part of that nature in the
2 Town of Southold, where the people have been
3 granted some way, shape or form, something
4 special . And no doubt, I think this is one of
5 those special and unique opportunities .
6 Again, given the hardship of behind the
7 scenes .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO : I can tell you, sir, I
9 have been on the Board for almost 25 years .
10 And we start hitting 230 , we start putting on
11 the brakes . You know, we have granted lot
12 coverage ' s of 270 . I can think of one, but it
13 was extreme conditions , and has and was being
14 on the waterfront lot . In other words , they
15 owned a lot of land but they couldn ' t use a
16 lot .
17 MR. PLANAMENTO: Of course, I have a
18 neighbor across the street from me --
19 MEMBER DINIZIO: We ' re looking at lot
20 -- you know, I live on a lot with similar
21 size . I have an exact same size swimming
22 pool, but my house is also the same --
23 MR. PLANAMENTO : Your house is smaller .
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : -- exact size it was
25 when it was built in 1957 .
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS" 190
1 MR. PLANAMENTO : But from a realtor,; I
2 am wearing a realtor ' s cap, if there was
3 another ready, willing and able buyer, and I
4 don ' t mean to sound unfriendly to this
5 particular buyer, it might be a different
6 story. Somebody might be completely happy ,
7 with the house without a pool .
8 MEMBER DINIZIO: We ' re not going down
9 that road --
10 MR. PLANAMENTO: No, I understand.
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : You ' re looking at both
12 sides . Our main reason to be here is listen
13 to people ' s story and then base our decisions
14 on those six conditions that we have . The
15 Chairwoman was suggesting that there is an
16 avenue for you to do that. We can not make
17 that assumption. I don ' t think you need to go
18 through the entire Town of Southold. You can
19 go around this block and if you find that
20 there are, you know, a sufficient amount of
21 lot coverage situations there, be it 22% , 29% ,
22 whatever, then that speaks for the character
23 of the neighborhood.
24 MR. PLANAMENTO : What about the
25 character of the neighborhood When you have
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 191
1 sheds on front lawns --
2 •MEMBER DINIZIO : All the Chairwoman '
3 wanted to do was offer you a venue in which
4 you can give us some information that may . help
5 you, but if you care not to take that , I will
6 make a decision. We will make a decision
7 based on what we heard here today, and without
8 the information that she was trying to illicit
9 from you . It ' s not our decision. It ' s your
10 decision .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point is , is
12 that it is incumbent upon the applicant to
13 make their case before the Board. The Board
14 can not make the case for or against . We
15 based determinations on the public record and
16 the submission of information . There are some
17 neighborhood ' s here where it is not unusual to
18 have 250 , 290 lot coverage . But it ' s typical
19 of the neighborhood that has really small
20 lots .
21 MR. PLANAMENTO : Absolutely.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Often on the
23 water with some decks that go right up to a
24 bulkhead. Those have predated zoning . There
25 are all kinds of things out there that have
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 192
1 excessive lot coverage ' s . That is something
2 that then becomes characteristic of that area .
3 So proposal to increase lot coverage would not
4 be character of the neighborhood. You ' re
5 suggesting that is one way to present your
6 application, by saying, well we ' re proposing
7 24% and of the properties in the area, there
8 are the following six that have lot coverage
9 beyond 200 .
10 MR. PLANAMENTO : But how would I -- I
11 think of a property card, and I look at it, it
12 shows a lot size and perhaps improvements .
13 But everything is not always recorded. And of
14 course, there are people that do things that
15 are different . However one looks at one
16 conversion, what is and what is not included.
17 How would I get such specific information
18 without dated surveys? And I understand that
19 is my responsibility but --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it may be
21 beyond the scope of what you ' re granted -- I
22 was just going to say the way that you do that
23 is that you search for variances in that area
24 for lot coverage .
25 MEMBER DINIZIO : There are people that
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 193
1 come before us that do a bang-up job in
2 getting that information . I don ' t know how to
3 get it .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, primarily
5 by looking at Records Page, which is on the
6 Town ' s website, to see what variances were
7 granted in that area and what were for lot
8 coverage .
9 MS . ANDALORO : I wouldn ' t go pass --
10 you can even just go adjacent . I would go in
11 here . These are small . You can check the
12 whole area out . I would stick with these .
13 MR. PLANAMENTO : Without further, what
14 I would suggest is that I would like to ask
15 the Board, if we can use the suggestion that
16 you gave us to have one week, that will allow
17 me time to research this and get back to you .
18 I think I understood the Chairperson ' s
19 discussion, that it would not impede a
20 decision that comes from you . at a later point,
21 then resubmit that information, and hopefully
22 you will use it for consideration to grant the
23 application.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here is the
25 longest process that we can imagine , would we
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 194
1 can close this subject to receipt of whatever
2 information you wish to present to the Board.
3 The neighbor ' s also can have access to that
4 information . That is public information .
5 They can come to the office and see what you
6 submitted, file a Freedom Of Information Act
7 Form, if they wanted to . We do have to have
8 some time to look at it as a Board and write a
9 decision . I don ' t know whether we can do that
10 -- let ' s say you submit it in a week and we
11 can do it within a week. If we can, we will .
12 The longest that it would take, likely, would
13 be at the next meeting, which would be
14 March lst . We can put it on for deliberations
15 then. What we ' re trying to do is give you
16 options .
17 MR. PLANAMENTO : Yes , I would like to
18 exercise that .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can close this
20 hearing now and make a decision based on
21 whatever we got, and then you will know in two
22 weeks . It ' s really up to you . By the way, I
23 don ' t want to mislead you, I am not
24 necessarily going to conclude, without the
25 Board deliberations, on what the Board is
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 195
1 willing to do_ Including your proposed lot
2 coverage .
3 MR. PLANAMENTO : Of course .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, you have
5 heard kind of a flavor what it .is that we ' re
6 trying to accomplish when we grant relief .
7 But that doesn ' t -- I don ' t think that you
8 should jump to any absolute conclusions .
9 MR. PLANAMENTO : Without a doubt .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board needs
11 to deliberate .
12 MR. PLANAMENTO: I ask that you close
13 the hearing with the one week period that I
14 can get you any additional documents , that you
15 can submit into the file, for consideration,
16 and then we will take it from there . Would
17 you invite us back or it ' s closed?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s closed.
19 MR. PLANAMENTO: That is what I
20 thought .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don ' t take any
22 additional testimony. I think we have heard
23 everything that we need to hear .
24 MR. PLANAMENTO : Absolutely.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I don ' t see
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 196
1 any reason for an adjournment to another date .
2 MR. PLANAMENTO: Good.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will close
4 this hearing and give you a week to submit
5 additional information, whatever you chose to,
6 and then we will proceed to deliberate as soon
7 as we possibly can .
8 MR. PLANAMENTO : Thank you .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How does that
10 sound to the Board? Jim?
11 MEMBER DINIZIO : That sounds good.
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Way to go .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
14 else that wishes to make any comments at this
15 point?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
18 further comments , I am going to make a motion
19 to close this hearing subject to receipt of
20 additional information submitted by the
21 applicant ' s agent, at which point we will then
22 deliberate .
23 Is there a second?
24 MEMBER DINIZIO : Second.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 197
1 MEMBER DINIZIO : Aye .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye -
4 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
5 **********************************************
6
7
8 (Whereupon, the public hearings for
9 February 2 , 2012 concluded. )
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 198
1
2
3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
4
5 I , Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
6 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
7 Hearings was prepared using required
8 electronic transcription equipment and is a
9 true a4are record of the Hearings .
10
11 Signat _ ___
12 ca allo
13
14 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
15 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
16
17 Date : February 23, 2012
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25