HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/25/1990 HEARING 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
HEARING, :
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York
July 25, 1990
9:00 P.M.
BEFORE:
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
BOARD MEMBERS:
ALSO PRE
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., Absent
S~RGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, Absent
J~ES DINIZIO, JR.
SENT:
DOREEN FERWERDA, Secretary
23
24
25
GAIL ROSCHEN
Official Court Reporter
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
[Continuing hearing of Applicant Number
3955,
A. Auricchio)
THE CHAIRMAN:
reconvene.
MR. DOYEN:
in behalf of Dominick Sblendido and
I need a motion to
Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is a gentleman in
the center of the room that would like to speak.
DR. ROCHE: Dr. Marvin Roche, 480 Inlet
Lane, oorner house.
I don't understand all these legal terms
I am not so smart. I don't think that I can
cast any light on these issues. I feel very
emotional about the whole deal, and I hope that
an expression of emotion might help the
committee reach a proper conclusion.
I live on Inlet Lane, and everybody
coming to visit me feels the same. Half the
houses are waterfront. Each house has a
beautiful lawn full of trees and shrubs, and
the
day
There
trunks of the trees cast shadows in the
and in the night from the street lamps.
are 10,672 birds, and we all love them.
Into that country atmosphere comes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.?~
3
this, what is going on now. It is a house
right on top of the street and, hard to
believe, they cut down every blessed tree
Could there be a human being
front and back.
that hates trees and birds? No. Why were
these trees cut down? Well, if they are going
to have a two-family house, how many people
live in each one of these two families? Two
people? Don't you believe it. There is going
to be many more.
eight,
there.
There is going to be six,
God knows how many cars parked out
Well, you cannot park in the street
in Inlet Lane. Where are they going to park,
on the beach? No. They are going to park on
their lawn. They have to get rid of their
trees. Well, I just spent $300,000 renovating
my house because I love the area, because I
can't find any area I would rather be in. But
I don't want to live in this house, which is
quite a gorgeous house, in a multiple dwelling
block.
Not multiple dwelling. It is just one
house made into two families. Well, don't
you believe it. If I want to sell my house
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
4
because I don't want to live there now, if fha"
is the way the streets are going to be, you
can't sell houses now. I would have to take
a heck of a loss, if I sold it now.
Well, I have a way out, just like the
people across the way from me took a way out.
They rented their house. Well, if I was going
to rent my house because I want to get out,
I would never make enough money to cover any-
thing in the house. But I sure would better
my situation if I made it a multiple dwelling.
I don't know the difference between multiple
dwelling and two-family, but I do know I
have a very large beautiful library, as big
as this room -- not the whole room -- well, I
could convert that libary into a kitchen, a
living room, and a bedroom. It would be
gorgeous, and I have many other rooms in the
house. I could twist that around and take a
lot of people in and call it a two-family.
I would request a variance. What right
have you to give them a variance and not me?
You do not have such a right. It would be
discriminatory to everybody. Those that are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
· disgusted with what is happening in. Inlet Lane
and want to get out would request a variance.
So this Board is being asked to give anyone
on Inlet Lane the right to a variance to
change their house to a money-making situation.
So I say that it would be a terrible
mistake, but I also see that these people who
built this house are having a hardship. They
went ahead and built a monstrosity right on
top of the road and now what are they going to
do? Should we say you can't live in it? Should
we say you have to tear it down? I think that
would be a terrible hardship. Do you? The
original mistake was why on earth were they
given permission to do it from scratch?
When they first started to build that
house and I saw two doors, two entrances, two
hallways, obviously a two-family house regard-
less of what the legal definition is. So I
went to the builder and I asked him, "Is this
going to be a two-family house?"
He said, "Absolutely not."
So I said to my neighbors it is not
going to be a two-family, but it sure is clear.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
6
Who needs two doors in one hall exactly alike?
Any way you twist it, with the kitchen or
without a kitchen, that house is a two-family
house and there should be some way that this
Board prevents two families from living in that
house.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Doctor.
Is there anybody else that would like to
speak in opposition? Sir?
MR. TASKER: Arthur Tasker. I live at
17 Beach Road, Greenport, where I have spent
the summers there for the last 45 years in a
little cottage colony of about 100 -- 150.
As I say, I have spent the last 45 summers
there and it is a place we love very well. I
am also the Vice President of the Property
Owners' Association there, an informal group,
and although I do not speak tonight for the
Association, I know I have the support of many
residents in Sandy Beach as the area is known.
I don't think I can add anything specifically
in addition to what Ms. Ongioni said and Dr.
Roche spoke of. I just want to add that I am
very strongly opposed to the project as it was
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
7
proposed and it was permitted, and as it was
demonstrated. I make the distinction because
each is different.
This project has been led down the
garden path every step of the way. I think that
has to present a couple of questions we need
to look at. First of all, why was zoning
actually -- construction should be checked for
conformity with the site plan and on the
construction drawing. Why weren't the various
aspects of the house, where it clearly indicates
it is a two-family house -- why weren't these
factors noticed and questioned at the time the
Building Department inspected the layout or
inspected the foundation or inspectsd tbs
£ram~ng, or the rough wiring or the plumbing?
After all, if these were evident to people who
are not in the construction, they should have
been evident to the Building Department.
If the building does comply with the
plans which were submitted, how is it that the
Building Department approved these plans in
the first place? Even to a lay person they
are not in conformity with the Building Codes
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and zoning regulations of the Town.
I suggest possible answers.
what I call the Chinatown attitude.
First,
I am not
sure how many of you recall the movie China-
town, where Jack Nicholson was intending to
investigate an incident that took place in
Chinatown. Leave it
I suggest the
well, leave it alone.
alone. It is Chinatown.
situation here might be,
It is Greenport. Possibly
the Building Department is so preoccupied with
its war with Mr. Zahra with issues of question-
able vacant land certificates, occupancy, and
erroneous building permits on land which is
invalid, in which is involved a relative of
the Building Department and also the issue of
construction pera~ts on another road on Main
Street which flies in the face of the master
plan and zoning ordinances. I suggest that
in this application, on Inlet Lane, the Town
will again be in a no win situation, which
ever way this is decided. The loser will file
another Article 78 proceeding and we residents
will once again shoulder the burden of
financing another lawsuit arising from the
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
alleged malfeasance of the Building Department.
I think Mr. Tober, in his remarks,
said obviously the Board cannot undo everything
that was done. IX fact, the Board can undo
what has been done. Ms. Ongioni cited a
situation in which the building was required
to go down when it was not in confirmation.
I suggest that at least the permit or the
application should be denied, and further I
w~ld strongly urge this Board to require that
the building be brought in confirmation with
the building zoning in all respects.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak?
DR. MACY: Joseph Macy, 129 Inlet Lane.
We have been there for over 20 years. A year
ago we completed the extension and building
of our house and conformed with all the
building requirements that the Town of Southold
asked for. It is quite obvious this is very
u~setting to us. I would just like to echo
what Dr. Roche has said. I would like to say
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
10
I agree with all of his statements.
I believe Mrs. Macy would also like to
speak.
MRS. MACY: I am Mrs. Macy. I reside
at the same address, 129 Inlet Lane.
I would like to address the Board this
evening, personally, because during the period
of time our home was being constructed by
Richard Siata (phonetic), and his brother,
Robert who is here this evening, I was the one
that actually did most of the overview of the
project. During that period of time several
things were very evident:
1) I am astonished that something
like this can happen on the basis of my own
experience. I have to say ~h~t when we started
th~s project, we had completely different
plans that evolved to the house we finally
built. The reason the plans changed was
because the Town of Southold came in and said,
no, I couldn't do that. There were changes
in the Department of Environmental Conser-
vation rulings. There were all sorts of things~
that had to be complied with, and the Town of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
Southold was extremely strict with us and we
complied and we complied willingly because we
love the area. We intend to be there, or had
intended to be there, for many years and we
wanted to do things the right way.
Now when we did evolve to the second
plan, the second plan was extremely costly
and it involved a need for further financing
of the project. We went to the Bank of New
York, one of the primary banks we deal with,
and requested additional financing. We sub-
sequently had an inspection of the premises
and of the plans and of what we were going to
do. We were granted the monies we needed to
do this, no problem. The reason I bring this
up is because something very int~restin~
happened, at that time, when we spoke to a
gentleman at the bank. He informed me that
the banks were so happy to come to the Town of
Southold. They felt very secure giving
financing to projects that were done within
the Town of Southold, unlike many of the
projects that were being initiated on the South
Fork. They felt the Town of Southold was
INDX( îÀ¿ ( 8 è D
@nU e»ÄšÐW e»Äd2€WÓ3Å|¯«û1Å Ü 0 0 0 F 6 C 2 2 . T X T D
@nU e»ÄšÐW e»ÄšÐW e»Ä|¯«û1Å Ü 0 0 0 F 6 C 2 2 . T X T D
@nU e»ÄšÐW e»ÄšÐW e»Ä|¯«û1Å Ü 0 0 0 F 6 C 2 2 . T X T D
@nU e»ÄšÐW e»ÄšÐW e»Ä|¯«û1Å Ü 0 0 0 F 6 C 2 2 . T X T D
@nU e»ÄšÐW e»ÄšÐW e»Ä|¯«û1Å Ü 0 0 0 F 6 C 2 2 . T X T D
@nU e»ÄšÐW e»ÄšÐW e»Ä|¯«û1Å Ü 0 0 0 F 6 C 2 2 . T X T D
@nU e»ÄšÐW e»ÄšÐW e»Ä|¯«û1Å Ü 0 0 0 F 6 C 2 2 . T X T D
@nU e»ÄšÐW e»ÄšÐW e»Ä|¯«û1Å Ü 0 0 0 F 6 C 2 2 . T X T D
@nU e»ÄšÐW e»ÄšÐW e»Ä|¯«û1Å Ü 0 0 0 F 6 C 2 2 . T X T D
@nU e»ÄšÐW e»ÄšÐW e»Ä|¯«û1Å Ü 0 0 0 F 6 C 2 2 . T X T D
@nU e»ÄšÐW e»ÄšÐW e»Ä|¯«û1Å Ü 0 0 0 F 6 C 2 2 . T X T
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
'~7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
Believe me, it will not stop. There is no
reason why these people should be allowed to
build this house. Now I am not going to
minimize what I am saying. I said "build this
house" and I meant it. The plans speak for
themselves. When it looks like a duck and it
walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck,
it is a duck. That is a duck, folks; that
house with its double stairway up and down
to the basement, the double entrances and all
of the above; its trees that were raped off
the land to make room for God knows what,
parking cars? Good thought, Doctor. That
speaks for itself.
Now I don't know how this plan went
through. I don't know how this plan was
inspected. I spoke to Gary Fish (phonetic)
myself months ago. I called the Town of
Southold and spoke to him, and said, "Gary,
what is happening here? I am living through
this.
He said,
everything."
I have a problem with this.
I can't believe what I am looking at."
"No way. It will comply with
I think
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we are all here because we have a problem with
this.
are very
I ask you please to consider that we
serious about this. This is not
going to go away.
and let's get this
we have a problem.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Think about this, please,
straightened out because
All of us.
Thank you.
MR. ZAHRA: Charles Zahra, from Mattituck.
I am not going to speak for or against.
What I have to say I hope will be for the
benefit of the entire Town. As I stated many
times before, that at the early work session,
August 8, 1988 was a work session. I, myself,
brought many files be£Dre ~h~ Town, the Town
Board, and I went over all these instances
such as what is happening here this evening.
Nothing was done. I have been pressing for
three and a half years to get the Town Board
-- it took me three and a half years to get
the Town Board to realize I was not going to go
away and that ~n investigation was necessary.
Hence it is here. I can understand the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
:17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/~-
15
neighbors' feelings and I can understand the
Applicant's feelings.
I am on tonight for a similar situation.
Precedent has already been set in the Town,
I am afraid. There are a number of projects
like this that have been approved and, again,
I want to stress that I am not for or against.
I feel in this case the problem lies with the
Building Department. Step One was never gone
through. All of this would not have been
necessary had these people gone in with this
plan, which I have looked at tonight for the
first time, and the Building Department doing
their job the way they should would have
viewed that plan and realized the problem with
it and would have given them a disapproval and
sent them to your office, the Zoning Board of
Appeals, for a variance. Maybe they would not
be here tonight asking, "Can we do it," and
maybe these people would not be here tonight
saying, "We don't want it."
As a matter of law, maybe
have gotten it. Maybe
But it would have been
they could
they couldn't have.
finished. $200,000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
16
would, not have been spent. These neighbors
would not be mad at these neighbors.
I am not surprised she said, Mrs. Macy
said she was surprised. I am not surprised.
That's the way it has been for years here.
I have looked at thousands of files. I have
two hundred files here now. If you want to
sit here, I will go through them with you and
show you the inconsistencies, the abuse of the
law. Hopefully, it will be confirmed by an
unbiased party. I am going to hand up three
files. I don't have enough time to review all
my files, because I have to review a few myself.
and I am not going to mention names. I am
going to give numbers. If someone wants to
access them, that's their business. They are
public records. I hold no animosity towards
the people to whom the permits were given.
The first item: 16078, existing use
and occupancy application intended -- excuse
me. Intended use and occupancy owner and
sister. I think that's what we have here, a
sister, and owner, both sisters, intended use
and occupancy, the care and shelter of elderly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
disabled mother. It was commenced June 15,
1987. It was approved June 15, 1987. Mr.
Lessard approved it.
Building permit construction and
addition to the existing one dwelling as
applied for, deja vu. The plan clearly shows
a kitchen, bathroom, handicapped room, wash-
room. They call the bedroom an office
computer room. Sounds circumvented to me.
Dining room, living room, and I have a plot
plan that shows it. Also I show you a Eire
~nderwriter Certificate for the installation
of a separate meter. No Zoning Board approval.
This file was given to the Town August 8,
1988. The answer was
Schondebare, not you.
you. And I won't go into his
a matter of public record.
rendered by Mr.
It was not given to
answer. It is
THE CHAIRMAN:
never saw it.
MR. ZAHRA: File
cation home for owner.
Let the record show we
Number 14359, appli-
Now the Building
Department has what they call a road file and
an office file. Obviously one stays in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
:17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
18
office and one is taken out on the road to
inspect the jobsite. On this one, the one
application where it says "intended use and
occupancy," it says, "same," meaning home for
owner. Yet on another application, which I
presume to be the road file, says, "same," and
then in another individual's handwriting,
"two-family." I happen to know who the indi-
vidual's handwriting is, but I am not a hand-
writing expert. So I am not g~ing to expose.
That application was signed by Mr. Lessard,
and it was commenced October 15, 1985 by Mr.
Lessard and approved October, same day, October
15, 1985. I would like to see how many people
got approval for their permits on the same
day. Of course they belong to the network.
On the rear of the application, "Number of
units, one," meaning one family. Building
permit, "Renovata existing one-family dwelling
and to construct two-deck addition as applied
for. Mr. Lessard issued that.
Worksheet/inspection sheet, which is
carried around on the road file, final inspect~ '~
shows "Okay for Certificate of Occupancy for a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
t8
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
19
two-family dwelling, Certificate of Occupancy --
''Renovate existing two-family dwelling and
construct two decks," signed by Mr. Horton.
It started out as a one-family, wound up two-
family. The inception and creation was con-
doned by the Building Department. I am not
a lawyer, but this looks like fraud to me.
I could be wrong.
THE CHAIRMAN:
copies of this. Is
You are affording us
that correct?
MR. ZAHRA: Yes. The other file I am
reluctant to give and I think I will hold back,
unless you think there is need for more to
show a pattern.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is up to you, sir.
MR. ZAHRA: What ~ would like to know
is when does this Town realize enough is enough?
How many times do you shoot yourself in the
foot before you don't have any more feet? Then
what do you do?
THE CHAIrmAN:
several times, Mr.
this Board, I have
find it frustrating.
I have spoken to you
Zahra. As an individual of
found that frustrating. I
That is the statement I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
.24
25
make.
MR. ZAHRA: I don't hold this against
the Board, what happened. It is unfortunate.
You people have to sort through this. I think
I said it before. You people have been asked
to go beyond the scope of 7our duties. This
is not the purpose of the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Your purpose is to deal with hard-
ships and variances of sort, not to continually
put Band-Aids on the Building Department's
mistakes or abuses of the law. I don't want to
go into any more. I think it is obvious.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
I would like to ask Mr. Cardinale a
question. If you wouldn't mind, sir.
MR. CARD~NALE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will ask if you have
any rebuttal? The question I want to ask is
there appears to be, from visual evaluation
here, two oil tanks or two tanks somewhere
affixed to the property on the ground -- above
the ground. I don't know where they are. Are
there two separate heating systems in this
dwelling?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,.24
25
all?
MR. CARDINALE: I don't know.
Is there any heating system in
MS. SBLENDIDO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
systems at all?
MS. SBLENDIDO:
one electric service,
it at
Yes.
Are there any heating
Yes, two heating systems;
two fuel tanks in the
back. We like to share the house, but we also
like to have separa%e expenses and separate
quarters.
THE CHAIRMAN:
There is no problem.
I just asked a question.
Would you just state your
name for the record, please.
MS. SBLENDIDO: Ann Sblendido.
MR. CARDINALE: Relevant to one point,
which I want to clear up, if you look at your
survey in front of you, I might be missing
something but it has been alleged that our
lot coverage is excessive. I thought it was
about 10 or 15 percent, not even close to 20.
I don't know ~f you just look at the survey,
it a~ears you have lot coverage of 1~334 feet
on a 12,000 and change lot. That doesn't sound
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
22
to me like 20 percent unless my arithmetic
is screwed up.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will review it and
send it to the Building Depa£Lment and ask
them.
like
MR. CARDINALE:
to point out is,
The other thing I would
I have real doubt as to
the extent of the jurisdiction of what the
Board can do here. The way that it was, this
procedure -- the Applicants who, incidentally,
were at all times operating as laymen, the
building review permit review procedure, which
they have complied with, and they have followed,
I think the way the thing is laid out, as you
know, you can't get to you people until the
Building Department says no. $o the Building
Department did not say no here until $167,000
was spent by my clients.
Also, the issues that are brought before
this Board are quite limited. They are to
interpret whether two kitchens necessarily
indicate a two-family dwelling and a variance
for rear yardJfront yard setbacks. Indeedj
if they don't want to put the stoop in and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
we were willing to pull out the piping that
had already been involved in the great room
area, we would not have
Board.
to be in front of this
So I have some question as to the
accuracy of the lot coverage issue and the
jurisdiction of the Board which I would like to
address, and therefore I would like to review
Ms. Ongioni's documents. So I think that I am
going to request a recess of this to allow me
to do that.
THE CHAIRMAN: No problem.
MR. CARDINALE: I would like to discuss
this with my clients, as to her options.
THE CHAIRMAN: I wish you would rather
than having t_h~ Building D~p~r~ment recite the
lot coverage issue, and then you can send it
back to the surveyor and ask him or her to do
so. I mean, is it Mr.
MR. CARDINALE:
Mr. Chairman.
Metzda (pho~e~ic)?
Yes. I can do that,
I can do that and I will.
THE CHAIRMAN:
I have is, does the
200 amps in
The only other question
electrical service exceed
the dwelling?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
me ?
MS. SBLENDIDO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
~'
24
I don't know.
Can you find that out for
bin. CARDINALE:
is the 167,000 spent on a 180,000
which the contract was abandoned.
Among other problems
contract,
I was the
one
Consumer Affairs come to the site. It is
difficult to find out what this guy has done.
I have had a local contractor take a look at
it. I will give you that, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Is there anybody in the audience? Let
me say this first, are you a relative of Dr.
Roche?
that had Mr. Ladderman (phonetic) from the
A VOICE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Would you just tell him
we will personally photocopy the activities
that went on at this meeting and give it to
you, so that he can review that? Please do
that.
Is there anybody at this meeting
tonight that will not be able to come to the
next rescheduled meeting, which will be some
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
~-
25
time in the latter part of August, concerning
this hearing that would like to make a response
tonight? Anybody here, because we are going
to recess?
MR. TASKER: I just would like to
further request, along with Mr. Cardinale,
to narrow the issues to the determination of
what makes a two-family house as having two
kitchens. I would like to ask the Board to
make the determination of whether or not several
exterior entrances, two fuel tanks, two internak
staircases between the first and second floor,
four or five fireplaces constitutes a two-
family house? In other words, what is a
two-family house? I am sure that could be
defined by law. I don't think this Board needs
to make that determination, but we ought to
get an answer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hearing no
further comments at this particular time, what
we will do is recess this to the next regularly
scheduled meeting. We will advertise it along
with all the other hearings that will be adver-
tised, which we don't necessarily have to do
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
~4 .
25
26
but we will so everybody is aware of the next
hearing. I realize some of you are weekenders
or summer people. So we will make every
attempt to have that while you are all still
here, and I want to apologize for the mishap
tonight with extending this hearing longer than
it probably should have been extended. I
appreciate everybody's courtesy and we thank
you very much for coming in.
I will offer that, gentlemen, as a
resolution.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRF~AN: All in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
We will recess
Aye.
Thank yon again.
five minutes. I make a
motion to recess for five minutes.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
(Recess taken at 9:40 p.m.
resumed at 9:45 p.m.)
and hearing
1
CERTIFICATION
27
4
5
6
7
8
I, Gail Roschen, an Official Court Reporter,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
accurate transcript of my stenographic notes taken on
July 25, 1990.
9
10
11
GAIL ROSCHEN
12
13
15
16
~7
23
.24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
:
HEARING, :
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York
July 25, 1990
9:45 P.M.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
BEFORE:
BOARD MEMBERS:
ALSO PRE
SENT:
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR., Absent
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, Absent
JAMES DZ~IZ~O, JR.
DOREEN FERWERDA, Secretary
23
24
25
GAIL ROSCHEN
Official Court Reporter
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
(Continuing Southold Town Zoning Board
of Appeals Hearing, July 25, 1990)
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is Number
3956, in behalf of Lloyd Gates. The legal
notice reads as follows:
"Appeal No. 3956, Lloyd Gates.
Exception to the
Section 100-101B,
Special
Zoning Ordinance, Article X,
for permission to occupay and
use as
tion.
48, Southold, County Tax Map No.
55, Block 5, Lot 7."
I have a copy of the
a Billiard parlor for commercial recrea-
Property Location: 46250 County Road
1000, Section
survey. It
requires a shopping center, which is a one-
story building. This one-story unit of 60 by
60 is out of ~hmt pa~ticu_l~r building, basiczully
towards the west side of the shopping center.
I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in
the area.
Is there somebody that would like to be
heard on behalf of this application?
MR. McGAYHEY: Donald McGayhey. I am
of Counsel this evening to Mike Hall of 1050
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
Youngs Avenue, attorney for the Applicant,
Mr. Lloyd Gates who is sitting on my right
here. Mr. Gates would like to open a billiard
parlor to be located on the North RDad at the
commercial properties, a small shopping center
known as Southold Square. We will be occupying
probably 3,600 square feet. As you know, North
Road is very heavily commercial property. There
are numerous commercial properties located on
both sides of the street. This type of
business is becoming a very growing type of
sport, as you know.
This Board recently approved a billiard
parlor on Main Road, in Mattituck, on May 1,
1990. I feel that our application is very
similar to that application. This is going to
be a family-run business. It will be run by
Mr. Gates and his dad, Lloyd Gates, Sr., who
I might note is a permanent resident of the
Town of Southold.
With respect to the billiard parlor
itself, we plan to have 15 pool tables with
a small snack bar and, with the Board's
permission, we would like to have a maximum of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
f7
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
4
five electronic type of games of entertainment
I would also like to note there will be no
alcohol served nor permitted on the premises.
I wo~ld also like to note I do not believe,
to my knowledge, any of the other adjacent
businesses in the Southold Square sell alcohol.
I don't feel there will be a problem, at all.
Mr. Gates plans to invest a lot of
money in this particular business. I can
assure you that it is going to be well run and
it will be well supergised. He wants to make
it as attractive as possible to the clients
using it as well as to the community on the
whole. I really feel very strongly he is going
to do that. This is at his utmost.
Witch the Board's permission, Mr. Gates
would like to operate seven days a week, Monday
through Sunday. During the following hours,
which I submitted in the file, on Mondays,
Tuesdays, and Wednesdays he would like to start
at 9:00 a.m.
and Friday,
and Sunday,
THE
and run to midnight.
9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
noon to 2:00 a.m.
On Thursday
On Saturday
CHAIRMAN: You said 9:00 a.m. to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
midnight.
MR. McGAYHEY:
on both Monday,
Friday.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. McGAYHEY:
5
Correction. 9:30 a.m.
Tuesday -- Monday through
Right.
This proposed use is
well suited and very compatible to the sur-
rounding properties. The site plan for the
Southold Square was approved as recently as
three years ago. There is ample on-site
parking. In fact, I believe there are approxi-
mately 86 parking spaces, and none of the
present businesses in Southold Square require
any long-term parking. So I really don't
feel that parking is a problem.
As far as traffic is concerned, ~ also
do not feel that the traffic generated by this
type of business will be of any significance.
The building where we will be located is
properly air conditioned, and as far as the
noise is concerned with the door closed all the
time, the noise level will be kept at a minimum.
I would like the record to reflect that
this Special Exception use is again very
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
6
similar to the Special Exception approved for
the billiard parlor which you granted on May
1st, 1990. That one is known as Charlie's
Place. This is significant in the sense that
we are dealing with the same type of traffic,
the same type of parking with the same type of
noise, as well as the compatibility to the
surrounding business properties.
I submit to this Board that our appli-
cation conforms in every respect to the
general standards set forth
Town Building Zoning Codes,
Section 263 and 264.
In conclusion,
in the Southold
specifically
I feel that this use
requires Special Exception approval this
evening, is very compatible witt~ the surrounding
area and will not have an adverse impact on
the surrounding properties or on the surrounding
businesses. Much to the contrary, I think
this type of business located in Southold
Square will be both economically beneficial
to the other businesses as well as socially
beneficial to the community. I would respect-
fully request the Board approve this application.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
'1~
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
7
THE CHAIRMAN: My concern is -- we have
had similar concerns in Mattituck -- and I
will be honest with you. It is not necessarily
with the prior granting of the variance. We
did Special Exceptions. We did for Charlie's
Place, but we do have a problem with starting
as early as they want to open this, with
high school children or students who are of
high school age and who probably should be in
school, and either would skip school for the
specific reason or whatever the case might be.
That can be dealt with in two ways. We could
ask or place in this restriction that no one
under the age of 18 be permitted to play in
this particular establishment, either a video
gam~ or a billiard, until 2:00 p.m. in the
afternoon. Do you have any problem with that?
MR. McGAYHEY: No.
MR. GATES: Roy Gates. I have a problem.
The reason for the 9:30 opening is because we
have discussed it with many people in the
area, and I have been
senior citizen groups.
they are early risers.
informed there are many
I also was informed
What we have intentions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
8
of trying to do is get them involved with the
business and that's why the earlier opening.
Normally, 11:00 or 12:00 is generally when
the billiard clubs do open, but because of the
area we are coming into we would like to try
that kind of opening.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have no problem with
that, as long as you are aware of the fact
we are concerned with that particular issue.
MR. GATES: I understand. I don't
have a problem with under 18 until two°o'clock.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. McGAYHEY:
THE CHAIRMAN:
from any Board members?
.MR. DOY~Iq: No.
THE CHAIRMAN:
up a question.
MR. DINIZIO:
We thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Is there any questions
James, you are conjuring
Just about the video
games. How strongly do you feel about
installing video games in the billiard parlor?
MR. GATES: It is a necessary evil in
some cases. We are limiting it to partial
entertainment. It is not going to be our full
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
9
thrust of business. On a Friday or Saturday
night, sometimes Thursday night, you have a
waiting list to get in. It will give somebody
something to do while they are waiting to play
billiards on the pool table. Our main business
is billiards. I find in particular kids, being
anywhere from 16 to 40, when they have nothing
to do have a tendency to get in a little bit
of trouble -- in the area, at least.
come and there is no table, they will
little something to do.
MR. DINIZIO: Is there an age limit to
people allowed in there?
MR. GATES: We are going to try for
about a 16-year-old age limit.
When they
have a
iv'j~. DIN~ZIO:
probably legally --
MR. GATES:
I mean if somebody
I realize you cannot
Well, there is a fine line.
is a little bit immature to
be in and they're under 16, I have no intention
of letting them stay. For that matter, if
somebody is 42 --
THE CHAIRMAN: My understanding is these
pool tables cost in excess of five to $700
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
:17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
apiece.
MR. GATES:
Our price of the
That's an underassessment.
tables are about, with the
light, it comes close to $3,000 apiece and
you are dealing with 15 tables.
THE CHAIRMAN: So you probably will
watch it very carefully.
MR. GATES: Considering there is no
credit involved, it is cash up front.
THE CHAIRMAN: Because refelting a
table would probably cost you a good portion
of that.
MR. GATES: That runs about $350. It
depends on how often the tables are used.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
~ ther~ anybody ~l~ tha~ would like to
speak in favor?
MR. ZAHRA: Charles Zahra. I think it
is necessary. We need this kind of entertain-
ment on the North Fork due to the fact we have
limited amounts for the kids. Myself, when
I was younger, I played pool until all hours
of the night in my basement, and I think it is
much needed. Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE CHAIRMAN:
question to the attorney.
What is the timeliness
you want to get started on this project?
MR. McGAYHEY: As soon as possible.
THE CHAIRMAN:
have a decision for you very quickly.
I just want to add one
on this? When do
Ail right. We hope to
MR. McGAYHEY: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: .Again we thank you.
Hopefully, we will try to do it tonight.
not guaranteeing it. Thank you.
Hearing no further comments, I make
motion closing this hearing and reserving
decision until after the meeting.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: A~i in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN:
The last hearing on the
agenda is in behalf of Charles Zahra, and we
reconvene that hearing. We ask Mr. Zahra if
he has anything he would like to add, after our
measurements that were taken, and so on and
so forth, approximately three weeks ago on a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Saturday?
speak.
Pardon me. Mr. Bressler is going to
MR. BRESSLER: Wickham, Wickham &
Bressler, P.C., Main Road, Mattituck, New York;
by Eric J. Bressler.
I think since the last time we were
here the Board has had an opportunity to
examine the premises in question.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct.
MR. BRESSLER: I would ask, at this time,
whether the Board has any questions concerning
its examination of the premises?
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I have no questions
as to what is upstairs, at this particular point,
and I hope you don't think -- because it wo~ld
be unkind of me to have you think that I am
questioning anything else -- but in light of
all the things that were discussed, I have
discussed our crackerjack maintenance group
to bring in a blackboard because, as you know,
I was a teacher once and I do have to draw
something as we will continue throughout this
hearing -- just briefly. Hopefully, it won't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
go too lengthy, and do you want me to continue?
MR. BRESSLER: Please.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have a building that
has been reconstructed and rightfully so. MyseLf
and Mr. Dinizio went to the building and we
noticed that major renovations -- major
alterations. I viewed the building. I saw
the whole thing and we realize that in granting
or not granting this apartment, assuming we
granted the apartment, we know that there are
specific elements to the granting of this
apartment and to the further consequences of
this particular building as it exists today.
Obviously I was very happy with the
dealings of the upstairs of the building,
viewing of the upstairs of the building and
so forth. My only concern was that during the
period of time that the building permit was
secured, and regardless of what occurred after,'
that you knew the construction delays and
show cause order and all the rest of the things
that occurred, it was always my opinion that
maybe your friends -- this Applicant -- should
have come in possibly for a variance before this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
14
Board and I am concerned that if in granting
this apartment from this particular Board that
we are not side-stepping further variances that
might have or should have been secured at the
time this particular original project was
started in '86. That is the only thing I am
concerned with, at this time.
MR. BRESSLER: With respect to the
issues you have referred to --
THE CHAIRMAN: Side yard or rear yard,
or whatever the situation is, because we did
have a non-conforming building which was severe
from the property which was reconstructed and,
you know, I am not -- this is not a tantamount
issue to us. We are just concerned about it
at this particular time, and I have not asked
this Board to review it.
I will be perfectly honest with you,
Eric. I am sitting here with an engineer's
report from 1988 that I could have simply
submitted to you and asked you to reflect upon
it. I don't know if I should give it to you.
It clearl3 states that there are in~D~sistenc~
in reference to the non-conformity of this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
15
particular building and I am concerned about
that in light of the fact that we are either
going to grant or deny this apartment as it
exists.
I will be honest with you. I have never,
for the 10 years I have served on this Board,
felt more strongly about granting some portion
of that upstairs apartment. I have not come
up with the figures in reference to -- because
as you know, ~ told you I thought it was
in excess of 750 square feet. We measured it.
It is about 850 or somewhere in that general
range. I have not come up with the figure as
to the minimum size of this apartment as of
this date; this time, five of 10:00 of this
evening. The engineer's report says that the
building was 632 or 635 square feet upstairs.
I am concerned that there was a vast difference
between 632 and 850 -- whatever the case may
be. I am concerned about if the Building
Department or any other agencies in the Town
is not denying this particular building for
either a side yard or a rear yard variance at
the time the construction was commenced, and
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
:17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so on and so forth.
better concerning that?
MR. BRESSLER: Well,
address those concerns one at a time.
with respect to the side yard variance,
16
How can you make me feel
I think we can
I think
I
don't believe that there was any expansion to
either side.
Is that true, Mr. Zahra?
MR. ZAHRA: Correct.
MR. BRESSLER: So I think with respect
to any non-conformity that existed with respect
to the side yard, I think the Board may rest
assured that by v~rtue of this project there
was no additional non-conformity.
THE CHAIRMAN:
you are cli$cussing2
MR. BRESSLER:
Can I draw that while
By all means, of course.
(Chairman drawing diagram on blackboard)
THE CHAIRMAN: I remember the existing
building extending almost to the sidewalk
area. Now I don't know if the sidewalk is the
actual front property line or not. I remember
this little area to the east side of the
building as being -- at one time it was a place
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
17
where they had stored newspapers and later
when the prior owners owned it, it became an
area of dining basically. Now when I looked
at the building which, by the way, was the
first time I was in the building, except when
it didn't have any windows, I took some pictures.
I noticed that the building is actually square~
off like this (indicating). I am directing
this question -- let the record show: What
is the actual area now in between -- when I
say area, we are talking about open side
yard between the existing building and the
property line, or The Broken Down Valise which
is a bar?
MR. BRESSLER: First of all, I would
ask Charlie to answer your quest/on, Mr.
Chairman, and also do a little work on that
drawing there and reflect what, in fact, was
there and what was done.
So do it, Charlie.
(Mr. Zahra drawing diagram on black-
board)
MR. ZAHRA: The area between The
Valise and my building are 140 Pike Street --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
I only guesstimate it is in the area of 10
feet or less -- or less variance.
MR. BRESSLER: Is The Broken Down
Valise, to your knowledge, on the property
line?
MR. ZAHRA: Yes, to my knowledge, right
on the property line. Now, the street side
as you show it here, you are correct. That
is the right-of-way -- it used to be, and this
had that overhang on there -- the entrance.
I set it back approximately three feet.
MR. BRESSLER: Charlie, why don't you
show them the solid line as the old and the
dotted line as the new, and make it nice and
easy for everybody to look at.
MR. ZAHRA: One of the reasons for that
one is to allow for clear access for the stoop,
make it large enough -- three feet plus.
MR. BRESSLER: So the dotted is the old.
MR. ZAHRA:
straight line.
MR. BRESSLER:
Right. Right on the
Now do the side yard.
MR. ZAHRA: The west side yard is
exactly the same, and I would have to put that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at approximately five
where it was.
THE CHAIRMAN:
property line.
MR. ZAHRA:
off -- ten inches.
You had a doorway.
THE CHAIRMAN:
~1~9-
inches which is exactly
Five inches from the
Approximately. I could be
The rear yard is the same.
Well, there was some
MR.
MR.
portion was extended and squared off.
stayed the same as per plan.
MR. ZAHRA: A doorway on the left. That
wou]-d be the southwest corner, but otherwise,
the footprints stayed the same.
BRESSLER: The east side.
ZAHRA: The east side in the front
That
now?
around.
code
ments?
MR. BRESSLER: How big is the building
MR. ZAHRA: 30 by 50 feet.
THE CHAIRMAN: Ail corners, all the way
MR, ZAHRA: Exactly perfectly rectangular.
TH~ CHAI~4AN: At the time that the old
existed, what was the side yard require-
That is the question I have. Was it
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ten feet? I mean, we have a non-conforming
building here. There is no contest on this
side. My only question is based upon the east
and is
side of the building.
it still 10 feet?
MR. BRESSLER:
In any event, my question to Charlie:
you go up any closer to that side?
MR. ZAHRA: No. No.
Was it 10 feet,
I believe that to be so.
Would
MR. BRESSLER:
you are required to
MR. ZAHRA:
prints with that.
Except for the firewall
put up.
We stayed within the foot-
We held that back to install
that eight-inch wall that was
required by the Building Department.
within the footprints.
MR. BRESSLER: I
unnecessarily
We stayed
think in answer to your
question, Mr. Chairman:
make you feel better, to
that? I think with respect to the
What can we do to
reassure you about
front, we
can say we move it back off the road, which
was a good thing. With respect to the rear on
the west side, we don't change it. With
respect to the east side, we get no closer to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
the property line.
THE CHAIRMAN: What about the rear
property line? What is that presently?
_j~ -
21
MR. ZAHRA: Why don't I just refer to
the map.
THE CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MR. BRESSLER: About 40 feet, Mr.
Chairman, more or less based on the length of
the property line at roughly four or five feet
between -- three and five feet along the front,
a leg length of about 50 feet and subtract that
from 95 feet. You come out to roughly 40
one foot five inches on that one side.
MR. ZAHRA: The west wall, I said five
or six inches. It is 1.6.
MR. BRESSLER: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is presently where
it is now.
was
dropped
print.
MR. ZAHRA:. Yes, definitely.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now the Planning Board --
MR. ZAHRA: If you recall, the building
raised and excavated. Plumb lines were
from the building to keep that foot-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
22
MR. BRESSLER: Now the Planning Board
raised the parking lot requirement because of
the parking lot in the rear. They waived the
site plan.
MR. ZAHRA:
was sent?
THE CHAIRMAN:
This was two years ago.
that.
Did you notice that letter
MR. BRESSLER:
Board did waive.
MR.
Mr. Horton.
I am refreshing myself.
several occasions -- more than several
occasions -- regarding the planning -- what
have you. He handled it on his own4 I did
not see that letter for quite some time.
was not until I accessed the file that I
that letter. I was never
letter.
MR. BRESSLER: Ail we knew was that it
was taken care of, I guess, from our point of
view; that the letter, whatever the letter
reflects we presume is what happened. Not to
It
saw
sent a copy of that
Yes. The Planning
ZAHRA: That letter was sent to
I had spoken to Mr. Lessard on
So you are aware of
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
duck the question,
THE CHAIRMAN:
to the first floor,
23
but we didn't do it.
So I think with respect
I think it is plain that
there was no additional -- if there was a non-
conforming there was no additional conforming
by moving closer to the line. What we have
is a beneficial situation in the front.
The other question I have is -- I
apologize. I said 8/23. I have an engineer's
report which reads original second floor to
be a total of 653 which presently is 876.
MR. BRESSLER: Well, okay. What I can
say to that is as per the plans, we calculated
and showed to members of the Board what was
there and what was not there.
how the engineer calculated it.
physically measuring it with a
I am not sure
I know
tape, what we
came up with and I know that
appreciate the Board's concern.
I don't know how he did it. I
to be so. I can
Quite frankly,
know what was
added and I know what Charlie showed.
how many
and that
respect to that.
feet that was.
is what Charlie
I am a
I know
That is what I know,
showed you with
little bit at a loss tc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
understand it, and
work
OBi
basically no second story at
he went there to look at it.
may have overmeasured or --
MR. BRESSLER:
don't know.
24
I can't make the figures
from the plans or With the tape measure.
MR. ZAHRA: The only thing I can reflect
first off, was the fact that there was
the time I assume
He quite possibly
-- or undermeasured. We
I. think that the plan basiCal!y of
Mr.'Ts~n~akis basically~ ~peaks for themselves
on that issue and draws to show not only the
existing building but the changes to the
building. I think they support all calculations
and to the extent there is a difference, I
don't understand it but I know we have approved
plans that show the numbers as we represented
them to the Board and I think that is about
all we can say oh that issue without knowing
about the methodology which I take it is not
reflected in the report.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes,
afford you~a copy of it.
afford you a copy of this and,
it is. I have to
I think we will
after the hearing,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
~24
25
25
we will give it to you and if you care to
comment concerning it you are very welcome.
MR. BRESSLER: Basically it is what
can you live with? We are talking about 225
square feet from the original to the present.
I thin~ first of all, that is just not accurate
based upon your viewing of the premises; and,
secondly, I think that the increase in the
size of the apartment was reflected almost
in total by the rerouting for safety reasons
of the staircase. I think the measurements
of the staircase area and of the adjoining
landing area represent the large bulk of the
apartment change as laid out, and but for that
I think we are basically in the same situation
as were be£ore. I think it is probably a
situation that we don't want to be in.
THE CHAIRMAN: One second. Can we
just get a clean copy of this for you?
MR. BRESSLER: I am looking at the
renovation plans again.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is very rare that
we do that. So just hold on one second,
Counselor.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
Let the record show this was a report
that was requested by the prior Town Attorney,
from the firm of Sidney Bowne and Son, 45
Manor
the
the
Road, Smithtown, dated October 20, 1988,
Town of Southold. It was approved by
Town Attorney and it was performed by this
firm and at a cost to the Town.
Now, gentlemen, I would certainly love
to wrap this up tonight. But I don't want to
cause you problems trying to answer questions
without going through things. So you tell me
what you want to do. We are here.
MR. ZAHRA:
say one thing.
when I say it.
Jerry, I would just like to
I don't want to sound arrogant
So I will say it with a smile.
I think I have given more documentation
on this particular case than anyone has ever
given in the entire history of the Southold
Town. Not just back to '58 -- '57. I am
talking about the entire history, 350 years.
I have been sliced, diced and looked under a
microscope. The only thing you have not done
is ask me for a urine sample to see if I do
drugs, and I am telling you right now I am
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
prepared to do it. That
left. I say it with a smile.
THE CHAIRMAN:
BRESSLER:
27
is the only thing
I understand.
MR. Let me just make several
comments. First of all, Mr. Chairman, what
did you measure the second floor to be?
THE CHAIRMAN:
I did it together.
MR. BRESSLER:
Whatever we did, you and
Eight twenty something
or 810 and the reason it came out to be that
is instead of 876 as shown on the plans, was
because of the front which had been pointed
out to the Board. So we are dealing with at
least on its face a number closer to 800 than
to 870.
T~ C~ULIR~N: What do you calculate
the original to be?
MR. ZAHRA: Let me back up a moment and
say that in looking at Sidney Bowne's cal-
culations, it appears that Sidney Bowne's
calculations are based on the tax card.
MR. BRESSLER: What we are basing our
calculations on is very simple. If you look
at the plans, you will see that the plans call
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
~4
25
28
for an addition on the side yard where the
stairway is and the landing. The plan also
shows a shortened rear of the building, and
a front that goes to the street. When the
Board looked at the building it saw that what
was happening was the front yard got set
back and the rear got set back. So we take
the existing line of the building as shown on
this approval plan and we say we will move it
back. That takes care of that.
Then we look at 16 times roughly 7, or
8, over here and say that is the increase in
the area, but it is a very simple calculation.
I think with all due respect to Mr. Bowne,
his reliance upon some billing that the Tax
Department did on some rough approximation is
just not accurate and, not the Tsontakis plans
so clearly where the lines are and actually
have dimensions on them and that they reflect
what happened. The fact the Board can see,
and we went out and measured, you can see the
building was moved back and we calculate'
the difference to be just in that area shown
on the sides -- which calculates -- or where
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~7
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
one dimension is not shown -- somewhere between
7 or 8 times 16. What does that come out to
be? Somewhere between 112 and 128 square
feet of which the stairway itself constitutes
approximately 30 some square feet, as the
Board can see.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is the original or
now?
MR. BRESSLER: The increase in area now
is somewhere between 112 and 128 square feet
of which 30 to 40 some square feet consists
of the stairway ifself.
THE CHAIRMAN: So just so I understand
it --
MR. BRESSLER: Let me draw this.
(Mr. Bressler drew a diagram on the
blackboard and discussion was held off the
record)
THE CHAIRMAN:
out originally, the
MR. BRESSLER:
You say that was taken
653.
653, whatever, they
were calculating, we represented by the
dotted line. We have the dimensions and you
can read them right off the plan. When we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
30
are looking at the stairway and the landing,
that is what the addition consists of. So
this Board is concerned about the fact there
is additional square footage. I would only
say, based upon a visual inspection, it clearly
appears it consists of the stairway generally
and the landing area with maybe a few feet to
spare. That is what that consists of.
MR. ZAHRA: I would like to ditto what
he said, and add that fact, that this was done
simply for the betterment, to remove the
entrance to the upstairs from the street to
the alleway to prevent any congestion or
accidents happening to people opening their
doors onto the sidewalk.
THE CHAIRMAN: If you say that, we have
approximately 80 square feet. Is that correct?
take,
MR. BRESSLER:
please.
THE CHAIRMAN:
80 -- I mean give or
Excluding the stairway,
is that correct? When we sat here at the
prior hearing they questioned the scope of
the Zoning Board. We took four and one-half
hours on a house in New Suffolk, four and one-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
31
half hours of testimony and the difference
between the house being measured with the
shingles on the house and without the shingles
being on the house. We need not engage in
that. If we took the
MR. BRESSLER:
making the --
THE CHAIRMAN:
653 and added 80 to --
-- plus the stairway area,
-- if we could arrive
at 730 square feet as the original, could we
say the original apartment wi~h the stairwell
730 square feet?
BRESSLER: I think that would be a
in that area, because
somewhere in that
was about
MR.
fair statement, somewhere
the 120 -- is that right,
area because --
T~E CILAXRMAN:
approximately about 135
more at this particular
-- so we have here
to 140 square feet,
time, based upon whatever
this report showed or our visual calculations
show when we went to the site and developed the
figures that we developed that day. Is that
correct?
MR. BRESSLER: I would shave it down to
somewhere in that ball park. I would say you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
32
have gross between 112 to 128 more, and when
you net out the stairway you have somewhere
between 80 and 95 of floor space necessitated,
of course, by having to have a place to be when
you arrive at the top of the stairs.
THE CHAIRMAN:
stairwell out of
today within the
is how large now?
blR. BRESSLER:
Assuming we took out the
the square footage that exists
apartment. That stairwell
The stairwell looks to
be maybe 40 square feet.
THE CHAIRMAN: So we are talking there
abouts of 820 square feet,
general area.
MR. BRESSLER: No.
somewhere in that
We think that would
be 780 because we think ~e only go 820 to
start with.
THE CHAIRMAN: We don't know if this
is inside or outside.
It probably is the outside -- inside
dimensions as opposed to the outside of the
house.
You have to 10p off
MR. BRESSLER:
the front.
Lop off 60 feet maybe.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
You are down to around 820 less 40.
You are down to about 780, and
that was somewhere in the vicinity of 710
to 720 when we started that house.
I think that ought to afford the
Board some comfort about the scope of the
additional square footage.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have to understand
there was a two-year time lapse, and I am
sure you are aware of this ~c~use of the
corresponding documents going between the
Court and attorneys and so on and so forth.
My only other question to you is: Do you
want to digest this and reflect upon it, or
do you want to drop it at this particular point
knowing that it is part of the record?
I will use the phrase again, it would
be unkind of me to drop it because I am placing
it in the file. I will give you a copy of
it. I don't know what we are going to use.
I don't know what we are not going to use. I
will tell you this: We could have asked you
to petition the Langers (phonetic) to come in
here and testify -- raise their right hands.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
I could have engaged in the firm of Sidney
Bowne and asked Robert Bowne to come in --
raise his right hand. We didn't do that. I
told you in the outset of this hearing that
we are trying to clear this up in my own mind,
and that was the purpose of the question.
I just want you to know we are trying to do
this as systematically as possible.
MR. BRESSLER: Let me ask the Board a
question or two.
plan I submitted, we have proceeded with
calculations that can certainly be verified
by the use of a ruler.
I think we verified, if recollection
serves me right, somewhere in the area of
think based on the approved
Sidney Bowne. I don't think we worked off the
tax card. It is probably an appropriate way
and should be afforded any weight as compared
to the Tsontakis plans. I think clearly the
Board will
deserves.
As to the other issues,
have to give that what weight it
I would have a
820 was arrived at. With the use of the ruler,
we arrived at that figure with respect to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1:7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
question or two for the Board. In the first
instance, this letter appears to state that
the questions to be addressed is clearly what
area has been reconstructed or structurally
altered. Although we did agree with their
calculations, I don't think they are sig-
nificantly off.
I think, based upon their erroneous
reliance on the tax map, and I have got to
note at this point I am somewhat surprised
by that, Mr. Chairman, considering the fact
Sidney Bowne must have had available to him
the plan.
THE CHAIRMAN: We don't know. He is
not here. Let's not reflect upon it, just as
I can't recall Steve Tsontakis who, unfortu-
nately, has expired from this Earth. Sidney
Bowne is not here.
MR. BRESSLER: Nevertheless, I note they
compute their computations of what we may
differ. I note they have computed a net
increase in the area of 32 percent, thus
within the 50 percent requirement. I would
ask that the Board, in the first instance, if
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that is the test
-- has that been
THE CHAIRMAN:
point.
36
that they are applying and
applied by the Board?
I am not sure, at this
MR. BRESSLER: I don't know that. I
would also note that the conclusions of this
letter seem to state that they -- based on
the foregoing facts and evidence, it can only
be concluded that more than 50 percent of the
fair market value of the building has been
exceeded by alteration activities. I am at
a loss from understanding that, from looking
at their report, other than to show that their
portion of the building has been worked on,
I'm at a complete loss to understand that as
~ ~h~k the Board is probably as well.
THE CHAIRMAN: The first floor area has
been taken care of by the discussions we had
before. So I am investigating the first floor
evaluation from this report. It was only
dealing with the second floor, which is what we
significantly went through back and forth.
MR. BRESSLER: That raises an interesti~
issue and I am a little at a loss to know
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
2.4
25
37
exactly how the Board wishes to proceed. I
see now that the Board is going to exclude
the first floor from consideration.
TaE C~AIRMAN: Not the Board, just me.
We will certainly work from that, at least for
the time being.
MR. BRESSLER: With respect to that
issue I would like some guidance from the
Board as to what standard is going to be
applied with respect to the 50 percent rule.
If the Board is concerned about the 50 percent
rule, let me state four things:
First, that with respect to the appli-
cation of the rule, the first instance at least
the Chairman has correctly discerned that the
actual square footage of the building c~anged
very little.
2) That 50 percent rule in this Town
is somewhat problematic as amended, that at
the last hearing date -- and we are prepared
either at this time or probably at the
beginning of what looks like another session --
to go forward with evidence that we wish to
direct the Board's attention to concerning what
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
we believe to be rather than your
of the 50 percent rule in this Town.
think it exists. I think we know it.
38
application
We don' t
I think
the Board is aware of it, and I think the Board
now knows this rule has been applied and I
think we want it applied to us the same way,
and that's basically not at all because it
doesn't apply in this Town and everybody knows
that if you tear a building down and you
build it in the footprints you are okay and
we are prepared to show that.
Third, Subdivision E, Paragraph E, this
50 percent rule, to apply exceeding aggregate
cost 50 percent of the fair value of the
building. You will note there is no definition
contained in this section that leaves open the
fair value of the building. What is the fair
value of this building? We are prepared at
the next session to tell you what the fair
value of that building is.
MR. ZAHRA: In dollars and cents.
MR. BRESSLER: Yes. I know what a good
way to figure out what the value of a building
like this is, to ask what the replacement cost
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is, and he didn't put in more
of the replacement cost.
the building on the basis
approach?
evidence,
applied. Mr.
of that value,
39
than 50 percent
Couldn't we evaluate
of the income
Couldn't we do that? We will present
and the applicable multiplier to be
Zahra has not exceeded 50 percent
and with respect to valuing
the building those are.the two ways I know
to value that building. I don't see anything
in this report except a conclusory assessment
to the effect that he has violated it, and
with that in mind I think we probably all had
about enough and I am going to digest this
report and ask the Board for some guidance on
that issue.
THE CHAIRMAN:
necessary, Mr. Bressler.
reason why. That was the
I don't think it is
I will tell you the
reason I asked the
question regarding the first floor area. The
second floor area is the one of concern to
me because that is the area where the signifi-
cant increase appears to be. I mean it is
assumed that the east side of the building
was closed up. That is from that original foot-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
.24
25
40
print. There is no question about it.
MR. BRESSLER: That is true.
THE CHAIRMAN: As long as it did not
encroach any closer to the side yard area,
which is something I wanted to know for myself.
As for the 50 percent rule, I cannot answer
for my two colleagues here or the two that
are not feeling well tonight, one of which
went through a serious operation. I don't know
if it is a fair question, at this particular
point. I would personally think we should
close the hearing at this point. But that is
entirely up to you.
MR. BRESSLER: Well, at this juncture
let me ask one or two questions. I will then
con, ant to closing th~ h~aringo
Mr. Zahra, with respect to the building
as it existed, what rent did you anticipate
receiving with respect to upstairs and down-
they existed?
stairs as
MR. ZAHRA: First off,
say I had several avenues to
I would like to
follow, one of
which being renting upstairs and downstairs.
MR. BRESSLER: That is what I want to
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
hear about.
MR. ZAHRA: The other possibility of
utilizing them -- from the rental upstairs
would bring in the neighborhood of $700 a
month; downstairs I would say in the neighbor-
hood of $2,500 a month fully equipped.
MR. BRESSLER: In estimating the market
value of this building now that we arrive at
roughly 36 to $40,000 in rent per year, what
multiplier would you use in evaluating that
building?
MR. ZAHRA: On the return basis --
eight --
MR. BRESSLER: Eight would yield a
12 percent return. That is on the income
approach. The Board can do the simple
arithmetic. Now, Mr. Zahra, with respect to
the replacement cost of that building as it
existed prior to the renovation, do you know
how much the replacement cost of that building
was?
MR. ZAHRA: I have here a letterhead
from Mr. John Scaranucci, who is a carpenter
in Mattituck, Post Office Box 1150. He has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
42
prepared me an estimate of replacement cost
based on the original footprint, and briefly
it says here a bid on the formation -- I would
say that $130 per square foot is a fair cost.
That would make the actual replacement value
of the Coffee Pot $250,800.
Is that complete with
THE CHAI~V~N:
all fixtures and all?
MR.
MR.
BRESSLER: As it existed.
ZAHRA: It states in there -- I
would prefer to have you make a copy of that
and give me that back because my copter is
not working too well.
MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Zahra, have you
expended to date an amount which would exceed
one-half of either of those fair market values
on the building?
MR. ZAHRA: Definitely not.
MR. BRESSLER: Have you expended
$50,000 on the building to date?
MR. ZAHRA: No.
MR. BRESSLER: I don't have any
questions for Mr. Zahra. Mr. Chairman,
you have any questions
further
do ~
or members of the Board?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
43
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't understand what
you just said about the $50,000.
MR. BRESSLER: Have you expended less
than the sum of $50,000 without going into
detail -- and the answer was yes,
%hat number. That number is far
5~ percent of the fair market,
replacement or income approach.
less than
less than
either on
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. BRESSLER: The last item --.without
belaboring the Board, I am going to refer to
certain files by number and ask that they
be deemed part of the record and leave it at
that without going into detail about what they
show or do not show. They are relevant to
the issue which I m~ntioned before. They are
files issued under Permit Numbers 14725, 13192,
14553, 15104, 17524. I would ask they be
deemed part of the record. The nature of these
items, as I said, they were basically four
issues on that 50 percent rule. These speak
to Issue Number Two, which there is no such
rule in this Town. And without going into
detail, without further belaboring the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
point, I think the documents speak for them-
selves, and if they do not I will be pleased
to answer anything in writing with respect
to those files.
THE CHAIRMAN:
I make a motion closing the hearing.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
Hearing no further comments,
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Appeal Number 3915, we
and let Mr. Tsunis go.
Aye.
On Jordan's Partners,
took it out of sync
There were other people
tonight, and we took it out of sync. What
we did, we gave him a letter requesting that
he divulge the memb~r~ of the corporation. We
further recessed the hearing to the next
regularly scheduled meeting, waiting for a
decision from the Planning Board on the evalu-
ation of the site plan and we will close the
hearing if -- or if we do not receive the site
plan evaluation at the next regularly
scheduled meeting.
(Time noted: 10:55 p.m.)
CE RTI FT CAT I ON
I, Gail Roschen, an Official Court Reporter,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
accurate transcript of my stenographic notes taken on
July 25, 1990.
9
10
11
Gk!-L ROSCH~N~-
12
13
15
16
20
23
24