HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/10/1985APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 2..5 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. ]'l=J'7'l
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY lO, 1985
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was
held on Thursday, January 10, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southold
Town Hall, Main Road, South~ld, New York.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles
Grigonis, Jr., Member; Serge Doyen, Jr., Member; Robert J. Douglass,
Member; and Joseph H. Sawicki, Member. Also present were Victor
Lessard, Building-Department Administrator, Mrs. Barbara Strang,
part-time stenographer of the hearings, and approximately 35 persons
in the audieQce at the commencement of the meeting.
:~ The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded
~.ith the public hearings as follow:
7:30 p.m. Recessed public hearing in the Matter of MARIE PAT-
TERSON, Appeal No. 3277 for a Variance for approval of insufficient
area and width of two parcels at Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, NY;
1000-128-02-17, which was recessed from the November 15, 1984 Regular
Meeting. The original survey of the applicant was received as
,?~Cequested on November 16, 1984. The necord of the testimony taken
~turing this hearing has been recorded and transcribed under separate
;i~over by Mrs. Strang, to be filed simultaneously with these minutes.
~!~t the end of the hearing, the following resolution was adopted-
~ ·
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it. was
RESOLVED, that the hearing of Appeal No. 3277 in the Matter of
MARIE PATTERSON be and hereby is declared closed, pending deliberations.
Southold Town Board of Appeals '2,
January 10, 1985 Regular Meeting
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members. ~
7:43 p.m. Appeal No. 3295. Public.Hearing in the Matter of
'FLEE~'NECK ~ROPERTY]OWNERS~ASSOC!6T!.QN~AND WILLIAM'NICO[ for a
Variance to cancel, revoke, 'and nullify BUilding Permit ~granted for
a one-family dwelling at premises of GU~STA~E W~DE at 1000 East Roads
Cutchogue, NY; 1000-.110-7-28. The ~Chairman r~ad the legal notice
of hearing as published in the official newspaper(s) in its entirety.
The verbatim?'record of th~ testi.m~ny t.aken d~uring this hearing has
been recorded and transcribed unden separate cover by Mrs. Strang,
which will be filed together with these 6fficial minutes ~t the
Office of the ~TQwn Clerk. Following the testimony, the Chairman
m~ved~to~reces~'thiS hea?i'ng (.without date) pendi.ng review~ of all
the statements of this evening when available in writing, seconded
by Member Grigonis, and unani~.mously carried. Notice of the
recessed ~ate when available will be pub'lished in the Suffolk Times
and L.I. Traveler-Watchman accQ.rdi-ngly.
At 8:50 p.m., ~ five-minute recess was taken, after motion was
made by Mr. Goehringe.r, seconded by Mr. Sawicki,'and duly carried.
At 8:55 p.mo, the Regular Meeting reconvened. MoLion was made
by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, and unanimously carried,
to reconven~ithe~egular Meeting and proceed with the next public
hearing:
8:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3302. Public Hearing was held in the
Matter of'GUSTAVE'J. 'WADE fo~ a Variance to reinstate building permit
No. 13244Z for %he construction of a one-family dwelling at 1000
East Road, Cutchogue, NY; 1000-110-7-28. Th~ Chainman read the legal
notice of hearing as published in the official newspaper(s)in its
entirety. The verbatim record of the testimony taken during this
hearing has been recorded and transcribed under separate cover by
Mrs. Strang, which will be filed together with these official minutes
at the Town Clerk's Office. Following the testimony, the Chairman
moved to adopt the following resolution, seconded by Members Sawicki
and Grigonis:
RESOLVED, that the public hearing in the Matter of Appeal No.
3302 of GUSTAVE J. WADE be and hereby is recessed without a date
for approximately six weeks.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted'by unanimous vote
of all the members.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3-
January 10,' 1985 Regular Meeting
Notice of the recessed date will be published in both the SUffolk
Times and L.I. Traveler-Watchman.
9:35 p.m. . . .
(Mr. Lessard was not present during the remainder of the meeting.)
CORRESPONDENCE AND UPDATE: Appeal No. 3214: HANAUER & BAGLEY.
The board members acknowledged receipt of responses from the DEC and
County Health Department replying to our November 20, 1984 letters.
The board also discussed Mrs. Wickham's request received 1/8/85 to
schedule this matter for a public hearing since the applicants are
almost out of time on their contract contingency and are in danger of
losing thousands of dollars they haye already spent on this project.
I~t w~$ the consensus of the board members that a thorough investiga-
tion and research of this ~arcel is necessary, and therefore the
wetlands maps as requestec 11/20/84 are imperative. The following
action was taken:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawi.cki, it was
RESOLVED, ~hat a response be sent to the applicants' attorney
in Appeal No. 3214 reiterating the board's request of November 15,
1984 for the following prior to scheduling this matter for public
hearing:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Wetlands map delineating the areas of wetlands and areas
underwater for_each parcel (in square feet) as well as
the square footage of upland for each parcel;
Suffolk county Health Department approval o'f subdivision
as required under Article 6; recent a'pplication was
denied pending additional information;
Letter or recommendations from the Southold Town Tru.stees
pursuant to their 12/4/84 letter of jurisdiction;'and
~tt~,iwas FURTHER RESOLVED, that pending receipt of all of the
above. , the ~ile'fgr the purposes of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality
Review Act {SEQRA) and pr:oc~dures]is accordingly'deemed.incomplete.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-4- January 10, 1985 Regular Meeting
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by
Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, t~ approve the Minutes of the December 13, 1984 Regular
Meeting and the December 20, 1984 Special Meeting.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members.
INVESTMEN?.iBROKERS~HOME OCCUPATION'OPINION: The board members
reviewed the legal opinion'requested concerning an inquiry of the
building department for interprett]ing investment broke.rs as a use
permitted or not permitted under "Accessory Uses ~ Home Occupations"
in the A-Residential and AgricultUral Zoning Districts~ In the
case of CullS~ Realty, Inc. 109 Misc. 2d 169, the Supreme Court,
Appellate Term, Sec.ond Department held that the term "similar prof-
essional person" does not include a real estate broker. The
board agrees that the office of a real .estate broker is similar
to that of a stockbroker or investment-broker and that since the
above-c.ited case holds that a real estate broker's office is not
considered a professional office,~ a stockbroker should not fall
within the enumerated pngfess.ional offices permitted_.~s an accessory
use in a residential dwelling. Sect.ign 100-13 of the Zoning Code
defines "Home Occu~.ation,~" in part, as foll_~s: "This shall be
understood to include the"profess~onal office or ~tudio of.~ doctor,
dentist, artist,.architect, engineer,.musician, lawyer, magistrate
or practitioners of a similar character."
Reference was also made by the board %o a previous interpreta-
tion by this board in the Matter of Barbara Kujawski ~bi. ch did not
permit a re~l estate broker's offi~ce as one of those.permitted
under "Home Occupations" in an"A~Zoning District.
It was the consensus of the board'that although they must go
along with the above reasoning, additional zoning'should be im~.le-
mented to allow these types of occupations, similar tO~.~' light
business zoning, for the purposes of cond~cting~same in a residence,
in specific areas,, maybe along the Main Road, with timited f!oor
or office areas, and ~even by Special Exception perm.its.
Motion was made 'by Mr. Goehri~ger, seconded by Mr. Douglass,
to concur with the opinion o.f.the T~wn Attorney dated December'i2,
1984.
Vote of.the Board: 'Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- January 10, 1985 Regular Meeting
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members.
NEW FILE: Appeal No. 3320 - BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORP.
reviewing the material i~ the subject application, Which was filed
December 31, 1984, the following action was taken:
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that Appeal No. 3320 in the Matter of BAYVIEW
DEVELOPMENT CORP. for Variances in this proposed cluster development
along a private right-of-way known as Sage Boulevard and located at
the South Side of Main Road, Greenport,' BE AND HEREBY iS~HELD iN
ABEYANCE pending receipt of the following:
1. Six copies of a survey: (a) showing the acreage of areas
of fresh and salt water wetlands, separate and apart from the acre-
age of upland areas for Section I, and (b) giving the total area
for Section I (separate and apart from the Future Section, which We
understand is not under consideration at this time, and deleting
the proposed 50-foot road from this computation.
2. Receipt of approval from the Town Board on the cluster
concept which we understand has been recently referred 'by the
Planning Board (for the Town Board 1/22/85 agend.a);
3. Receipt of comments or recommendations from the Planning
Board after thorough review on the layout of this prOposal..
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, 'Doyen, Grigonis, ~
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members.
PUBLIC'HEARINGS ?OR JANUA~R¥"24, ]1985: No other material was
requested Concerni-ng the followi:ng'heari~gs which were advertised
today's date for the ~anu'~ry 24, 1985~Regular Meeting; however,
field inspections wene anticipated for Saturday.
7:35 p.m.
7:40p.m.
7:50 p.m.
7:55p.m.
8:00p.m.
Joseph and Arlene Lestingi (recessed from 12/13/84);
Henry J~ Smith & S.~n
Lauren Krug
..Gary Doroski
Fra.nk Field Real'ty (recessed from 12/13/84)
8:10 p.m. Robert A. Celic.
(continued on next Page)
Southold Town Board of Appeal's -6- January 10, 1985 Regular Meeting
(Public Hearings for January 24, 1985 continued:)
8:2D p.m. Adele V. Deckinger
8:30 p~m. Serge Doyen.
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR FEBRUARY 7, 1985: In reviewing each of
the files noted below., motion was made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED, that the following matters be and hereby are
SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS to be held at the February 7, 1985
Regular Meeting of this board, and that the Secretary is hereby
authorized and directed to publish notice of same pursuant to law
in the local and official newspapers o~ the town, to wit: L.I.
Traveler-Watchman and the Suffolk Times:
Appeal No. 3312 - Louise Wilson Estate;
Appeal No. 3314 - Joseph and Patricia Stiefer;
Appeal No. 33.t5 - Cutchogue Free Library (variance)~
Appeal No. 3316 - Cutchogue ~Free Library (special exception)~
Appeal No. 3317 - Thomas Perillo;
Appeal No. 32.91 Anthony Pagoto;
Appeal No. 3294 - Peter Troyano.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote
of all the members.
ASSOCIATIONS OF TOWNS MEETING: The Chairman advised the board
members of the dates of the'AssociatiOn of Towns Meeting, February 17th
through the 20th~ and that reservations must be made with the Town
Clerk by January 21, 1985. Member Doyen submitted his request for
reservation for three nights~(single room). Member Douglass indi-
cated h~s intention to attend duri. ng the day. No other reservations
were made at this time.
APPEAL NO. 3300 - JOHN BERTANI AND'AL KOKE. The Sac~e~ary was
instructed to send a letter to the Planni.~g Board ~equesting their
comments on..the site _plan elements of this_project which was filed
with them during March 1984 and their opinion as to "mutiple uses
verses "shopping center."
Sout'hold Town Board of Appeals =7- January 10, 1985 Regular Meeting
RECEIPT OF CORRESPONDENCE: The board acknowledged receipt of
the following correspondence:
Letter from the Owner of the Cutchogue Village Green indicating
their consent for mutual use of the Library and Church parking
lots concerning Appeals No. 3315 and 3316 as requested by the
Planning Board.
Letters f~om>Mr~Le~sard,~Bu~ldin§~Dep~tment, concerning
Appeals No. 3295 and 3302 - G. Wade property, which were
placed in the files.
Appeal No. 3324 - LYNN SCIORA by Garrett Strang. The board
reviewed the Special Exception application as filed January 9th, 1985,
and the Secretary was instructed to send a letter to the Planning
Board for their review and comments concerning site plan elements
which are required by Section 100-134. No other action was taken
au this time.
Appeal No. 3321 ALICE D. CURRIE for a Variance to Change Lot
Lines (Prior Appeal No. 33 of October 1957), each of the parcels
have and would.'ret~in less than two-acres in area and less than
175' lot width, Great Pond, N/S Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY;
1000-59-6-18 and 19.
The board reviewed the file and would arrange to field inspect
prior to scheduling same for public hearing, which is expected on
or about February 28, 1985.
Appeal No. 3323 - COLGATE DESIGN CORP. (7-11, CutchOgue)
for a Variance For approval of the construction of an 10' by 12'
storage building at the westerly sideyard area with an insufficient
setback of eight feet. The board reviewed the file and the
secretary was instructed to refer same to the Planning Board for
their review and comments. It was also noted that an addi~tional
three copies of the plan was needed for referrals.
Appeal No. 3322 - JOSEPH LIZEWSKI~for a Special Exception
under Article VI, Section lO0-60(B)[1](a) and Article III, Section
100-30(B)[6] for a recreational building in this B-Light Business
Zoning District. The board reviewed the file and the secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals =8- January lO~ 1985 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3322 Lizewski, continued:)
was instructed to refer same to the Planning Board for their review
and comments concerning the site plan elements. The board indicated
that a field inspection would be made prior to scheduling this
matter for public hearing. Location of Property: E/s Depot Lane
and N/S Main Road, Cutchogue, NY.
APPEAL NO. 3319 - ANDREAS PALIOURAS for a Variance to reinstate
nonconforming dwelling use (second dwelling) at Peconic. The board
reviewed the file and placed this matter on the.field.inspections
list. It was expected that the public hearing would be held on
or about February 28th (which is the earliest avaita~te~heaming date).
APPEAL NO. 3251 RENATE RIEDEL. The public hearing on this
matter has not been concluded pending reconsideration by the DEC.
A hearing was held by the DEC on or about 12/28/84, and we are
awaiting their report. If same is received by 2/7/85, this matter
could then be placed on the 2/28/85 calendar to reconvene,
APPEAL NO. 3325 - DOUGLAS A. COOPER for a Variance to construct
pole barn stable for stabling horse(s~) on this 2.447-acre parcel
abutting other premises of the applicant of 4± acres which is his
residence. The file was reviewed and was placed with those items
pending inspections. It was expected that this matter could be
held for public hearing February 28th or early March, depending
on the amount of responses forthcoming which hold other matters
in abeyance.
WINERIES: The subject of wineries was discussed briefly.
It Was~entioned 'that the Long I~land G~a~e Growers As-~ociation~
was proposing .a repor'~ to be submitted to the'~own departments
involved d~ winery uses to include po~ssible accommodations-and
dining facilities. The Chairman said that he will request a
round-the-table discussion at the Associa~tion Of Towns' Meeting
for input and that an extensive amount of research and information
would be acquired before recommendations could be made.to the
Town Code Committee.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- January 10, 1985 Regular Meeting
Being there was no other business properly coming before the
board at this time, the meeting was declared adjourned. The meet-
ing adjourned at 10:00 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
App~O~Ve~t,l?24/85~rard P~Goehringer
PP. 1-9~ ' ~ / ' '
TEE SOUTi-2OLD ~'~',:~- ~ · ~
DATE ~/~/~ HOUH /~,'~ ~
Town c~ ~
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Thursday, January 10, 1985
MINUTES
#3277 - At 7:30 p.m. a Public Hearing was continued in the
matter of MARIE J. PATTERSON (Recessed from 11/15/84), for a
variance to approve insufficient area of a proposed setoff.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Patterson, would you like to be
heard on anything that we had discussed?
MRS. PATTERSON: No, I think that everything is the same.
haven't changed anything.
I
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You did supply us with the survey I asked
for and I think you very much. Mr. Burkhardt, would you like
to say something on behalf of ycur mother-in-law?
MICHAEL BURKHARDT: No, just that nothing has changed to add to
what we discussed the last time. Everything is the same. The
agreement hasn't been reached on the border dispute and we still
feel that we oppose the variance for the same reasons.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you. Mrs. Patterson.
MARIE PATTERSON: I have three questions.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you please use the mike?
MARIE PATTERSON: This gentlemen, is he an attorney? Is it his
property? And also, does he have power of attorney~to represent
the owner? Why doesn't she come here or send her attorney? I
could send someone, but I made a 140 mile trip today to come here.
I came in October, there's no problem, the stakes are all up and
they were put there by Mr. Van Tuyl. And the whole problem is
a personal vendetta, because these people owe me almost $900 since
the storm, when I put bulkhead in that's in front of their place,
and they refused to pay it. And I don't see where anything has
to do with their house. Their house is on the water and the pro-
perty that I am considering to divide is on' Peconic Bay Blvd.
They have a small cottage on a piece of postage stamp property
that three people use an 11' driveway to get to the beach and I
understand it has to be 15'
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Without getting into a push and
shove action here which would be counterproductive, is there any-
thing that you would like to reflect on that, Mr. Burkhardt?
ZBA
1/10/85
Page 2.
PATTERSON HEARING - Continued
MICHAEL BURKHARDT: Enough time has been taken by the Board on
this particular matter, and as you can see, nothing has changed.
We just oppose the varmance for the reasons that we stated pre-
viously, it is nothing personal; we are willing to pay Mrs.
Patterson the money she feels we owe her as soon as she can fur-
nish us some proof. Her lawyer contacted our lawyer the Monday
after the hearing and thought the property agreement was a~good
idea. When Mr. Wickham said okay, then we will draw up an agree-
ment, he said fine, then draw up the agreement, just send me a
copy of the deed or the survey map. He said I will send that to
you. He has never complied with any of this. There have been
numerous phone calls and written letters requesting this information
and they have gone without response. But the border dispute is
only one small part of 'the whole reason my mother-in-law vehemently
opposes this and they have been stated previously, and I am not
going to take up the Board's time with those problems. It is
nothing personal, it's just that we don't want another dwelling
right next to our property and have tenants of Mrs. Patterson
filtering over to our beach. It's an invasion of privacy, we are
concerned about the water table in the area and we are afraid if
this variance is approved, it's going to open up a door to ap-
proval of all variances to like pieces' of property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes, Mrs. Patterson.
MARIE PATTERSON: This wouldn't even be near their place, it
would be up on the road and it isn't even his property that it
borders on. All he has is an 11' right of way down there and
there is a big difference between that right of way and my property
and where any other house would be. It's absolutely ridiculous
and if any member of the Board was to go there they could see what
I am talking about. On the other side of me there are 5 houses
going down. These people have enjoyed the privacy at my expense.
I have 1.4 acres. I don't know what they have. Nothing, absolutely
nothing. That's why they don't want this, their property is right
up against mine and they ahve a great deal going on for all these
years. I am paying the taxes and they are having all the privacy.
It has nothing to do with them. The house I live' in now, the house
I use is on the beach and their place ms next to me. What I am
talking about is way in the back on Peconic Bay Blvd.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
that.
We visited the property and we are aware of
MARIE PATTERSON: Yes, you can see there are 5 houses on the other
side of me and there are 3 using his right of way and I am the one
in the middle with a 600' driveway that only I use with 101' across
the front, 100' on the road. These people have nothing on the road.
11' and they are complaining about mine. It's absolutely ridi-
culous and if they don't like it, let them sell their house and ~-
go down the beach and get themselves a big plot and pay the same
kind of taxes I am paying.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would
like to speak on behalf or against this application? Questions
ZBA
1/10/85
Page 3.
PATTERSON HEARING - Continued
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: - Continued...from Board Members? Hearing
no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving
decision until later
#3295 - At 7:45 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
FLEETS NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION and WILLIAM NICOL for a
variance to cancel, revoke and nullify Building Permit of Gustave
Wade, Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-110-7-28.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Nicol, are you in the audience?
WILLIAM NICOL: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN GEOHRINGER: I think it would be a little difficult for
me to read this particular application. The Board has read it and
are aware of what you are looking for and if you would like to add
to it..I normally do read these applications, but because of the
way you have modified our application, I am not going to read it
at this particular time. Are you represented by an attorney?
WILLIAM NICOL: Yes.
CHARIMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: Mr. Chairman and ~Members of the Board, my name
is Anthony Nowachek, my office is on Main Road, Mattituck, New York
and I represent Mr. William Nicol and the Fleets Neck Property
Owners Association**(FNPOA), Inc., which is a joint petitioner,
Mr. Chairman. It's not Mr. William Nicol alone, he happens to be
a member of the Association. I respectfully ought to refer you
to the history of this thing, I don't think you are familiar with
it at all. Over a period of a number of years with extended liti-
gation, it left the Courts on, the last I .heard, on June 14, 1984,
where the applicant, Mr. Gus Wade moved the Court to reargue a
motion where he wanted the Town Trustees and the Town Board to give
him an exclusive right of way over property immediately abutting his
to the South, so he could have access to his property where he in-
tends to build his home. At that time, Mr. Wade claimed that at
all times before that he was the rightfully the owner in title to
that property. At that time, gentlemen, when that reargument decisior
was made, the Court referred that back to the Board of Trustees of
the Town of Southold for further hearings. Within six days there-
after the Building Department, through its Administrative Assistant,
Mr. Lessard, issued a Building Permit. Town Law, Section 288,
specifically provides there must be access from a Public Highway.
I refer you to that section that so states and I refer you to a
reply, a memorandum of Mr. Lou Lessard to your Town Supervisor
in response to an inquiry on behalf of FNPOA, which is a multiple
number of property owners in Fleets Neck, that collectively own
a beach that immediately abuts the Town Trustees strip to the
South and Mr. Wade's property, of which he became an owner, I under-
ZBA
1/lo/85
Page 4.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearing - Continued
ANTHONY NOWACHEK - continued...stand about two months ago, im-
mediately on the north. Asked how this permit was issued, a memo-
randum from the office of the Building Inspector dated August 2nd,
reads as follows"....This is written in an effort to clarify the
matter referred to by Fleets Neck Property Owners Association, Inc.
To obtain a Building Permit, one must get all the necessary permits
from the following agencies before a permit is issued. In this
case the following requirements were met. Number 1, permit from
Department of Environmental Conservation." I will comment about
this very shortly. "Number 2, approval from the Health Deparmtento
Number 3, development permit to build in flood zone from Building
Department. 4, a single buiidable lot. '5, legal access to this
property. This property has always had legal access by water,
since the property has existed. There is supposedly a matter of
wetlands being filled in without proper authority. This depart-
ment was not aware of this condition nor was the Secretary of the
Trustees. This litigation apparently goes back 4 or 5 years and
there is no way I would be aware of this in the present Building
Department records. The point being, this litigation involves
the property around this property and not this lot itself. I
wonder if this isn't Town property and as such, when was it that
a taxpayer cannot use Town property? The fact that this Associati~
may have be~n lax in not purchasing the property to control the a-
is not the purview of the Town." Gentlemen, when this Building
Permit was issued on a Saturday morning, September 29, 1984 at
7:30 a.m, I got a call from the President that construction was
commenced. Mr. Lessard, after being prevailed upon, appeared at
the site and issued a stop order that all work cease. Stop order
was issued and the work continued.. The following Monday, fill from
the Town Dump was being poured upon that parcel in violation of
the DEC regulations on a permit that issued to Mr. Gus Wade. The
DEC inspector issued a number of violations, which suspended the
operation of the permit that was issued to Mr. Wade to commence
construction. Presently, gentlemen, there are violations being
charged against Mr. Wade, pending a hearing on January 14th,
which is this Monday, before' the DEC office in Stony Brook. I
have a copy of those violations and I have a copy of the Complaint
that was served upon Mr. Gustave Wade. The permit and the application
were issued to Mr. Wade, and I got a copy of the Conference ~ecision
from the DEC, when Mr. Wade made certain representations to that
conference before the DEC wherein 1, he said, " .... he was the owner
of that property since April of 1984, purchase price $37,000.
Number 2, he aaid that this lot had a variance from this Town to
set back that home not twenty feet from the wetlands, but ten feet."
I wonder, gentlemen, if this Board granted that variance when it
approved the Permit. I blatantly suggest that I have not seen any
variance indicated on a Permit that was issued to him to build.
The violations of the DEC, gentlemen, substantially are as follow~:_
He was only permitted to put 35 cubic feet, more or less, of fil3
rather cubic yards, beyond the bulkhead which is going to 120'
more or less. He was supposed to put up a little home a one-
story.~ with sort of a pitched roof and in addition to that, there
are other violations. The DEC suspended the work, and the charges
ZBA
1/10/85
Page 5.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearing - Continued
ANTHONY NOWACHEK - continued .... pending, if you want to take the
time, I will read them all to you, because it is going to be a
subject of the DEC hearing that is to be scheduled and will be
heard January 14th. Before I continue in this, it is my under-
standing, and I don't know if the Board has jurisdiction. Your
Building Permit is conditioned upon, as your Inspector said,
upon all other underlying permits being issued. If the DEC, in
fact, yanked its permit, and it did, and stopped him from building,
we are here asking you did the Town Building Department revoke
· their permit? When Mr. Lessard issued that stop work order, did
he say to him, you can no longer continue that permit that I gave
you. It is invalid. We don't know whether he did that or not.
And if in fact that's the case, gentlemen, %t's a moot question
why we all have to be here tonight. If the DEC said you can't
continue anymore because you are violating the Environmental
Conservation Laws and all the sections thereof, your Bnilding
Permit, i_~_so facto, fails. May I read you the charges from the
Complaint of the ~DEC, it~s-a public record. But before I read
you that, at the proceedings, I have a copy of it, where the
judge ruled "...had the DEC given Mr. Wade the original permit,
he said the applicant purchased the lot on April 4, 1982 and
stated that the purchase price was $37,000. The prior owner
had a Building Permit in 1971 and a septic system was constructed
on that site." Is there a septic system? In another part, he
said" .... the applicant has received the variance from the Town
to locate the house at 10' instead of 20' from the lot line."
That's a variance. Then it continues, gentlemen~ to say "...
I wish to note that even though the judge issued this on a con-
ference originally to Mr. Wade, the proceedings indicate that
position of the Department staff of the DEC is quote as follows,
"...Staff is opposed to the project and contends it would have
adverse effects on marine food production, flood control and
filtering benefits derived from the site, as well as have an ad-
verse impact on the water quality. Staff recommends denial of
the permit." Now as for the Complaint, gentlemen. I think there
was a news article somebody mentioned to me that in October it
showed the transfer that Mr. Wade just acquired the property for
$20,000 or $22,000, somewhere in October of 1984. Gentlemen, "..
a Notice of Hearing Complaint, State of New York Department of
Environmental Conservation against Gustave J. Wade. Please take
notice that pursuant to the above captioned Sections of the New
York State Environmental Conservation Laws, I shall convene
a public hearing on Monday, December 10, 1984, 2:30 o'clock in the
afternoon of that day at the region, etc. "please take notice,
etc., ...that a violation of Article 15 of the New York State
Environmental.." I will file this with you people, because it
says a violation of that law is punishable by a civil penalty
not to exceed $10,000, another one $3,000 and so on. Let me
get to the nature of the Complaint. "...The New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation complaining of the
respondent, that's Gustave J. Wade, in the above entitled pro-
ceeding alleges as follows:
ZBA
i/io/85
Page 6.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearinq - Continued
ANTHONY NOWACHEK - Continued: .... Complainant is and has been a
Department of the State of New York, that's who has jurisdiction
over it, okay, Now they go on with their specific complaints.
"That on information and belief respondent, Gustave J. Wade,
is the owner of certain property located on East Road, Cutchogue,
Town of Southold, upon which these violations occurred. That on
information and belief, respondent, Gustave J. Wade, sometime on
or before October 29, 1984 violated Section 25-0401 of the New
York State Environmental Conservation Law in that he caused or
permitted to be caused the construction of approximately 178'
of timber bulkhead in an unimproved location an unauthorized
design in non-compliance with Permit #10-82-0557, which is the
Permit number issued. Next allegation, "...Upon information and
belief, respondent, Gustave J. Wade, sometime on or before October
29, 1984, violated Section 15-0505, Section 25-0401 of the New
York State Environmental Conservation Law~ in that he caused and
or permitted to be caused the placement of fill in a location and
in such a manner that enters into and disturbs the waters or wet-
lands in noncompliance with Permit ~10-82-0557. Third, that on
information and belief , respondent, Gustave J. Wade, sometime
on or before 29 October 1984 violated Section 25-0401 of the New
York State Environmental Law in that he caused and or permitted
to be caused the construction of a one-family dwelling in non-
compliance with plans submitted in conjunction with Permit ~10-82-v~5~
Gentlemen, I ask you if the Building Department received the same
set of plans for that house from Mr. Wade as he gave to the DEC?
On what plans did the Building Department issue a Permit? On the
plans that the DEC gave him his original Permit or on the plans
that he is now building that consitute the violation that he is
being charged with by the DEC? Gentlemen, my position on behalf
of FNPOA is very simple. We have a beach right next to this property.
In the original decision ~n this~'particular permit granted by the
DEC said that Mr. Wade is building his little house on a sand pit,
undeveloped property and nobody else would come in and seek to do
the same thing that he is doing. I hope not, gentlemen. We
have a beach. We have several hundred members and it's a mon-
strosity to believe that somebody can come to destroy the environment~
the wetlands, produce an adverse affect, completely encroach upon the
marshes and all that without even fair disclosure of what will take
place. The lot is totally inadequate. He would have to seek varianc~
for the setback to start with from you, you the members of the Board,
to reduce a required setback from 20' to I0'. He hasn't done that.
He said he put in a septic system, he's not putting it on his own
parcel. As I understand it, he wanted to put it underneath the
Town Trustee's property, for drainage. I think it behooves the
Building Department, that since the DEC yanked the permit and stopped
the job, and the violations are here, I will give you a copy of the
Complaint, the permit question would be Town of Southold becomes
moot. If you do give him a Permit and you don't revoke it you ai
really helping him violate the DEC laws. Thank you gentlemen.
ZBA
1/10/85
Page 7.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearing - Continued
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Nowachek. I might mention to
members of the audience that I am aware that your attorney has
spoken and there are many people, I assume, that would like to
speak tonight. I ask you please, not to be too redundant, at the
same time, please act in a courteous manner. It's very important,
I know this issue is extremely important to all of you and it's
very important to us. So now I will ask if anybody else would like
to speak on behalf of your application, this is the application of
FNPOA?
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: May I speak on behalf of them? Collect±~e!y and
individually, I have discussed this. It is the position of Fleets
Neck as an organization of property owners and of those individually,
documentation which I submit and leave with you and copies will
furnish you within a day, we want to become part of the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I appreciate that Mr. Nowachek. Rather than
have each individual member speak separately. Anybody like to
speak agains this application?
RICHARD CRON: If it pleases the Board, my~name is Richard ~ Cron,
and I am the attorney for Gustave J. Wade and we are here in op-
position to the application of FNPOA, Inc. Before I have anything
to say, I would like to make inquiry of the Board. I am aware that
the Board did not read the application of the FNPOA, Inc., and that
of Mr. Nicol. May I inquire of the Board as to whether that is the
application that would have been filed sometime in October with the
Town Clerk?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: September 8, 1984.
RICHARD CRON: And that application, if I may respectfully submit
to the Board, seeks to revoke a Building Permit that had heretofore
been issued to Mr. Wade, which permit had already been revoked by
the Building Inspector on September 26th, I believe, 1984. No,
no 29th. That being the case, I cannot frankly understand why
the Zoning Board of Appeals would even consider the application.
It seems to be not a moot question, but rather an academic question.
There is nothing to revoke. The revosation had already taken place.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cron, I discussed this with the Town
attorney and I know that there had been at least one call to our
office and I can't give you the exact date on that, prior to the;..
I am sorry, subsequent tot he filing of this application of which
you clearly stated just exactly what you said. It has been the
Town attorney's opinion that this is a formal application; that
these people of Fleets Neck have the right to be heard and I would
assume, not speaking for him because he is not present, that that
is the reason we are having this hearing tonight.
ZBA
1/10/S5
Page 8.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearing - Continued
R. CRON: Mr. Chairman, I do not dispute the FNPOA has an absolute
right to be heard. I think any citizen has that right. What I
am indicating is that the proceeding obviously is premature in the
light of the fact that a revocation had taken place with respect
to Mr. Wade's Building Permit prior to the filing of the application
to revoke. What I am saying is there is nothing basically for the
Board to rule on. You can't make a determination to revoke something
which has already been revoked. That's my only argument, just for
the record, so that we are clear as to what application you are
dealing with. Now, I don't even know if it makes any sense to go
at this point to the merits of that application, because I can't
see, even if you grant the application revoking it, what it ac-
complishes, since the revocation has already taken place, but be
that as it may. We listened to a lot of history here tonight;
some of which may have been erroneous or overstated. What I would
like to say to you is that I heard no proof submitted, I heard a
lot of conclusions, and I heard a lot of aversions. I think you
have got to go on the basis, if you are looking at this thing, on
the merits of the application. You have got to go on the basis
that first of all, the Building Inspector performed his duty in a
proper manner and that when he issued the Building Permit, you
must presume that he did it on the basis that all required permit~ ....
from any other municipal form of government had been submitted to
him and that he was satisfied that the applicant was entitled to
a Building Permit. The only issue here is whether the Building
Inspector erroneously issued that Building Permit to Mr. Wade.
I respectfully submit to you on the basis of presumptions that
are provided by law as the appropriateness of a public official
doing his duty, I submit to you that he did so. Now, Mr. Nowachek
has raised the issue o'f recogniition of access and specifically
the issue of the DEC. I submit to you that the issue of the DEC
is not for your Board to determine here, because they are only
violations alleged. They have not been proven. They have not
been established, and they w~l~tnot form3a basis at this point,
for the Building Inspector, to revoke anY Building Permit. Asfar
as the Building Department is concerned, they had received proper
DEC approval; they had received proper Health Department approval;
and the Building Permit, on that basis, was appropriately issued.
We are not here this evening, it's a collateral issue, and it's
not an issue before this Board, to determine whether Mr. Wade is
entitled to build a residential dwelling on the land that he
purchased from his predecessor in title. I assure you that he has
an absolute right to do so. The land he purchased is zoned for that
purpose, it's zoned for residential use; h±s predecessor in title
litigating the issue with the FNPOA, Inc. through competent courts
of jurisidction, determined that he had absolute title to that
property. Mr. Wade succeeded to that title and therefore, he
succeeds to all of the rights that Mr. Glover had. So there is .....
no issue here whether Mr. Wade can build a residence. That he
has the right to do. As I said to you, the only issue is did the
ZBA
1/10/85
Page 9.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearinq - Continued
R. CRON: Continued .... Building Department erroneously issue a
Buiding Permit? And for the reasons that I stated before, it's
an academic issue. But let me just go one step further. Let me
just go into the area of recognition of access. Mr. Wade appeared
before the Town Board. The Town Board went into Executive Session
and it was determined that Mr. Wade, through the Superintendent
of Highways, had a right to improve East Road to its terminus.
Now, with that given right, Mr. Wade improved East Road, so that
it would meet whatever statutory requirements that Section 280 A
would impose. Now you must, and it's been established by Mr.
-Nowachek, and I am glad he said it, that we have an easement over
the water, that existed before, not that it was illegally filled
in, but legally filled in by the County of Suffolk in a dredging
operation ........... I think I was courteous when Mr. Nowachek
spoke. I think it's appropriate that the Board direct him that I
be given the same courtesy. It was legally filled in by the
County of Suffolk and Mr. Glover further improved it by adding
additional fill with the consent of the Town of Southold. This
was established in the testimony of the trial that took place
with respect to the establishemnt of title to Mr. Glover's
property. So, let's not change facts to suit various elements.
The facts are what they are and they are established by competent
testimony in Cour~ Nowl-since Mr. Glover, when he owned the island
had a right of access from the island to the terminus of East Road,
over the water, he had the same right of access, and I submit
this is so, with or without Trustee's consent, when that area
of water between the terminus of East Road and the island, as it
was then, was filled in by the County and subsequently further im-
proved by Mr. Glover, that same easement that exists over that fille
in area. And if the easement so exists, Mr. Wade, as Mr. Glover's
successor in title, has the absolute right to improve that easement
for purposes of access. So the Building Inspector did not act
erroneously in granting Mr. Wade a Building Permit. He had know-
ledge of the Town Board and the Superintendent of Highways giving
Mr. Wade the permission to improve that road. I want to bring one
other thing to the Board's attention. In July of 1927, the FNPOA
was well aware of the fact that Mr. Wade had a Building Permit.
It wasn't until basically, October 8th, when they filed their ZBA
application to revoke that Permit, that they did anything with
respect to his Permit. I submit to you that pursuant to Section
267 of the Town Law, they went beyond the 30 day statu~ of limi-
tations, or in the alternative, if the Board sees fit not to apply
that, they are estopped from doing anything by virtue of laches.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cron, owhat was the date you had given us.
You started the discourse by stating that, and this will be the
last thing I would like to say...
R. CRON: Oh, July 27, of 1984.
ZBA
1/t0/85
Page 10.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearing - Continued.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Nowachek, I ask you to
do just one thing before you speak and that is please direct
your questioning to the Board.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: In rebuttal to what Mr. Cron said, I think that
what really happens here is Mr. Cron's a capable attorney, but
by going through these Court proceedings, he learned what didn't
exist from Mr. Wade, like when the Court said on July 16th, go
back to the Town Trustees and ask for their permission to go over
their land, wh~dh was backfilled, they didn't do that. They didn't
go back to the Town Trustees, they went back to the Building Depart-
ment and got a permit. But you didn't hear Mr. Cron say that the
permit was issued on-a set of plans that was similar to the plans
that were approved by the DEC. You didn't hear that, gentlemen, did
you? We don't know on what plans this Building Permit was issued.
In July and in Augustt we wrote to the Supervisor in the Building
Department and asked, on the basis of what plans did you give Mr.
Wade a permit and never got an answer. We don't know what plans,
whether he is going to put up a skyscraper, gentlemen, or he is
going to put up 40 condominium units. No such thing. I hear all
this nebulism. For instance, I think he has a right to build on ~- ....
property that's buildable. If it's buildable in accordance with
the laws, rules, regulations and ordinances of the Town and the
Building Code. He says he has a right tocbuild definitely, and
he also says he has a right to build 10' from the water because
the Town Board of Appeals gave me that variance. Is that a truth
gentlemen? Did you give him that variance? Isn't your setback
regulation 20'? And isn't it a fact that the Building Department
couldn't give it to him, and if you didn't give it to him, where
did he get that information to give to the DEC? Where did he get
the information to tell them he put septic systems into his property?
Is it there gentlemen? .Take a look. Go back to the Building Depart-
ment files and ask your Administrator where are the plans for this
house he is putting up. What setback regulations and everything
on those plans I have never seen and we have been down to the
Building Department a number of times. Show us the plans and show
us the specs. There were none. Gentlemen, the only thing I got
was today from the DEC, I will show you the last thing he filed
with them for the original permit. It looks like a hexagonal,
one-story with a.roof, except that the DEC found he is going up
two-and-a-half stories with it. Wouldn't two-and-a-half stories
violate your zoning ordinance? Yes, that's what the DEC said also,
but he told them he was not going to go anywhere that far. Asfar
as the access is concerned, gentlemen, that is Town Trustee's
property. They asked for an exclusive right to use that Town
property for his access to his property. That the Town Trustee's,
gentlemen, denied, after long extended conferences and hearings ....
in a vote of five to nothing (5-0) and it was that decision that
Mr. Cron took the Town Trustees on an Article 78, to Supreme Courm~
ZBA
1/10/$5
Page 12.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearinq - Continue_d
ANTHONY NOWACHEK - Continued: ..the Supervisor, which came to
FNPOA.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cron, anything else?
R. CRON: Yes, I would like to say a few words I would like to
make it absolutely clear that Mr. Wade submitted to the Building
Department all of the permits that were required to get a Building
Permit and he submitted the same set of plans that he was going
to build his residence to the Building Department. Now, where
the plans are, I cannot tell you why Mr. Nowachek cannot see them.
But that's not our problem. They were filed with the Building
Department and I can assure him that he is not building condo-
miniums. I want to make some other things awfully clear, too.
Firstly, we never sought any exclusive right over Town Trustee's
land. What we sought was an easement to his land from the
terminus of East Road and frankly, I think he had this in any
event. But anyway, he went ahead, before I got involved with him
and made that application so it went from that point on. Regarding
the matter in Court, regarding the Town Trustees, we did institute
~an Article 78 proceeding and the story behind that is that the ?-
Court itself erroneously converted that Article 78 proceeding to
a dec!a~ory judgment action and if I had done so on that basis,
and if/~&s legitimate %0 do so, I too, would have dismissed it.
However, the Court was in error and I went back in to reargue the
matter and the Court reversed its decision and the proper decision
was made remanding the matter back to the Town Trustees, who in
the initial instance failed to make findings of fact and conclu-
sions with respect to the application. That's what the Court
should'have done in the first place. And the matter is still
pending there. Again, I submit to you the matters concerning the
DEC are not a matter for this Board. Regardless of what the DEC
does, the revocation of the Permit at the time it took place has
nothing %o do with those matters. Again, I can only submit to you,
I think the whole thing is an exercise in futility, frankly with
respect to the FNPOA application, because there is an outstanding
revocation and there was an outstanding revocation at the time
that the application to revoke was instituted. But in any
event, you have got everything in front of you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Cron. Yes, sir.
DR. HENEGHAN: My name is Dr. Heneghan. I am a resident of Fleets
Neck. I was the President of the FNPOA before Mr. Nicol. I was
involved in this business originally when Mr. Pell was the Super-
visor and I was over here for many meetings. There are some
questions I would like answered first of all, please. The
statements about the land being filled in illegally. It was
very much so filled in illegally by Mr. Glover. ~East Creek
was dredged and the spoil was put up on the beach. Mr. Glover
ZBA
1/10/85
Page 13.
FNPOA and ~illiam Nicol Hearing - Continued
DR. HENEGHAN: Continued -...broughk in his own equipment, his
own bulldozer, I saw them. I have been around here for 35 years.
He had his own bulldozers and his own trucks bring fill to the end
of East Road and fill in that land. The other question is why
on 7:30 on a Saturday morning, September 29th, when most of the
Fleets Neck Property Owners had gone home for the summer, at 7:30
in the morning, did they suddenly start to build, when they felt
we were not able to contact the Town Hall officials, etc. Ail the
trucks and bulldozers and backhoes were down there and the Town
engineer was in full evidence there, and we have pictures to
testify that Julie had taken there, they came and they proceeded
to work. After much urging, Mr. Lessard and Mr. Murphy showed
up at the area. Mr. Lessard said he has a building permit and
everything is in order, but after speaking to some of the DEC
patrol officers, they said his permit is not legal. Mr. Lessard
said I will re~oke their permit. And he went down and spoke to
them and he told me personally and Mr. Nowachek to get off this
man's property. And he told the man he was doing wrong and he
should stop the building. Mr. Wade just kept on going and they
worked all that afternoon until 4:30 in the afternoon. Monday,
which you may recall was October ls~ we had one of the worst
storms going on the North Fork. Sure enough 8:00 am in the
morning, the trucks started to go down and bring sand down. These
were big truckloads of sand coming down from the dump. They
started to fill in the land at the end of East Road that had been
worn away fby storm, wash and so on. He filled in that land first.
Then the trucks proceeded to go down all day long and this was a
raging storm. I finally got a hold of Mr. Murphy to come down
there again and see this. He come down and said well, we will
see what's what. This continued on back and forth. I personally
called Mr. Charles Hamilton, Stony Brook. He is the Regional
Director or the Assistant Regional Director. Hirschberger is the
Regional Boss and Mr. Hamilton is one of his associates. He came
out at 5:00 p.m. in this raging storm and he was soaking wet.
Mr. Hamilton came down and as soon as he saw the area he said he
is in violation here, here, here and here. He's not going back to
the office but I will have 2 of my men come out tomorrow and is-
sue a stop work order. As I said, Julie was there taking pictures
at the time and she saw this going on. The next day, these two
officers came out and they went down to Mr. Wade and Mr. Tuthill
was still there, it was on Monday, a workday, he is the Town
engineer. And they came down with a stop work order and said you
have to stop it. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Lessard came down when the
DEC men were still there and they said to me, what's going on?
I said they have stopped the work and they are taking away the
building permit. And Mr. Lessard ~said, if they have revoked their
permit, I will revoke our permit, too, and he cannot do any work
until the DEC gives him a renewal on his permit. One of the
things about the amount of sand that was brought down there,
ZBA
1/10/85
Page 14.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearing - Continued
DR. HENEGHAN: Continued -he was supposed to be allowed, on the DEC
permit 35 cubic yards of sand. He had 13 cubic yard truck, which
they claim were 8 cubic yard. My nephew, who works in construction,
Said they are 13 cubic yard trucks, and they were overloaded because
they spilled the sand at the corner of Pequ~hand Main Road, where
these trucks would come down, the sand would spill over, proving
the trucks were overloaded, too. I would like to have these ques-
tions answered.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Doctor. I hope you are not asking
me to give you the answers to these. That's the purpose of this
assembly tonight. Is there anybody else who would like to speak for
or against the application? I have all intentions of recessing this
hearing, assembling what you have told me tonight or told us tonight,
and then reconvening it sometime in the very near future. Yes sirw
Mr. Nowachek.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK:. We just want to thank you for the courtesy and
the opportunity to address you all and I hope we didn't take up too
much of your time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Mr. Cron.
R. CRON: May I, since there is a moment of inquiry here, may I
likewise inquire as to whether, perhaps I was mislead to some ex-
tent by, or I misconstrued a statement by Mr. Nowachek. I wonder
for the record would the Board advise me as to whether the FNPOA,
Inc. is in fact the record title owner of the beach area adjacent
to that of Mr. Wade's property?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean in front of..
R. CRON: They claim their property is adjoining Mr. Wade's property
on which he is attempting to build his residence. I inquire as to
whether that beach area, for the record, is owned as Mr. Nowachek
says, collectively by the FNPO, or is it in fact, owned by the
entity, FNPOA, Inc.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Nowachek.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: Let me answer that question, Mr. Cron. It's
all in the papers in the courthouse, you are so familiar with it
and you somehow forgot it.
R. CRON: I just want it stated for the record.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: Stated for the record. The Town owns about
50' from the terminus of East Road in an easterly direction, and
beyond that, that same width strip belongs to the Town Trustees.
Now abutting that strip to the South is FNPOA, Inc.; abutting .... ~.
that strip to the North is Mr. Wade's property, and Fleets Neck
is the title owner to that strip; that piece of property immediately
abutting the Town Trustees. The whole question is the Town Trustees
ZBA
i/10/85
Page 15.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearing - Continued
ANTHONY NOWACHEK - Continued: if you took Main Road, East Road
which ends here and you went straight ahead which is an easterly
direction on the right, which would be the South, would be Fleets
Neck and on the left would be Gus Wade's property, now as of
October, 1984. Now, what Gus Wade wanted in the very beginning
was where East Road ended, he should get a permanent or a deed to
all this Town Trustee property as his own or a permanent easement
as a private driveway to his property. That's what all the liti-
gation was about. But Mr. Cron forgets one more fact, that when
it was settled in Court, that Mr. Glover owned this property, which
is now Mr. Wade's since October of 1984, not April of 1984, that he
signed a release together with Fleets Neck, which is a matter of
record in the Court and the Town Trustees have it, that he would
never claim nor his successor, any right, title or interest to the
Town Trustee's property and neither would Fleets Neck. But you see
gentlemen, he came and tried to claim it all and when the Town
Trustees said it is public property and we can't give you what you
want, he found another way or he is looking for another way to do
it.
R. CRON: I would describe that statement as pure hogwash and I am
going to tell you why. At no time have we ever claimed title to
the area that was just discussed. At no time have we sought ex-
clusive use. If there were others that would have it, rights over
it, whether you had a .qu±tclaim deed or not from the Trustees, it
wouldn't preclude the rights of others who had rights over that
strip of land to begin with. The Trustees, in endless situations,
have granted quitclaim deeds to lands underwater that they have
owned. They have in endless situations granted similar things as
easements over such lands underwater. We hadn't sought that and
perhaps maybe we ought to clarify for the record that maybe FNPOA,
Inc., is really not an adjacent or contiguous owner. It would
appear that lands of the Trustees may come between the two pieces
of property.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: Mr. Chairman, can I just quote the petition of
.Mr. Cron and Mr. Wade when they went to Court? Where he said he
wanted a deed or he wanted an easement over that property and that's
what the whole thing was before the Town Trustees? And Mr. Wade
was there in the absence of Mr. Cron, who wasn't involved. And
Mr. Cron took that to Court to tell the Court to overrule the
Town Trustees, who said we won't give you any right over our pro-
perty to get to yours. Mr. Cron started that lawsuit and he doesn't
know the facts anymore. If he went to Court and took the Town
Trustees, why did he take them? What, just to play games, he took
them because the Town Trustees said to Mr. Wade, you will not use
the taxpayers' property the way you want. You won't get a deed to
it and you won't get an exclusive easement to drive over it or
walk over it. That was the nature of it and if you want it, it
is in the record of the Town Trustees, the Town Attorney and the
outside attorneys from Riverhead, that were retained by the Town
to combat Mr. Wade's Article 78 proceeding. And Mr. Cron, it
ZBA
1/10/85
Page 16.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearinq - Continued
ANTHONY NOWACHEK - Continued: behooves you if I say hogwash, I
don't want to refer to any such thing personally, but Mr. Cron, I
think I stood here and stated facts. I think it behooves the
Board, and I give them a lot of credit, ! think they can separate
hogwash from fact.
R. CRON: I dispute your 'facts and I think I have the right..
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: Yours is hogwash.
R. CRON: You call it What you want, I'will call it what I want.
The facts are not as Mr. Nowachek states them. Initially, I had
no representation with respect to Mr. Wade when he-went to the
Town Trustees. Subsequently, I represented Mr. Wade and I still
do to the present date with respect to the Trustees. That's when
we went into litigation, when nothing was accomplished with the
Tr.ustees.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Nowachek., is there something you are
looking for?
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: Yes, I would like to mail you a copy of the
Petition of Mr. Wade, when he took the Town Trustees~ to make it
part of your record as to what he tried to get the Town Trustees,
what he tried to get' the Court ~to do with reference to the decisi~
made by the Town Trustees. You can read it for yourselves,
gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you supply us with that at the
next hearing.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: I will do that, sir.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I will go on notice and close this hearing,
not close it, pardon me, recess it, with no date, so that we.can
assemble what was presented here tonight, and I will ask one more
time if there is anybody'who would like' to say something either
~on behalf or against this application?
VICTOR LESSARD: My name is Vic Lessard and I am the Administrator.
To keep the record straight, I am assistant to nobody. My first
name is Victor, it is not Louie, that's my brother. The records
in the Building Department, under the Sunshine Law, are always
available to the public. The records cannot leave the office.
No one from the Association ever came in to ask me to show them
any plans, and I want that straightened, out in the record. Asfaras
the property that Mr. Wade now owns, the tax map shows the Town of
Southold as the property owner on two sides and water on the other
two. I did not talk to a DEC person on Saturday, the day I went ~r~
there on the 29th. I did not tell Mr., Doctor, whatever his nam~
is to get off of Mr. Wade's property .... Would you shut up and
let me finish ..... I advised this gentleman before he came on to
ZBA
1/10/85
Page 17.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearing - Continued
VICTOR LESSARD - Continued:..Mr. Wade's property to avoid any
further trouble, he should ask permission, okay. We had. a meeting
the following Monday. After that meeting, I went down again with
the Inspector to find out if Mr. Wade had put the building where
he had filed for it. And the Inspector, Mr. Curtis Horton, and
he will verify this, indicated to me through measurements, with
me measuring with him, that it's exactly where it was filed.
Also I want the people to know that I have filed a letter with
this Board. Thank you.
CHARIMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Lessard, while you are still there, can
I just ask you one quick question. Bearing this in mind, that what
you just said, you therefore don't feel there any setback problems
in this particular case.
VICTOR LESSARD: Absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: I will Submit a plan to you sir, that shows
a 10' setback and it's in his file. May I respond to Mr. Lessard's
statement?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I...
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: I want the record straight.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who will speak first?
DOCTOR HENEGHAN: Mr. Nowachek and I were standing on East Road.
We walked down, and Mr. Lessard was over on Mr. Wade's property
speaking to him. And we walked over toward him and he turned around
and said get off this man's property, just get off this man's pro-
perty. I didn't know who he was before. I know now who he is.
And this is on Saturday and it took an awful lot of prompting to
get him to come down to that meeting, because we called and told
him we were going to have a confrontation there and he finally did
come down. And Mr. Murphy did come down later on Saturday.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Doctor.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: I just want to mention this, Mr. Chairman, if
I may that your attorney has told me he couldn't reply to letters
we had written to the Supervisor, to the Building Department, to be
able to see all the underlying circumstances and facts and the
plans surrounding the issuance of the permit. What Mr. Lessard
says, Mr. Vic Lessard, is not justly the fact. The facts are the
ZBA
1/10/SS
Page 18.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearing - Continued
ANTHONY NOWACHEK - Continued:.omoment we found out the permit was
issued, we started to make an inquiry; started making it in writing
and we got no response other than a memorandum that I read to you
in. the very beginning, gentlemen, and I was present and prevailed
through the.Town Attorney upon Mr. Vic Lessard to come out that
Saturday and issue a stop order. And I was told to stay off
Mr. Wade's property while Mr. Lessard conferred with Mr. Wade
and with Mr. Cron, and we have photos to show it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Cron, is there anything you
would like to say before I recess it?
'R. CRON: W~ll, I think there may be some misstatements of what
took place, with respect to Mr. Lessard visiting the property,
which involved the revocation of the permit. If I recall, that
took place sometime on a~Saturday afternoon time, because i was
in my office at that time and Mr. Wade asked me to come down to
the property. And surely, we did confer, after all, it is his
.property and I am his attorney, so I guess we would have a right
to do that. While I was there, in fact I would indicate to the
'Board at the time there were 2 officers from the DEC present and
my son was present. We had asked, in fact we have it taped, the
DEC. at that time to make a thorough inspection of the work that Y-~
was being done by Mr. Wade so that there would be no question
as to full compliance with the DEC permit. These gentlemen did
so and theY reported back to us there was absolutely nothing wrong
here and they proceeded to go on their way. Shortly after that,
Mr. Lessard came down and he had with him a stop work order and
most unfortunately, a revocation of Mr. Wade's Building !~rmit,
on the basis of an alleged, violation of Section 267 of the Town
Law. I advised Mr. Lessard, in Mr. Wade's presence, he was
standing right next to me, I said you are making a terrible mis-
take. I said you can't do what you are doing. It's illegal and
unlawful. And .he indicated that he had to do it; he was advised
to do so and my retort to him was that I surely hope you have it
in writing. After that he served the r~evocation and' it's true
that Mr. Wade continued to work because the stop work order and
the alleged revocation were totally illegal and unlawful, and
that's all corrected for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you on what grounds were
they illegal and unlawful?
R. CRON: Well, I don't know if you want to hear that now. That's
the subject of the next hearing. I will be happy to give you all
of them.
ZBA
1/10/85
Page 19.
FNPOA and William Nicol Hearinq - Continued
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: Mr. Chairman, since the question of a variance
and a questiOn of fact arose, I want to submit now, for the record,
it's a copy of a plan submitted to the Suffolk County Department
of Health, for approval of construction, dated April 11, 1984,
signed by Gustave J. Wade, and it indicates a setback of his
house of 10' from the property line of the Southold Town Trustees.
If you want to look at it, I will gladly furnish you with a copy.
And if he said he complied with a' 20' setback, you see the 10'
there sir? Both corners of the house, and that's not even the
type of house he is building, sir. He is building a hexagon.
To every department, he submitted something else.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, I thank you. I will now recess, or
make a motion to recess this hearing, again with no date.
#3302 - AT 8:45 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the matter of
~STAVE J. WADE, for a variance to~ reinstate Building Permit
#13244Z,' Suffol~ County Tax Map #1000-110-7-28.
R. CRON: The application that we are bringing here at this
time is one to reinstate a revoked Building Permit and the
application is being brought because, for whatever the reasons~
of the Building Department, the application or the Building Permit
was illegally and unlawfully revoked, by virtue of an action by
the Building Department on September 29th. You are probably
familiar with Section 267 of the Town Law, which is a section
which deals with appeals and the Board of Appeals. In that
section, and specifically subdivision 4 of that section, there
is a provision for a stay in furtherance of any proce~din~ taken
by the action filed on appeal. That particular section, however,
only stays the issuance of a Building Permit. It cannot be used
as a basis to stay any work than is being performed in furtherance
of a validly issued Building Permit. So, when Mr. Lessard, and of
course, it can't be used as a stop work order. The provisions for
a stop work and revocation are contained in other sections of the
Southold To~ Zoning Ordinance. They are not contained in Section
267. Unfortunately, when Mr. Lessard issued that stop work order
and revoked the permit, he did so on the basis of an alleged vio-
lation of Section 267. Obviously, there is no ~iolation on the
part of Mr. Wade with respect to Section 267. The basis for doing
it was that the FNPOA attempted to file an Appeal, in which, with
the Zoning Board, in which they sought to revoke Mr. Wade's Building
Permit. Now, the Appeal that they initially filed was by form or
letter form and obviously, it did not carry with it the formalities
that the Zoning Ordinance requires.with respect to the filing of
an Appeal to the Zoning Board. In addition, it was not filed with
the Town Clerk as it's required to be done under our Ordinance,
and there was no payment of a $50. filing fee and there was no
ZBA
1/10/85 ~-~
Page 20.
~USTAVE J. WADE Hearing - Continued
R. CRON - Continued: ..indication in the ZBA file, which I se-
cured a certified copy of, that there was any notice given to
any property owner who would be entitled to notice five (5) days
prior to the filing of the Appeal. So, basically, that letter
appeal was a nullity. Now, that was done on September 26th and
that letter was subsequently filed in the Town Clerk's Office
on October i, at which time a $50. filing fee was paid, as required
by statute. So, basically, there was no valid Appeal to begin with,
in force and effect on ~ptember 29th, when the Building Department
revoked Mr. Wade's Building Permit. As I indicated, the basis
of the revocation, was an alleged violation of Section 267,
which of course, can't happen to begin with. Subsequently, of
course, the FNPOA, subsequent to October 8th apparently, did file
a ZBA appeal, which is the basis of the prior application. But
firstly, since no appeal, assuming you want to give any degree
of credibility to the revocation of the Building Permit for an
alleged violation of Section 267, firstly, if there was no such
valid appeal in force and effect at the time of the revocation,
then obviously the revocation by the Building Department was un-
lawful and illegal. Even if there was a valid appeal filed at
the time that the time the Building Permit was revoked, it is
still illegal and unlawful because you can't use Section 267 to ~
either issue a stop work order or to revoke a Building Permit.
Finally, by the mere file of an Appeal, pursuant to Section 267,
it cannot furnish a basis for stopping any work at the property.
There is another form of relief to do that, if one deems it im-
portant to do so. So, for all of these reasons, the Board
has to reinstate the Building Permit on the basis of the manner
and the reasons for which it was revoked. I hope it explains my
arguments to you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are referring to/~ea%ime of September
29th, since there was no ....
R. CRON: That's the only thing I can issue, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, thank you. Mr. Nowachek.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: Yes, for the FNPOA, Inc. and for its members
collectively and individually. I don't want to repeat, but it
will be part of my record, our record in opposition, all the
comments and the position we took before as to why the Permit,
number one, never been issued; number two, since it was issued
in error, it should have been revoked immediately and he should
never been permitted to act upon it. It's very nice to hear Mr.
Cron say what the Town does wrong, the Building Inspector, but
you know, he never alluded to what his client did wrong. Never
once, never once what he was doing there with your Town Engineer ~
trying to put in and violate every DEC regulation that was cited
in that Complaint I read to you at. the last session. He said to
ZBA
l/10/s5
Page 21.
GUSTAVE J. WADE Hearing.- Continued
ANTHONY NOWACHEK - Continued;...you before, that you need a survey.
I showed you one gentlemen and I will give you that one. It shows
a 10' setback, for which a variance would have been required and
none was ever obtained. Mr. Cron says nothing about Highway Law
288, .that says you have to have public access or access to your
property from a public thoroughfare or some .public service or
whatever it is. He addresses nothing of the kind. He wants to
protect a permit that was issued without proper authority;
without the scope of the issuing authQrity. Tha~s what he
wants to protect and he wants that issue permitted to protect
his client in violating every DEC regulation that he was cited
for and he has to face the music Monday before the DEC, facing
a requested fine, from what' I understand from the attorneys for
the legal affairs of the DEC, are $19,000 punitive fine. Gentlemen,
thsfs just a penalty. That doesn-St finish the DEC. If you want
to look at the violation, if this is the position that an attorney
should take, and refer to Section 267, every police office that
gives you a ticket for' speeding and he doesn't tell you what secti~
of the Vehicle and Traffice Law, tear up the ticket and throw it in
the garbage can, because it can't be enforced. Gentlemen, it's
totally wrong. That is totally wrong, there is no such Court
that sticks with numbers. Numbers only designate a paragraph,
they are meaningless. But 267, it's the intent of what was done.
There was no appeal technically ~filed by FNPOA, it was an opposition
to the issuance of the Permit basically. That the Building Depart-
ment should reconsider it and it was done two days before he started
his work. That's right. And before the Building Department even
had a chance to reconsider it,he had his trucks down there; he had
your Town Engineer working for him, putting in the piles and piling
up the dirt, trying to get it all finished before you had a chance
to assemble your governmental agencies on Monday morning. He wanted
that all finished by Sunday night. And he proved it almost, be-
cause when your Building Inspector came, prevailed upon by your
Town Attorney, Mr. Tasker; he came out at his direction and told
him to stop that work, Mr. Cron told him, I was there, I was told
to stay off the property. I requested whether your Building Inspector
was being intimidated and told, with a tape recorder, you can't
do this. And I was told where to go, and I don't want to repeat
%he language, that's okay, I have never gone there yet. That's
what happened. And then in total disregard of what your
Building Inspector did with the stop order, 'right or wrong, there
were violations, gentlemen,the man continued on Monday contemptuously
to go to your Town Clerk, get chits, with his trucks, go to the
dump and put on fill in excess of the DEC violations. Above and
beyond that which he was allowed, too, and that he represented he
would. And now, Mr. Cron says to you give him back that permit,
so he can tell the DEC forget their sections also. That's not
the case, gentlemen, We filed the appeal, requesting after the
ZBA
1/10/85
Page 22.
GUSTAVE J. ~ADE Hearing x Cpntin~ed
ANTHONY NOWACHEK- Continued: ..fact that the permit be revoked
because on that Monday, the DEC came out and violated the entire
job. Gentlemen, you don~[t want to believe that your Building
Department doesn't have enforceable teeth. If I were putting
up a deck', which I was, and your Inspector courteously came out
.~o enforce the law and said stop. the work right now, t Anthony
Nowachek stopped. And I needed a variance.~ I~ appeared before
your Board, I presented my case and I got it. I didn't tell your
Inspector he didn't write down the right number. Gentlemen, and
that's what he is asking you to do. Give him back something that
he shouldn't have had in the first place, i say gentlemen, if the
man's entitled to a permit, then go through the channels. Let
him submit the plans. Let him have them approved. Let him have
all the permits in force and effect and let all that be in the files
of the Building Department for the public to see, and in this par-
ticular case, if he is going to continue to build on the same plans
that he filed with the DEC, gentlemen, he cannot do it. And there
are no plans on which.your permit was issued in the very first
instance, case, and I don't think your Building Inspector has ad-
dressed that question yet. Whether it was going to be a 2% story
job or what the plans really called for. And I say, in view of
the fact that technically-it shouldn't have been issued and if
it was issued, it was revoked, let it remain revoked and that thef-~
applicant start de novo, after he complies with all the other
underlying departments that have to ~ him the permits, and
after he disposes of what he has to, DEC, which is quite
an appropriate law and agency in our times for the protection
of our public interest.
-CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Cron, do you have anything?
R. CRON: Well, I must say Mr. Nowachek certainly collateralizes
issues. There is only one issue~ that you are faced with here
and that is, and incidentally, the law is rather important at
which you are being charged, I don~t think it's the intent of
something else. MY client had a valuable right revoked on him.
He had his Building Permit revoked and it was done pursuant to
a specific Section of law, and that's the only section we are
dealing with-~here tonight. Whether we are entitled to a permit
or not is not the issue that I have brought before this Board.
The issue solely is, was the Building Permit illegally and unlawfully
revoked by virtue of application of Section 267 of the Town Law?
And I say it was for the reasons I gave you and whether Mr. Nowa-
chek is concerned as to whether we were entitled to something to
begin with or not, has nothing to do with what I am bringing here.
I am saying that an illegal and unlawful act was done and you
have to reinstate it because of that fact. If you want to revoke
it,by virtue of proper provisions of law, we may have a different
argument, okay, but it was revoked through the application of f~
an inappropriate section of law, and if that's a question of law
ZBA
1/10/85
Page 23.
GUSTAVE J. WADE Hearing - Continued
R. CRON - Continued: then you have got to rule on that basis.
Just one other point, not that it's really important. For the
record, though, I in no way, and I am sure Mr. Lessard would
agree with me, attempted to intimidate him when he was on the
property. I was more trying to beseech him not to make a bad
mistake.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cron, before you sit down, could you
allude to what area of the law that this stop work order should
have been placed, within our confines, or ....
R. CRON: Well, I can, and so can Mr. Lessard, frankly. All you
have to do is go to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 142, something
or other and it lists the various provisions, the basis of which
would form a revocation order. But you have got to understand,
that was not done. What was done. was that the Building Depart-
ment said that you, Mr. Wade, were in violation of Section 267
of the Town Law, and what they did and attempted to do is that
on the basis of a third party filing an appeal, or an attempted
appeal, with the ZBA to revoke a validly issued Building Permit,
they attempted to revoke or Stop the work on that basis, and I
can assure you it's illegal and unlawful. I am sure, if your
Town Attorney can't find the cases to back it up, I will give
them to the Board.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: Just one comment. Mr. Cron just proved a
very touchy topic. He said illegal and unlawful for what the
Building Department did. I charge you that if it was illegal and
unlawful for him to take that permit away, maybe it was illegal and
unlawful for him to issue it. And I would suggest that maybe you
get an independent prosecutor to look at both sides of the story,
Mr. Cron.
R. CRON: That's still not the issue here.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK:
Attorney General.
Let's get the District Attorney and the
R. CRON: Get him, get him, get him. Maybe he should take a
look at you at the same time, you crackpot.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: Stick to the facts.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have come to that part of the hearing.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: I would like to have a response to that,
Mr. Chairman. He refers to it as illegal and unlawful, it's
criminal. I suggest that he suggests .....
ZBA
1/10/$5
Page 24.
GUSTAVE J. WADE Hearinq - Continued
R. CRON: I never alleged that it was criminal, gentlemen.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: That's just what he said sirf within the
scope of the District Attorney ....
R. CRON: Apparently, Mr. Nowachek never heard the words being
used in civil law.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: You wouldn't know the difference, Mr. Cron.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me, excuse me.
ANTHONY NOWACHEK: You stay around, you will learn.
R. CRON: But not from you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me. Is there anybody in ~e audience
who would like to speak on behalf of this application, in favor
of this application, that's the reinstatement of this? Anybody
else? Anybody like to speak against this application?
DOCTOR HENEGHAN: The DEC would not give him his permit unless
he had all his previous permits, okay. Now, since the DEC revoked
his permit because of violations of his permit, Mr. Lessard and
Mr. Murphy said to me that day, since the DEC revoked his permit~
that we have to revoke our permit. This was said t'o me on
East Road.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak against?
Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I
will again recess this hearing with no date. What we will do
is take the ~ranscript of tonight's hearings and reduce them to
writing and place them before both attorneys that we hav~ and
we will discuss what we are missing amongst ourselves in the way
of Board members, from you at the reconvening of these two hearings.
Attorneys for both sides, public for both sides, will be sworn
in; we will then get the bits an~ pieces that we are~missing and
I can't give you a date for ~ha~, gentlemen. We have two secretaries
here,both of which are extremely overburdened with work at this time,
but I assume it will be at the very earliest, six weeks. And I thank
everybody for y0ur courtesy and I offer a resolution for recessing
this hearing.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully sUbmitted,
Barbara A. Strang
Pp. 1-24
*These minutes were transcribed from tapes, as recorded.