HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/30/1992 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING OF
TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1992
Board Members Present: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer
Members: Doyen, Grigonis, Dinizio, Villa
Secretary for ZBA: Linda Kowaiski and approximately 30 persons
in the audience.
APPEAL # 4113
Apl~Hcant: Reynold Blum (Peconic Bay Vineyards, Inc.)
Location of l~roperty: 31320 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY
County Tax Map No.: 1000-103-1-part of 19.11
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:30 p.m. and read the Legal
Notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating this
particular parcel on State Road 25, which is approximately across from
Cutcho~ue Auto Parts or the shopping center, from Roderick VanTuyl
dated May 30, 1985 amened June 11, 1985, July 10, 1985 and July 23,
1985. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax map indicating this
and surround~"~roperties in the area. Mr. Blum would you like to be
heard?
MR. REYNOLD BLUM: I am here to answer any questions you h~ve Jerry.
Is there any statement necessary?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No.
MR. BLUM: Other than that we are just trying to remove that condition.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. At the time of the construction of the
building, the upstairs was probably used for storage.
MR. BLUM: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And subsequent to that then, you have made a
conversion To an apartment ares which you are utilizing yourself.
MR. BLUM: Correct, right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of the total properties that Peconic Bay
Vineyards owns, what is the total acreage in that general vacinity?
MR. BLUM: I have approximately twenty-five (25) acres and then we
have the three (3) acres next door, which my father owns.
Page 2
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is the one that has the old Orlowski
residence on it and the barn and so on and so .forth?
MR. BLUM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like
to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against
the application? Questions from Board members?
MEMBER VILLA: Is this going to'be a rental apartment? Or are you
basically going to use it yourself.
MR. BLUM: No, it is for myself.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again, for the audience, in reading the Legal
Notice, this property was zoned R-80 under the old Zoning Code, it is
presently RO. Hearing no further comments, I have no particular
objection to this application also. I will make a motion to grant it
as applied for, which is the relief of that Condition ~ 1 under the
original special exception.
End of hearing.
Lorraine A. Miller
(Transcribed by tapes recorded 6/30/92)
Page 3
PubHc Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
APPEAL # 4100
Applicant(s): Thomas J. McCarthy
Location of Property: 1270 Fourth Street and 305 King Street,
New Suffolk, NY
County Tax Map No.: 1000-117-7-8
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:32 p.m. and read the Legal
Notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This a reconvened meeting from May 7, 1992 from
Thomas J. McCarthy, as contract vendee, parcel property down in New
Suffolk, which contains four (4) nonconforming houses, or cottages. We
will ask Mr. McCarthy if there is anything he would like to add to the
record. I know that there was some request that was made of one (1)
Board member of you, at the time, and I think you have written a letter
back, indicating that something with Suffolk county Health Dept. that
you did not want to continue with that, or something of that nature.
MR. THOMAS J. McCARTHY: That is correct. What I am looking for is a
determination from the Zoning Board, based on a zoing matter, so that I
can carry it further to the other Boards, such as the Health Dept. and
anything else that is necessary. Basically, it is a matter of
economics as well, because of the fees that are associated' with them
that I would rather not go throw my money away, if it is going to a
negative determination from your Board.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Let me just ask, do you have any
questions Bob on this one? I know you were the one who asked Mr.
McCarthy to go to the Health Dept.
MEMBER VILLA:Yes, because I thinK, you know, I know, coming out of
the Health Dept., I know that their feelings on density. And here was
especially in an area where they are dependant on private wells. And,
I feel that the likelihood of Mr. McCarthy getting four (4) lots out of
that, is very, very slim. I was hoping that perhaps we would get
something from the Health Dept. to guide us.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As a guide line?
MEMBER VILLA: I can't vision them going the four (4) lots down there
in my wildest imagination.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you a question Tom. As you know, the
nature of this Board sometimes is to grant alternate relief, okay.
We are, of couse, in the position of either granting or not granting
for granting alternate relief. I very rarely ask this of an applicant
but, I will ask you now. Do you want us, in the matter of compromise
to grant alternate relief in this, rather than if we cannot come to an
agreement with those four (4) individual lots?
Page 4
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR. McCARTHY: Alternate relief would be certainly something I would
be willing to work with the Board on.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. Because as I said, I haven't polled the
Board on..; This is just the way it ended on May 7th and, you know,
we're back again. I know that you are under contract, you are kind of
under the gun on this thing. And for the record, I did see Mr.
McCarthy in Riverhead at one time, on my way to the barber shop' and he
did tell me that he wants to get going on this and I can understand his
situation. Judge, would you like to say something for the record? It
is so nice to see you.
JUDGE RAYMOND EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My
name is Raymond Edwards. I am brought here as a concerned citizen in
the Town of Southold. We have an opportunity here for four (4) houses
that would be opened up to the low income portion of the Town, which is
very important. And I think the Board should look favorable, favorably
on this request. I thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. We did get One (1) letter today,
in opposition, not necessarily from an adjoining property owner and,
certainly you are welcomed to look at the letter. I don't think I have
a copy of the letter.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I gave him a copy earlier.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, you gave him a copy, great. Is there
anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application?
Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands .....
Any further questions from any Board members? Just for the record
again, Tom, we have four (4) separate, nonconforming buildings,
dwellings, okay, with four (4) separate heating systems, no
interrelationship to your knowledge of cesspools, they are standing in
their own stead on approximate lot lines as drawn in this particular
aistuation here. Mr. Dinizio and I did go down ourselves, and I am
sure the other Board members went themselves and looked at the
property. We are aware of it. I don't have any other, anything to
really add for the record, to be honest with you.
MR. McCARTHY: The only thing that I would Hke to add, if I may, I am
definitely willing to work with the Board on alternate relief and I
would just ask the Board to consider the time frame that I am under, I
am contractually bound to perform in some matter, and it would be
taking a stab in the dark for me to go further in my contract without
some sort of notification from your Board.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, okay', no problem.
MR. McCARTHY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further comment, I make a motion
closing the hearing, reserving decision until later.
Page 5
PubHc Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
End of hearing.
Lorraine A. Miller
(Transcribed by tapes recorded 6/30/92.)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We do have rather a short meeting tonight, the
last hearing will take up approximately an hour, but I am with great
hope that we will be able to dispose of the majority of the
applications thai we have tonight. And, I don't know, we may get into
a dead look here, but we will do the best we oan for you.
Page 6
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
APPEAL #4098
Applicant(s): Tony and Maria Kostoulas
Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY
County Tax Map No: 1000-21-2-13
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:40 p.m. and read the
Legal Notice and application for the record,
~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This has been an ongoing application with us, it
~ concerns a deck or the actual using up of the majority of these peoples
~ property in the rear of their house. Within the new coastal zone
~'.:' management area, the Trustees, basically, evaluation is what we are
~ looking for here. And they haven't at this time, given us an
approximate recommendation of what we are looking for in reference to a
recommendation from them. So, therefore, I will propose to the Board
. .~ that we further recess this hearing until the meeting in the end of
August. Do we have a figure for that. We will readvertise it anyway.
It will probably be approximately the 30th of August. So I will offer
that gentlemen as a resolution.
MEMBER DOYEN: Second.
· : CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is no one in the audience that wanted to
·: discuss Kostoulas2is there? Okay.
': End of hearing.
Lorraine A. Miller
(Transcribed by tapes recorded 6/30/92)
Page 7
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
APPEAL # 3975
Applicant(s): Arthur G. Carlson
Location of Property: 1575 Lower Road, Southold
County Tax Map No.: 1000-
The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:46 p.m. and read the
Legal Notice and application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next hearing, the 7:45 hearing is the
application of Arthur G. Carlson and this has been recessed from a
prior meeting, we had one surrounding or contiguous property owner that
had come in requesting, actually didn't request, I had invited him and
[ did get a call from the gentleman. And he is out the Country again,
and we said we would only take testimony from you and he and if you.
have anything that you would like to add for the record, we would be
very happy to accept it, close the hearing, seal it, and then start
deliberating.
MR. GOGGINS: Okay, will the letter be made part of the hearing?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: His letter?
BOARD SECRETARY: It has been.
MR. GOGGINS:Okay. I remember he was to brought here, which I
remember to be strictly for a factual inquiry as to the allegations
made about noxious odors. And, if he hasn't appeared, Mr. Carlson just
gave me a copy of the letter dated June 28th that he submitted, and
they aren't any factual allegations of any noxious odors. It is just a
bunch of quasi-legal conclusions about what is right and what it
wrong. But the issue, I think, was whether noxious odors eminated from
the premises and there has been no showing. And, in fact~ Mr. Klos,
the adjacent property owner, who is so concerned about his property and
the smells eminating, allegedly eminating from Carlson residence, I
mean, he should have gone here, he hasn't shown up for any others. The
other property, adjacent property owner that we are talking about now,
he hasn't shown up for any of them. The only one that seems to have
any real interest is Mr. Flynn, who lives on the other side on Town,
five (5) miles away. So, I think the issue of noxious odors is almost
a non-issue, because nothing has been presented here which indicates
noxious odors have eminated from the premises. I am sure there is some
smell, there's got to be, but as far as them being noxious and carrying
over to the other premises, I think it is important for the Board to
note that, there hasn't been any testimony to that effect.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did, for the record, just want to tell you,
this gentleman did cai] me, Mr. Moraillon. And, I had only questioned
him briefly on the phone in the method that he had taken in writing the
letter to the newspaper and mv responding to it and so on and so
Page 8
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (con't.): forth. He felt that he was in his right
to do so, and'I said, I agree with him, he. certainly was within his
right. And it was my right to to answer him. And that was basicslly
the extent of the discussion. There really was not much of any other
discussion. And he did tell me that he would write the letter, the
file letter, which, of course, we did receive and you are aware of and
so on and so forth. The only thing that I have not, and of course the
audience is not aware of, but, except for the people that were at the
last hearing, but, I have not again seen the conch steaming. So, again
I request that within the next coUple of weeks, just give us a call and
let us know what day you are doing it or what evening or whatever, and
we can just zip right down there. And, it would be greatly appreciated.
We are not to deliberate on this hearing tonight, I can tell you that
right now. Because I sufficiently don,t think that I am ready to do so
until I see that, okay? And that is basically the situation.
MR. GOGGINS: As far as the nine (9) page letter submitted by Mr.
Flynn and his current letter by Mr. Moraillon, the only problem I have
with it's submission, is the fact that I can't confront him with the
allegations he makes. And that is where a big problem in credibility
and due process {s concerned.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you do this then. Why don't you
confront him by letter, okay. And then let him respond by letter and
we will put those letters in the file.
MR. GOGGINS: Alright, that is fair.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay?
MR.' GOGGINS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I really don't mean to continue this hearing, I
am going to seal the hearing at this point, but I am not going to close
it tonight. I am going to close it on the 30th, the 29th. I am not
closing it until the 29th.
BOARD SECRETARY: If anything else comes in, in writing, we will have
to accept it (in the mean time).
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We want to accept it, because he wants to
confront... Let us do this, let us not seal it at this point. We are
going to leave it open, just briefly. If he should happen to ~how up
after you write him the letter and he wants to say something on
July 30 -- July 29th, right?
BOARD SECRETARY: ~Right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The 29th of July, then we will let him do so, if
he wants to, but at least you will have an attempt anyway to confront
him, i am talking about Mr. Moraillon. You will have an attempt, at
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (con't.): least by writing, and maybe he will
come back down or whatever the case maybe.
Page 9
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR. GOGGINS: Or apply by writing. I just don't want it to be a paper
chase, because it seems that's what it has been. If I put in an
opposition, I am going to get another twenty (20) page, ten (10) or
twenty (20) page response from Mr. Flynn, Mr. Moraillon, we will copy
it. It is pointless, because ii is just bunch of allegations going
back and forth. Maybe I should talk with Mr. Carlson for a moment and
see if he wants to seal it now and just get it over with or whether he
would like us to oppose.
CLAUDE CARLSON: I would like to sea] it. I don't see any point in
going back and forth with more paper work. I think all the questions
have been answered. I think they have ali the information they need.
MR. GOGGINS: Okay, we request that the hearing be closed to all
responses.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask the Board. Is there ansrthing
that you guys think that you might want to deal with from the applicant
after we see the conches being steamed? Now remember, this hearing is
an interpretation, okay, we are comparing aquaculture and farming,
okay. If that is the case, I have all intentions of having a special
meeting, okay, to discuss the new procedures that start on July 1st,
sometime around the middle of the month, so we could always close it at
that meeting, you know, if you want. You want to close it then, or do
you want to close ii now?
BOARD SECRETARY: Well, we could re-advertise it and re-open it, if
it is necessary.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We could do that too. Okay, let us dO that.
MR. GOGGINS: What are we going to do?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will close it. Okay, if need be, after we
see the procedure and we have to, we can always readve:~tise it. They
WIll be no deliberation on this until well after that, so that I can
tell you right now that we are not going to deliberate until the 30th
of July.
MR. GOGGINS: Okay, as far as the Board coming out to see the conch
operation, what is convenient to the Board? Early evening or...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Early evening, any time after 4:30 pm., §:00 pm.
is alright with me. I don't .work then.
MR. CARLSON: We haven't been doing any of that lately. We are
usually done by 4:00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Any specific days, Claude, that you do it?
MR. CARLSON: No, it depends on weather and production, but I can call
you after the weekend on whatever it would be, like on the 6th or
something and tell you it would be Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday,
Page 10
PubHc Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
whichever day you want to come. It will be at least three (3) days
that we will be working. YOu can pick whichever day you want, anytime
between a three (3) hour period basically.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, as long as I come between 1:00 and 4:00 or
something like that.
MR. CARLSON: Right. I can call you and tell you which days we will
be operating between which hours, and you can come anytime you like.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is great, terrific.
MR. CARLSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further comment, I make a
motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until after we observe
the remaining operation.
End of hearing.
· Lorraine A. Milier
(Transcribed by tapes recorded 6/30/92)
Page 11
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
APPEAL # 4091
Applicant(s): Eugene M. LaColia
Location of Property: N/S of Main Road (State Route 25),
at Arshamomoque near Greenport, NY
County Tax Map No: 1000-56-4-24 & 19
The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 7:58 p.m.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is the reeonvenlng of the Eugene M. LaColia
hearing from May 7, 1992. Mr. Cuddy, is there anything you would like
to add for the record?
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ: Yes, for the record, I am Charles Cuddy.
I represent the applicant Eugene LaColia and also other members of his
family. I just want to refresh the Board a little bit, that this
parcel, which is approximately five (5) acres. On the VanTuyl map it
is shown as 5.4 acres. This is essentially behind "Holiister's" and
along the Main Road to the east of the pottery place. And essentially
what we are asking for is that, that area which is approximately two
hundred fifty (250) feet on the Main Road be changed use-variance wise
so that we can have some business use of it. The reason for the
application is rather simple. The LaColla's have had in their family,
since 1960, at the time of their father's death, this parcel. The
entire parcel is twenty-eight (28) acres and consists mostly of
wetlands. Twenty-one to twenty-two (21 to 22) acres by our estimate,
is actual wetlands. We propose that we would use the upland parcel,
which is within a hundred feet of the wetlands, that is everything
would be set back at least a hundred feet, to mitigate any
environmental concerns. And we propose that we have some business use
of what is now an R-80 zone. The zoning, as you may recall, is strange
because the zoning is both M-II and R-80. I think that To go back
again to what we are here about, is to talk about use variances. And I
wasn't satisfied last time and maybe we hit with every member of the
Board on all of the standards for use variances, so I would jus~ like
to review them quickly, if I may. The unnecessary hardship rule
differs from practical difficulties. Practical difficulties are for
area variances -- the unnecessary hardship rule is for use variances.
When that rule was set forth on the Otto v. Stejnh{bler case, the Judge
indicated that there were three (3) standards that had to be complied
with. First, you had to show that the land had no reasonable yield to
it. Secondly, you had to show that it was a product--this application
is a product of a unusual circumstances, and unique circumstances, that
face just this particular parcel and this applicant. And third, you
had to show that the character of the area didn't change. I want to go
to the first standard because there was a question, that I think from
at least one (1) of the members of the Board, as to what the failure of
a reasonable return was. That is a lack of a reasonable return. The
return to do, as I understand it, is simply this parcel. The return is
based upon several criteria. One is the purchase price of the
Page ~2 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR. CUDDY (con't.): acquisition value. What we said about that was
the LaColla's got this parcel in 1960, they got it at approximately
forty-five thousand dollars ($4§~000.00), they submitted the affidavit
of appraisal in connection with that. That was for estate tax
purposes. We use that as a basis for this parcel. We also talked
about the present value and Mr. Stype is going to testify further about
the present value. But, we indicated to you that we. could have at best
get two (2) parcels in the R-80 district. We get two (2) parcels,
those parcels together would be sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00).
Also, one of the issues or standards that is used is what are the
expenses for the par~cel. Well, there are no expenses for the parcel
except for one thing--and that is taxes. The taxes that are involved
from 1960 to 1992 are in excess of forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00).
I say that because I have looked through the County records personally,
and that is my personal knowledge that I am giving you. There is no
income from this property, and that is probably the fifth thing. So,
we are talking about purchase price or acquisition value, the present
value, the expenses, the income, and the taxes. When you add that all
up, the LaColia's have approximately right now eighty-five thousand
($85,000.00) in this property. It is our position that the property as
a whole and also the 5.4 acres, which is dealt with on the same basis,
doesn't produce any reasonable return. We can't use it as it is
zoned. And I wans to remind you that this is a split zoned properzy.
And the split zone isn't a casual thing because you are t~lking about
M-II, which is heavy marine verses R-80 which is really a light density
residential district. This isn't a quarter acre, half acre or acre,
this is two-acre zoning. We can't get a use from this parcel. I would
point out to you that when we get to the second criteria, which is
unique circumstances, that there probably is no parcel in this entire
Town that is zoned and in the locale, like this particular parcel.
This parcel is between the railroad tracks and the Main Road. It
consists mostly of wetlands. It has probably a depth of two hundred
(200), maybe two hundred and fifty (250), three hundred (300) feet au
most in some places, and in some places one hundred and fifty (150)
feet to a (100) hundred feet to use. The usable part of this property
is really along the Main Road and that is the pars that is zoned R-80,
and that is the part that we are supposed to put houses in. And I
think both brokers are going to testify that is jus~ not a
possibility. It is a figment of somebody's imagination to really talk
without using that for residential purposes. But that is the way it is
zoned and that is what we are faced with. I say to you that is
absolutely unique. And even more, I think the character of the area is
not at all changed by this. I would point out to you that one of the
people last time that was up opposing the application, indicated that
there was virtually an unbroken chain of commercial use from Greenport
to Southold and this would complete that chain. I think that is
irrefutable, that there is commercial uses along this road continuously.
And we say to you that doesn't change the character of the area in the
least bit. And, I would ask for relief because I think the LaCollas
need relief. That is what this Board is about, that is what use
variances are about and I would hope that the Board uses its
Page 13 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR. CUDDY (con't.):own knowledge, which it can do, of this particular
locale. I would like to testify on behalf of the applicant~ the broker
Mr. Stype.
ANDREW D. STYPE: Thank you very much Charlie. I am Andrew D. Stype.
I own and operate under Stype Bros. Real Estate in Mattituck and I
would just like to reiterate that the, I had appraised the property
back in May. We had felt that there is a base law suit to the owners
of about eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000.00). There has been a
lot of talk about the rate of return. We have to measure that in the
equity in the actual land value. There are some out buildings on the
property, there are some pretty small cottages that hardly have any
value at all. The only value is going to be in its land, and also in
its uses. Under residential use, there is hardly any value at all. It
is a horrible spot to have any k~nd of residential property there.
They have a lot of wetlands, and all around you, you have a commercial
property, you have a restaurant, you have a mar~.na, you.have other
things, which realty hurt any kind of residential value. Your whole
value is going to be in the commerical property, definitely. It has a
higher rate of return, for an example, the owners have a base value of
about eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000.00). If it has business
use, it has a value close to two hundred eighty thousand dollars
($280,000.00), that has a rate of return of just over three hundred
percent (300%). That is a beck of a difference in overall value. If
it is under residential value, it is around sixty thousand .($60,000.00)
t0ps~and that is a loss to the owners. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Stype, how long has this property been
listed to your knowledge with brokers in the Town and yourself probably
included? You probably do have. ~ You don't have a listing? _
MR. STYPE: No, I don't. I don't have a listing on the property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any idea what other brokers have it
listed for?
MR. STYPE: I had spoke to one (1) other broker, they had exPlained to
me that they had a listing on it for like just over five (5) years.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you know what the figure was that they were
requesting?
MR. STYPE: No, I don't. ~
CHAIRMAN GoEHRINGER: Your feelings concerning the piece of property
east of the building which is an out building to this particular piece
and has really a negative residential use. I-Iow do you determine that?
MR. STYPE: Well, you have your highest and best value if you are
highly compatible. It is easier to have a higher value, if you are
highly compatible with all the other buildings in the area. If you
have just a residential subdivision, it has a higher value, if it is
Page 14 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Seuthold EBA 6/30/92
MR. STYPE (CON'T.): also in an area that has a lot of homes around it
obviously. I am also in the real estate sales end, if I have somebody
coming in our office and if he wants a reaidenee, he isn't looking Main ·
Road. I mean, he has to have privacy, an awful lot of our buyers have
a young family and they don't want to be on any highway. So, it is .
obvious you have a higher value, if you are off the Main Road area.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Certainly down the road, east of~ excuse me,
west of Aibertson Marine, and so on and so forth, I think the
sub-division is Willow Point, you have in there half acre lots that do
front on the Main Road. Basically, the back of the houses are on the
Main Road. With the piece of property that we have here, which is as
you mentioned or I think Mr. Cuddy mentioned, is approximately two (2)
lots, so I am assuming that it is in the area of one hundred and sixty
thousand (160,000) square feet or more. Certainly, there is the
ability to screen that from the road to a certain degree. I mean it is
already screened, partially topographically and partially with the
large trees around it. And, I do understand that under present wetland
restrictions from both the DEC and from the Town Trustees that you
would be required to probably be back from that pond seventy-five or
one hundred (75 or 100) feet, whatever they would require at that
point. But, I think there still is an ability to utilize that easterly
parcel for residential purposes. I mean, that is just my opinion, I
don't know how the other Board members feel.
MR. STYPE: You have a good point, but also back in Willow Point it
is, you also have a lot of open space in there. You hav~ some open
farm lands, you have some other homes in the area. I don't believe
back in Willow Point you have any kind of business property back there
near the water.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody else have any thoughts on that?
Bob? Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I think the sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00)
is still a Httle iow for ....
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean something fronting on a pond? Is that
what you mean?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I mean, I went back there, there is two (2)
residences there. Now whether they, it appeared to me like they were
going to be used, if they weren't used already. I see that as being a
value. I want to be upfront with you. I see that as being a value and
to my own mind, if that were on the market for sixty thousand dollars
($60,000.00), I would be at the bank tomorrow. If it were on the
market for eighty thousand dollars ($80,000.00), I would be there,
because I did stand on the hill. And it is, to my mind, there is an
offset with looking at the water and being on the Main Road. So, I
just wanted to let you know that is how I am thinking, I thin1( you
could get twc~ lots out of that and it could be more.
MR. STYPE: It is highly possible. At this time we spent a market
place though, it is awfully difficult to have to sell any kind of home
Page 15 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR. STYPE (con't.):
sites. There is a tremendous amount of vacant land out there, that has
been available a awful long time. The biggest reason why is because
your resale is dropping so much. And there is not a lot of interest in
any homesites at this time. We have a lot of places now, we trove some
lots that have sold twenty-five, thirty thousand dollars ($25,000.00,
$30,000.00) a lot.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is no contest on the fact that it is a
very heavily traveted road and it is a very, very dangerous road, there
is no question about it on that turn. And we have known that there are
many, many accidents there. And I think one or two people were killed
over the years, no question about it. There is no contest there.
certainly agree with you. Is there anybody on the Board that has any
specific questions of Mr. Stype? We thank you very much,
Mr. Stype. Mr. Cuddy.
MR. CUDDY: I would ask Mrs. Feavel, Mary Ann Feavel if she
would testify.
MARY ANN FEAVEL: I have a signed affidavit here that I would Hke
to read. Mary Ann Feavel being duly sworn, 'deposes and says that:
(1) I am a licensed real estate broker and have acted as an agent
for parties selling real estate throughout the Town of Southold in
hundreds of sales and also have bought and sold real estate in the Town
of Southold for more than fifteen (15) years.
(2) during that time I have become familiar with the LaColla
parcel, that is the subject of the use variance application before the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
(3) I am familiar with the zoning of the subject parcel and the
provisions of the Town Code effecting the parcel.
(4) this twenty-eight (28) acre parcel located at Arshamomaque and
identified by tax map numbers 1000-56-4-19 & 28 and the five (5) acre
parcel which is part of that cannot be sold for R-80 purposes and
cannot be used for any of the permitted uses set forth in the R-80
section of the Town Code, Article III. The parcel is substantially
covered with wetlands, is adjacent to commercial uses and is located
between the Main Road, NYS Route 25 on the south and the Long Island
Railroad on the north.
(5) based on its location on the Main Road between Greenport and
Southold, in my opirnon, the only viable use for this parcel is to make
use of the upland area on a commercial basis. Otherwise, the property
will not return any reasonable yield to its owners. In this connection,
I reiterate that the LaColia parcel cannot be sold for R~80 uses,
section 100-31, that is one-family detached dwellings, agricultural
operations, as well as those uses permitted by special exception, a
copy of wkich is annexed to my signed affidavit.
(6) I make this affidavit not only based upon my years of
experience as a broker, but also based upon my familiarity with the
locale in which the property is located. Noting that to the southwest
of this parcel and to the west of this parcel, there are marina use
MS. FEAVEL (con't.):districts and that the land immediately
contiguous to the applicant's land contains business uses. It is my
opirnon, that without the relief requested, the parcel cannot be sold
Page 16 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MS. FEAVEL (c0n't.):
and cannot be used. Aside from the affidavit that I just read, I have
gone back, I have looked at it again. It is my honest opinion that it
does not have any economic use the way it is currently zoned. There
is, to reiterate what Mr. Sty-pc said, there is so much real estate
for sale. People do not want to live or build on the Main Road. Now,
in reference to the Willow Point area, that is completely different
from this area. It is not surrounded by commercial use, by a
restaurant, by a marina, by a pottery store. It is a residential area,
it has a private beach, it has a canal where people can dock boats. It
is completely different than a two (2) acre parcel located on Route 25
in Southold.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, let us take... I don't mean to stop
you, let us take Dolphin Drive and Albacore Lane and Tarpon Drive.
MS. FEAVEL: Very nice section. Southold Shores.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:Directly across the street.
MS. FEAVEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are there lots froniing on the road in those
subdivisions.
MS. FEAVEL: There are lots fronting on the road and there are no
buildings, or no houses on any of those main road parcels.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that because of topography in reference to
low ground water? Or is that because...
MS. FEAVEL: There are a couple of problems with that particular
area. There is a heavy clay area of building. It is a very nice area,
but you go into one road, it splits off, then you get into the
conmlunity. It also has a beach, it also has its own private marina, if
offers something other than two (2) acres on the Main Road. It is a
residential area, it is directly across the street, but it is
completely different. I just sold a house in there. When you are in
there, standing on that lot, you don't know that there is a restaurant,
there is a marina, it is completely different.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead, I don't mean to mess you up. Let
me just ask you one other question. Have you had this property listed
in your office?
MS. FEAVEL: Mr. LaColia came into my office approximately- a year
and a half ago, .with a map, with everything, sat down and discussed it,
give me the listing. I Would not take the listing because I could not
sell it. At that time, he sat and he said that he had had it listed
with other brokers. I do not know who they were, I didn't ask, and
Page 17 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MS. FEAVEL (con' t. ):
not one phone call, not one offer, not anything. And he basically sat
down and said "Help." And I said that you have got to get, we looked
up the zoning, he had everything with him, it was R-80. And I said, it
is not goingto work. I cannot sell it. There are lots out there
now that people can buy for fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), not
located on the Main Road. It may not be a two acre parcel, but the
locale is much better. You can buy...possibly even under a half and
acre for forty-thousand dollars ($40,000.00) It just doesn't make
sense the way it [s currently zoned.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is the figure that Mr. Stype is coming up
with, ff this figure is correct of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00)
for the wooded area, east of the existing out building, which is the
house. A conservative estimate, could you sell those lots for thirty,
if there were two eighty thousand (80,000) square foot lots, could they
be sold for tliirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) dollars easily?
MS. FEAVEL: They possibly could be sold for the thirty thousand
dollars ($30,000.00). I currently, right now, could not say, that I
could pick up the phone in my office and call someone and offer it to
them for thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00). And I have people who
are looking to buy property, and their No. 1 statement is, I don't want
to live on the Main Road, find me something somewhere else. Even ff I
have to pay a little bit more, I mean, I have heard a couple of people
in a room say that they, if it was that amount of money, Ihat they
would go buy it, but it hasn't happened yet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only reason I say that, in standing on the
hill overlooking the pond, they are relatively spectacular, that is
really a spectacular piece, there is no question about it... I mean
the access again is a problem, there is no question it. But, that is a
nice parcel.
MS. FEAVEL: Okay, but you also have to keep something in mind, and
I don't mean to be the least bit sarcastic-- we all Hve where we live
now, we have our houses, we are not looking to buy. So what we think
might be spectacular, it's not ours. We are not building a house
there. If somebody offered it to me or if somebody gave it to me, I
would probably say thank you, but no thank you. Because I personally
would not want the parcel.
(Tape turned over)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything .... I didn't mean to cut
you off. Let me just see, are there any questions of Mrs. Feavel? I
should point out to the Board or the audience, I had been e_ licensed
real estate broker since 1975. I have taught real estate. I teach
zoning and I have known Mrs. Feavel-for over twenty (20) years. I do
not presently sell real estate and I have not sold real estate since
1986, okay. And just so that you are aware of that situation and these
people still have been under oath from the last meeting that we have
had. And I have no questions of either Mr. Stype's credentials or
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (con't.): Mrs. Feavel credentials. They
are both excellent, excellent brokers, that I have known over the
Page 18 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (con't.):
years. I have known Mr. Stype for twenty (20) years, too, or
longer. Any other questions? (None) Thank you.
MS. FEAVEL: Thank you.
MR. CUDD¥: Mr. Chairman, ] just like to put in affidavits -- a
synopsis of the testimony of both Mr. Stype and also of'Ms. Feavel.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGE1{: Thank you.
MR. CUDD¥: Also, I would like at this time to ask Mr. Eugene
LaColla to give his testimony.
CHAIRMAN GOEH1{INGER: How are you again tonight, Mr. LaColla. You
must understand the purpose of my being up here is to ask these
questions, so, that is basically, that is why I am doing it. Okay?
MR. EUGENE LACOLLA: I probably have to be sworn in or something?
CHAI1{MAN GOEHRINGER: No, you are still sworn in from the last
hearing.
MR. LACOLLA: I am going to read this (affidavit), okay?
CHAIRMAN GOEH1{INGE1{: Sure.
MR. LACOLLA: I, Eugene M. Lacolla, being being sworn ~tisposes and
says that: 1) I am one of the owners of the twenty-eight (28) acre
parcel located on the north side of the Main 1{oad in Arshamomaque in
the Town of Southold, having succeeded to my father's interest in the
premises with my seven (7) brothers and sisters at the time of my
father's death. In connection with the application made before the
Zoning Board of Appeals, I represent my brothers, sisters, and myself,
have submitted the entire parcel to many brokers throughout the Town of
Southold over a period of twenty (20) years or more. And have never
once received an offer to purchase the parcel at any price. I verily
believe and submit that the part of the parcel as zoned 1{-80 cannot be
utilized for any other purposes set forth in the R-80 district. And
have therefore requested a use variance to permit commercial uses over
the upland portion of the property, which is presently designated R-80.
4) I request that the Board note, that since my father's death in 1960,
my brothers, sisters, and I have expended more than forth thousand
dollars ($40,000.00) in real property taxes. The present yearly tax is
thirty-four hundred dollars ($3,400.00) approximately, while the value
of the real property in 1960 was ~ixteen hundred dollars ($1,600.00)
per acre or forty-five thousand ($45,000.00) for the twenty-eight
acres. The total value of the usable portion of the parcel, today, is
sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00). Assuming a modest value for the
wetland acreage, we have held this property for thirty (30) years
without any increase in the value. In effect, there is no reasonable
re~urn for this parcel, which has been held in my family and retained
Page 19 - LaColla
Public liearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
.MR. LaCOLLA (cor't.): in pristine condition for more than thirty
(30) years. (5)- At one time, the parcel had summer cottages used by
members of my family. They had limited use. They were abandoned years
ago and now are inhabited by raccoons. The locale is not residential
in character, and not only have we not been able to sell the entire
parcel for residential purposes, but the cottages could not be rented
and there has not been any income from these premises. (6) In
connection with this application, I again offer to maintain the
substantial wetland area of this parcel in its natural condition and if
appropriate, to place a scenic easement over the wetland and unused
upland portions of the parcel. (7) In addition, I offer on behalf of
myself, my brothers, and my sisters to dedicate a ten (10) foot strip
to the Town or State, as the case maybe, which strip of land runs
parallel to Route 25. (8) My family has retained this parcel
essentially in its existing condition for more than thirty (30) years.
We have go~ten little or no use from the land and with its present
zoning have no expectation of realizing any use for income from the
parcel. Therefore, I respectfully request that the use variance be
granted permitting us the business use of the few upland acres
adjoining Route 25. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Sir. Can you just give me an idea
of when the last time that the houses or the house and trailer were
Hved in?
MR. LACOLLA: I would say the shack, we called it, that is over
twenty-five (25) years since anyone lived in there. The. trailer, I
would say, probably around fifteen (15) years or more. I am not sure
of that because my sister put that trailer on the property and rented
it out and received an income from that. She supposedly said that she
used the income to pay the taxes, but we were always asked every year
to come up with our share.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you, are there any other questions of
the Board members of Mr. Lacolla? Gentlemen? (No questions) Thank
you, sir.
MR. LACOLLA: Can I just say something?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely.
MR. LACOLLA: I haventt lived out here in a long time, but I
remember across the street where Southold Shores is now. That was all
wetlands, too. It was all filled in and homes were built there. We
didn't do that To our property. And when I heard Mr. Flynn the last
time here, talking about the number of driveways and so forth, you
know, he is in all the environmental things. I mean, to be fair, that
is not fair to allow that to be filled in and our property not to keep
it as a residential. We are paying taxes on it. The Town has the best
of both worlds here--collecting taxes for residential property, which
cannot be built on because of the wetlands, and we are still suffering
here. The other thing was that some years ago, I think that that is
about twenty
MR. LaCOLLA (Con't):(20) years ago too, they dredged Mill Creek,
put pipes across our land and put on across the railroad tracks on what
Page 20 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR. LaCOLLA (con't'.):
is called Cassidy's. I don't know Why they didn't approach us, to
say "Do you want the fill?" Just bypassed us. I don't understand
this. I think, you know, we are all getting older as I said. I just
turned sixty-five (65) and I am one of the youngest ones. I have a
sister seventy-eight (78) years old. If one of us die, our children
are not going to maintain this property. They don't want to get
involved in this brouhaha, if that is how you say that word.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pretty good.
MR. LACOLLA: I am really pleading ~hat you to see our point. Thank
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Cuddy?
MR. CUDDY: · Finally, I would ask Mr. Rumpf if he would give his
testimony.
MR. RUMPF: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board and members of
the audience, who might be interested, my name is Tim Rumpf. I am a
landscape architect. I am a principal in a firm called Design
Properties Northeast. We have an office in Ronkonkoma. Just a
little background, I don't know if I gave it last time, I have worked
in Southold. I have been a consultant to the Town of Southold in
planning matters and also in matters of landscape architecture. I am
presently a member of Architectural Review Board for the. Town of ~
Riverhead. I am a consultant to the Town of Southampton and the
Village of Southampton. When Mr. Cuddy and Mr. Lacolla called our
firm with this unique problem, we looked at it, again from a planning
point of view, noticing that there was a heavy marine, M-II zoning on
the sort of western portion of the site. And looking at how that~
related to that R-80 low density residential zoning, didn't quite make
sense in that area because of the proximity to Route 25 and the Long
Island Railroad. In many areas on Long Island, you will see a heavy
use buffered by either by a lower intensity commercial use or a medium
to high density residential use. We looked at both of those,
immediately threw out the low to high density residential use based on
Health Dept. requirements, and thought that a more general business
or low intensity commercial use might have a better, more suitable
impact on the site in terms of sanitary, water use, and also the
proximity of the wetlands that we could hold the actual building far
enough away and actually increase the setbacks greater than what the
DEC and the Town Trustees might want. And so from a pure land use,
land planning point of view, we developed the sketches, the conceptual
site plan that you see in front of you on those bases. Backing up
using the more intense commercial use around the M-II zone and going
into that little hill area that I believe the Chairman and one of the
members was out on, using that as the more low intensity commercial
use. And that is basically where we were. Any questions at all?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions, gentlemen?
Page 21 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MEMBER VILLA: Yes. I have a question. You know, we have heard the
value of the land or what they purchased the land for and the taxes
they paid, but there still is a piece of M-II land that is left there
between the restaurant and the other commercial piece there. What is
the value of that, that has to have a significant value?
MR. RUMPF: I think it might, but it is a very awkward piece to work
with.
MEMBER VILLA: It is a hundred by two hundred (100 x 200). That is a
basic half-acre piece of property.
MR. RUMPF: Yes, but I think fo~ a commercial, a heavy commercial
use, it is a very awkward piece to get access to, and to work with in
terms of buildings and circulation. I mean that, that, I agree With
you, but that is only one portion, I mean that is a half acre out of
thirty acres.
MEMBER VILLA: I grant you that, but we haven't heard any value
attached to that piece of property. All we have heard is sixty
thousand dollars ($60,000.00) versus the eighty-five that this thing is
worth, but...
MR. RUMPF: I might also mention to that value, I think that you
are talking about raw land and I think they still have to go through
the subdivision process, which could take them one to two (1 to 2)
years and ellgineer's expenses, so I think they are not even adding on
the expense of a planning and development process to get them to a
buildable parcel that they could go and get a building permit .for.
So, I think that thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) is going to be a
little bit more than just that amount per lot, based on getting the
approval process and getting it approved to get a building permit.
But, I agree, that half acre obviously is zoned M-II and that does have
some value, but compared to the overall site, it is a little difficult.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't have any further questions of this
gentlemen. Thank you, sir. Mr. Cuddy.?
MR. RUMPF: I have an affidavit as well that I would like to submit.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, great, thank you. Mr. Cuddy, Could I
just ask you a question, have you, most recently, done any subdivision
of,the land in the Town of Southold- a residential subdivision before
the Planning Board?
MR. CUDDY: I have residential subdivisions before the (Planning)
Board, but I have not completed one of these.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any guesstimate on what it would
cost to subdivide the easterly portion of this property into two (2)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (eon't.):lots? Bearing in mind that there
wouldn't be any roads, you know.
Page 22 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR. CUDDY: If there is no road, I would estimate that probably the
cost would be between forty-five hundred and five thousand dollars
($4,500.00 and $5,000.00).
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, is there, either one of your two real
estate brokers here, is there any estimate, in reference to what the
hall acre of... First of all, it is seventy-five (75) in back of the
existing out building on the easterly side, which used to be the
pottery place. The parcel is seventy-five by two hundred (75 by 200),
apart from the dog-leg so, is there any guesstimate in reference to, I
am not referring to this in a trite fashion when I say guesstimate.
am referring to it in laymens term, but you know, that we can
understand okay, on what the value of that parcel might be?
MS. FEAVEL: Mr. Goehringer, when I looked at the map before, I
meant to mention something when I was up there. As M-II zonlng,'yes,
it does hav~ value, the problem is competition. Already, directly
across the street is Goldsmith's Marina Boat Yard. Unless Goldsmith's
Marina Boat Yard would want to purchase that area, no one is going to
bring in an additional, in my estimation, any kind of business or
whatever that could go on the M-II when you've already got an
established, for years, Goldsmith's. Now, the M-II zoning is not
connected at all to the water, which, to me, makes no sense
what-so-ever. M-II zoning, the best use for it, is to have some type
of attachment to water, which this has none what-so-ever. In actual
value, basically it would come down to be, if Skip Goldsmith wanted to
buy it, it is what Skip Goldsmith would be willing to pay for it.
Because I don't think anybody else would buy it, not with Goldsmith's
directly across the street. What other kind of M-II could you put
there that isn't already there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHR!NGER: We will certainly, in this environmental
economy as things may come back hopefully, there maybe a change in
that. I can understand your opinion on that. Mr Cuddy, would you
mind if I asked Mr. Stype the same queslion?
MR. CUDDY: No.
MR. STYPE: Yes, Jerry, we have some property just, compared to the
property, just to the west of it, opposite Port of Egypt Marina. It is
on the other side of the street. There acre sizes and it is owned by
this guy from Shelter Island, he has been trying to sell those
properties now for a long, leng time. And I think they are each about
a hall acre in size and he is now asking eighty thousand dollars
($80,000.00) and he can't hand them away.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are referring to two (2) open parcels that
Port of Egypt stores on a little bit...
MR. STYPE: Right, like they have a lot of storage of boats on that
side of the road. It is just to the east of that.
Page 23 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGEI~: Okay, alright. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Cuddy.
MR. CUDDY: Can I also venture an answer?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. Although the figure you have given me
concerning five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), is that primarily
attorneys fees plus engineering or is that pretty much ....
MR. CUDDY: Primarily they were survey, engineering, some attorneys
fees, of course. They would be some filing fees. The Town has, I
think exorbitant fees for small lots, but yes, that includes basically
all those.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, thank you.
MR. CUDD¥: The answer, I think to Mr. Villa's question, he asked,
what kind of value would you associate with that hundred by two hundred
piece, which is the half acre. Your association for a little guy
because my recollection that the M-II district unfortunately as pointed
out by Mrs. Feavel is essentially a marina II district, heavy marina,
but you have to have had associated with some sort boat operation. In
other words you have to have a boat yard, you have to have a marina,
and then they can use it for accessory use purposes. Then it has real
value to it. In the abstract, my recollection again was that, one of
the few things you could do is build a restaurant. Unfortunately,
there is a restaurant within three hundred (300) feet of this, there is
another side of the street. So, it is doubtful that somebody would
build a restaurant. But I think abstractly, there is very little you
can do with that piece. I think you have to use it in connection with
what the zoning says and again, it is my recollection that the zo~ling
says you have got to use it for boat-type purposes. In other words,
boat yards, marinas, and then you can make use of it. And you can't
use this piece. Why it was zoned like that is a real good question.
But it is zoned that way and I think it virtually makes that piece by
itself, not a good useable piece of land.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Cuddy. I will proceed now through
the hearing and we will, if it is alright with you. Is there anybody
else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody
like to speak against the application? Yes, Mrs. Flynn. How are you
tonight. -You are still under oath from the last time.
MRS. FLYNN: Yes. And while you were talking about brokers
The question came up about Southold Shores and Mrs.
Feavel said that when are in Southold Shores you don't realize that you
are so close to the highway and other things. And I think that as a
broker, and I have been a broker for twenty-two (22) years now, the
access for property, may it be the access or the approach, the traffic,
the increased traffic, the safety of the people going to the property,
MRS. FLYNN (con't.): leaving the property is of great value to the
property. All we can say now, Southold Shores is all by itself and it
won't be hurt is wrong, because if the approach is being devaluated
or changed to a heavy commercial use, as you pointed out, I most
Page 24 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MRS~ FLYNN (con.,t.);,,
c~rtai~ly tl~r~k it w~ effect the value and the safety and the health
of our properties in Southold~ Shores. Incidentally, I only arrived
late last night from Washington D.C., I go shortly at the office, I
just ran home. But there was last year a house sold, just west of the
overpass on the north side of 25 and I will submit, if I may tomorrow
the proper liber and page and selling price of that price, but it was a
very substantial price and the house was sold to our office by my
associate. So, I don't want to misstate any prices, but I will check
it out tomorrow. Also, talking about no houses sold on the Main Road,
we just sold a house or closed on a house in todays market in East
Marion on the Main Road and you would say, oh, that is East Marion wha%
has this to do. Well~ if we would just think about the Main Road, I
think thai the traffic is much heavier on 25 there than it is here, by
us it is 25, because they have the additional traffic from the North
Road going out to the ferry. And the house was sold for one hundred
and seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000.00). And, the property you
were talking about, which could not be sold for eighty thousand dollars
($80,000.00), I think that property has a ditch as a frontage. Doesn't
it?
MR. STYPE: No.
MRS. FLYNN: Is there only one entrance.
MR. STYPE: It is all filled in.
MRS. FLYNN: Yea, oh it is much poorer because it filled in land.
Still and all I want to talk to many people and talking To people and
explaining this, people are a ifttle bit upset that this is a question
of a variance, because I really think this is an application for a_
change of zone and it doesn't belong here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:. Thank you. This lady right over here. Ma'am,
were you with us for the last hearing.
No, I wasn't able to be here.
MRS. FLYNN: Oh yea, excuse me, I was not west of the overpass, it was
west Mill Creek, the house that was sold. So this house which was sold
for quite a parcel of land, it backed up to the railroad in the back~
it had the marinas across the street, Port of Egypt. It had the
restaurant across the street.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This was the old antique shop, right.
MRS. FLYNN: That is right. It was old. It was nothing.
BOARD SECRETARY: It is all zoned M-II right there.
MRS. FLYNN: And it also in our office and would like to give you the
exact liber and page and selling price, and mortgage information. I
can pull it up for you tomorrow.
Page 25 '- LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very. much. Could I ask you to raise
your right hand and do you solemnly swear that the information you are
about to give us is the truth to the best of your ability?
GAIL STARKIE~ I do.
CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: State your name please.
MS. GAIL STARKIE: My name is Gall Starkie and I Hve on Parker Drive.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you.
.MS. STARKIE: And I have several points that I 'would like to make
tonight if I may. Several points that have been made before, I'm
sure. I missed the last meeting because of ~11ness, I did write a
letter in. I am concerned that a portion of the road known as "Tavern
Turn" and that in the last year there have been two (2) fatalities.
Supervisor Harris has recently indicated that a DOT investigation
regarding the curb is already under way. Allowing a commercial venture
in this spot would create unnecessary safety hazard. One only has to
do visual inspection, in fact, Mr. LaColla said it himself, of the area
to see that it is a virtual wildlife preserve~ created by nature over
the years. The property in the adjacent waters should not be
desegregated by the planting of shops. If we look at the number of
vacant shops in Southold Township and the businesses that close weekly,
there is an almost empty shopping center on the North Road by Burn's
Delicatessen, Sterlington Commons in Greenport is another example of
our empty, unused, overdeveloped, commercial ventures. Feather Hill
only recently filled there empty shops and that took several years and
I am sure some changes in the rental agreements. The LaColla f~trther
state that they cannot sell. They are not alone. I personally own a
lot that I cannot sell in Greenport. It has been on the market over
three (3) years and it has been reduced substantially. In fact, I was
offered thirty thousand ($30,000.00) less than I paid for it recently.
But, I don't have the luxury of appealing for a zone change. I can
choose to sell it at a toss or I can wait. They~ should have the same
choices. Also, I question about the Master Plan and what is happening
there and what are the recommendations. I like and many others like
me, moved to Southold because of its beauty and its closeness to
nature. If I wanted to be close to shopping centers and more shops, I
would have s~ayed to the west. In addition, I have a petition that we
put together, which states "we, the undersigned, as residents of
Southold Township are opposed to application No. 4091 - Eugene M.
LaColla. This petition reflects our opposition to proposed change in
status from residential to non-residential specifically said property
at north side of Main road (State Route 25) at Arshamomaqu6 near
Greenport, etc. and that has thirty-nine (39) signatures, which I
submit to you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mrs. Starkie. We now go to the Mr.
Flynn. Mr. Flynn, could you just give me an approximate time limit on
how long you think you are going to be speaking.
Page 26' - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
Mt{. FLYNN: Well, this is a rather, I have to make a rather~ lengthy
presentation, because this is a rather involved question here and there
are definite parameters, governing granting of a variance and I would
like the people here, who may not be informed, the people in
opposition, may not be informed to realize these parameters in case of
litigation in the future.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why I ask you that question, I just
wantl to take a short break prior to your discussing, your discourse, if
that is aH right. Yes sir.
I would like to say something.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. Can we just take a short break and we
will right back with you, unless you are leaving.
Well, no, it is just very, very short.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, go ahead, were you here the last time sir.
MR. BRICKMAN: My name is Mr. Brickman. I live on Tarpon Drive. I am
not very familiar with the procedure here, so you will have to excuse
me. I just want to reiterate that my wife and I feel very strongly
about this. What Mrs. Starkey had said is true, we feel very strongly
about this changing of zoning, we also moved here, we also moved from a
crowed area in East Northport out here, because we like it out here. I
did business out here. And to have commercial right across the street
from us, we really don't want it, we really don't want it. Things are
bad enough. I have property too in East Northport that I can't sell.
I have stores that I can't sell, I can't rent. Things are bad. Why
put the screws to us because he has hardship. We all have hardship.
And basically, you've got to go with the flown And that is basically
what I want to say.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. With everybody's indulgence, we
will take an approximate three (3) minute recess. We will right back
to you in two (2) minutes. Okay.
(Short Break. Reconvened)
MR. MITRANO: I own Greenport Pottery..
CHAIRMAN GOEHt{INGER: You had spoken the last time, right?
No I didn't.
SECRETARY KOWALSKI: How do you spell your last name please?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you spell your last name.
MI{. MITRANO: M-I-T-R-A-N-O. I purchased the property September of
1980.
Page 27 '- LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you raise your right hand also. Do you
solemnly swear the information you are about to give us is the truth to
the best of your ability. I was just going to tell you that.
MR. MITRANO: I do. I have lived on that piece of property since. To
the best of my knowledge for the last thirty or more years, it has been
primarily a residence. Square footage wise, it is approximately
one-third or less devoted to commercial use. And, as far as I know, it
has always been that way. As far as the buildings behind me, they have
been occupied in the past, since I have been there. I think since 1980
to approximately, I don't remember exactly, to about 1984, both
buildings were occupied. In fact, one building is now being occupied,
the trailer is occupied right now. The idea of being sandwiched
between a commercial development and the Main Read is pretty
unappealing, obviously to me. So, I just need to, you know, oppose
this.
CHAIRMAN COEHRINGER: Thank you. Any questions of this gentleman?
Thank you sir. Mr. Flynn, you are on. As the last time, you are under
oath, the same as last time. We respectfully request that any
innuendos that are counter-productive, that, you know, not reflect on
and so on and so forth.
MR. FLYNN: You will have to be the judge of that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, I will stop you.
MR. FLYNN: Now, I have divided this statement into three or four (3
or 4) parts. The first concerns ...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just turn it down a little bit, the mike. That
is great.
MR. FLYNN: Incidentally, I will provide you with a copy of this.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, that is great. Thank you.
MR. FLYNN: The first portion deals with the application and
supporting testimony. Applicant states that a use variance is sought
on the upland portion of the subject property for the reason that,"the
property cannot be used as zoned". The business zoned parcel has
utility as zoned, witness other parcels contiguous thereto. Any
claimed hardship would be self-created. As for the residentially zoned
portion, it is, and has been used, in part, for this purpose. To
understand .the concept of use, or utility, the basis for value, must be
understood. The components of value are: utility, scarcity, demand,
MR. FLYNN (con't): and purchasing power. Foremost among'these is
utility. If a property or object has utility, it has value.
Conversely, if value is ascribed to a property, it must have utility.
The applicant's appraiser has ascribed a market value of some sixty
thousand dollars ($60,000.00) to the residentially zoned portion of the
property for which a variance is sought. Parenthetically, this value
Page 28 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR, FLYNN (con't.):
was ascribed on an "as is" basis. The property unsubdivided,
unapproved. In addition, the area of their requested variance includes
a vacant parcel of some twenty thousand five hundred (20,500) square
feet in M-II zoning, a parcel which has obvious value. For the the
subject property to have the value ascribed or more, it must have
utility as zoned. Based on the testimony introduced by the applicant's
appraiser, the claim that the property has no use, as zoned, is
negated. Under reasons for appraisal, hardship is claimed, ostensibly
because the parcel cannot be sold for residential use as zoned, and
will not provide a reasonable yield if use is restricted to those
permitted by the zoning. Al] of the property for which a variance is
requested is not zoned for residential use. Further, the applicant's
appraiser has provided an estimate of market value. Market value is
the price a property will bring is exposed to the market; i.e., sales
price. Applicant has admitted property can be sold for residential
use. Hardship is stated to be unique because of the property's
configuration, location and because of the claimed inability to use the
property for permitted uses effectively confiscates the property. Ali
properties are unique to some degree. If the subject is indeed unique
by reason of configuration and location, these factors existed at the
time of purchase and should have been apparent to the informed
purchaser upon whom market value is predicated. Undoubtedly, these
factors were reflected in the property's purchase price. The claim of
inability to use the property for permitted purposes is contradicted by
the market value ascribed. There is an established principle in zoning
law that hardship cannot be recognized if created by the owner or his
predecessors in title. Should such a hardship exist, it existed at the
time of purchase and was reflected in the price paid. Before the Board
of Appeals, we are constantly exposed to the sorry spectacle of owners
who have willingly and willfully purchased marginal properties with
inherent hardsl~ip at a nominal price who then attempt to obtain an
unconscionable profit by means of a variance. Somehow these applicants
remind me of the youth who murdered his parents and then sought pardon
because he was an orphan. The claim is advanced that the inability to
use the property for permitted uses effectively confiscates the
property. Confiscation, if it exists, must be proven by dollars and
cents analysis of each permitted use. Again, parenthetically, the
off-hand estimates of value that were produced here, this evening and
on the prior occasion, in no way meet the dollars and cents proof
required, and must be exhaustediy analyzed for each of the permitted
uses. The fact that the property is, and has been used for permitted
uses, and market value ascribed, refutes the claim of confiscation.
Confiscation is defined by the courts, states that economic value or
all but a bare residue of the value of the parcel has been destroyed
and only then is it taken established. In effect, the value remains,
there is no confiscation.
(Tape changed)
MR. FLYNN (con't.): of obtaining a variance. The claim is advanced
that the variance, if granted, would not change the character of the
district because business uses presently exist at the site and at
nearby parcels. If business uses already exist on the site, the claim
that property cannot be used as zoned is negated for these portions of
Page 29 '- LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR. FLYNN (con't.)
the property. The present business uses antedate zoning. Because
business use exists here and at nearby properties cannot be used as the
pretext for the endless proliferation of business use. Such use must
terminate somewhere. It has been held that the mere fact that the
premises for which a variance is sought is contiguous to a district
where such use is permissible is not grounds for authorizing such use.
Business uses cannot be permitted to spread endlessly like a cancer
because other business uses, no matter how badly planned, exists in the
neighborhood. Should this case then set a precedent for business use
opposite on the southerly side of Route 25? The Town Board has
expressed its intentions to confine business uses largely to hamlets,
and to eliminate strip zoning. These were among the recommendations of
the US/UK Task Force which are now considered in the proposed revision
of the Master Plan. Granting ibis variance would certainly conflict
with these recommendations. And, again, parenthetically, the strip
zoning that exists, east of the overpass and on to the Village of
Greenport, the Town's Planners said that that was so environmentally
sensitive, it should be kept as open space. The Town Board, in its
wisdom, rezoned it for industrial and commercial use, including
properties which are actually in the wetlands. In an obvious attempt
to confuse the issue and to make the owner's plight to seem desperate,
applieant has introduced testimony as to the value of the property were
the variance granted and property, to be valued at its highest and best
use level. The courts have long held that an applicant is not entitled
to a variance based upon the maximum potential value of the property,
should the variance be granted. Again, parenthetically, highest and
best use is not an issue here, it is excluded from consideration.
Further, in an obvious attempt to gain the sympathy of the Board,
testimony was introduced as to the ages and financial status of the
owners. The grant of a variance runs with the land and is not a
personal license given to the landowner. Accordingly, any unnecessary
hardship, which would suffice to justify the granting of a variance
must relate to the land, not to the owners themselves. Mere personal
hardship does not constitute sufficient grounds for the granting of a
variance. Now, General Considerations. In the granting of a variance,
the public's health, safety and welfare and other general influences
and conditions in the neighborhood must be given consideration. In the
case of National Merritt, Ine. vs. Robert Weist, et.at., The Court of
Appeais'held: "However, if there is a legitimate purpose for the
ordinance and it is necessarily related to the public health, safety,
and welfare of the community, financial loss is insufficient to compel
the granting of the variance." While no such proof has been advanced
by the applicant, the decision emphasizes the overriding consideration
given to the public health, safety and welfare. The highway safety
hazards relating to the subject property
MR. FLYNN (con't.): are already a matter of public record and
concern. Granting the variance requested would serve to compound
them. Lots 19 and 24, in their entireties, contain large areas of
wetlands. While the areas for which a variance is sought comprise only
part of the total area, it is in close proximity to the wetlands and
critical environmental areas, and any improvement would probably have
serious detrimental effects thereon. Lot 19 appears to be largely
wetlands. The easterly portion of the area for which the variance is
Page 30 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR. FLYNN (con't.):
sought is zoned for R-80 use and is heavily wooded. The northerly
portions of Lot 24 are largely wetlands. Due io the environmental and
ecologies] considerations, both Raymond, Parish, Pine and Wether, the
Town's consultants .for the Master Plan, and the Long Island Regional
Planning Board recommended that the undeveloped portions of these lots
be preserved as open space. In accordance with these recommendations,
the R-80 use provided for in the Comprehensive Plan is a reasonable.
one. It should be noted that the property to the north, in the
Arshamomoque Pond area and to the south, the former Sage property, are
classified as critical environmental areas. The pond on the easterly
part of Lot 24 Hes between the Arshamomoque Pond and the Sage estuary,
creating a form of greenbelt from Long Island Sound to Peeonic Bay.
Under these conditions, the subject application should be subjected to
intensive SEQRA review. Now, the standards of proof required for use
variance. The burden of proof lies with the applicant. The bench mark
ease setting the standards of proof required for area variances is the
Court of Appeals decision in the matter of Otto vs Steinhilber.
Coincidentally, this case involved property located on Long Island.
This decision has stood the test of time, actually since 1939, and the
standards set have proved to be so logical and defensible, that they
have been adopted in many other states. The Court held: before the
Board may exercise its discretion and a variance upon the ground of
unnecessary hardship, and grant, excuse me, a variance upon the g~round
of unnecessary hardship, the record must show (1) the land in question
cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for the purpose allowed
in that zone; (2) that the plight of the owner is due to unique
circumstances and not to general conditions in the neighborhood, which
may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself; and
(3) that the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the
essential character of the locality." Based on Otto and other
decisions, and this is most important, all of these elements must be
found conjunctively. A failure lo establish any is fatal. You cannot
pick and choose any one of these criteria, they must all be met. 2)
Hardship is financial hardship and must be supported by dollars and
cents proof for each of the uses permitted by the ordinance. 3)
Hardship is the sine qua non in submission of the required proof. If I
may be permitted to say so, the phrasing "a reasonable return" is
somewhat imprecise. Return is usually construed as the income earned
based on the rate earned by income properties. Such a return is not
typically sought for residential properties. The return to the owners
of such properties is generally measured based on the utility of the
property and the amenities it affords. These factors are reflected in
a property's market value. An indication of the Court's tb~nking
MR. FLYNN (con't):may be found in Otto where was held: "In the case
at bar, the applicant has failed to introduce any evidence whatsoever
to show that the portion of his land which is located in the
residential zone, may not be reasonably employed in conformity with the
zoning regulations governing, in that case, Class "A" districts."
Precise definitions of reasonable return are difficult to find.
Balientine's Law Dictionary equates reasonable return with fair return
and provides the following definition. Fair return--the term has a
double aspect, one legislative and the other judicial. In the judicial
aspect, it is the equivalent of nonconfiseatory. Judicially a rate is
Page 3] - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR. FLYNN (con't,):
unreasonable only when it yields a return less than the n~nlrnum which
the capital invested may demand. It appears that decisions as to the
reasonable return are evolving to a return which is nonconfiscatory,
i.e., a return which does not destroy the property's economic value and
which reflects more than a bare residue of its value. If a property,
as has been attested to by the applicant, has substantial market value,
zoning cannot be considered confiscatory as claimed by applicant. In
Rathkopf's "The Law of Zoning and Planning", it is stated that to grant
a variance, "Courts have held that operation of a restriction must
amount to virtual confiscation." In Spears vs Berie, the Court of
Appeals held: "Nevertheless, there has evolved from our decisions a
standard which, while retaining an element of flexibility, is capable
of praetieai application, under this test, a land regulation--be it
universally applicable local zoning ordinance or a more circumscribed
measure governing only certain designated properties is deemed too
onerous when it renders the property unsuitable for any reasonable
income, productive, or other private use for which it is adapted and
thus destroys its economic value, or ali but a bare residue of its
value. A, this is quoting further, a petitioner who challenges a land
use regulation must sustain a heavy burden of proof, demonstrating that
under no permissible use would the parcel as a whole be capable of
producing a reasonable return or be adaptable to other .suitable private
use. And continuing, only when the evidence shows that the economic
value, or all but a bare residue of the value of the parcel has been
destroyed, has a taking been established." From the above citations,
it can be concluded that, if a property has even nominal value, the
regulation is not confiscatory and hardship has not been proved. Now,
the final section I have here is - Analysis of the applicant's
investment in property. Entire property, consisting of Lots 19, 20.1,
20.2, 21, 22, 23, 24, and Right Title and Interested if any in Paine
Island, was published in 1946 by Joseph A. LaColla for fifty-five
hundred dollars ($5,500.00). The area has been variously estimated to
be from some thirty-three (33) acres to some forty (40) acres. Over a
period of time, he apportioned four (4)parcels with highway frontage
among his progeny and provided for two residential parcels to the
rear. Two of these parcels, the present sites of Holiister's
Restaurant and the Greenport Pottery have since been resold. In
addition there is a vacant parcel of highway frontage in M-II zoning
which has an area of approximately twenty thousand five .hundred
(20,500) square feet and a most reasonable estimated market value of
say, twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00). By any reasonable standard,
the investment in the property has long since been recouped. At best,
MR. FLYNN (eon't.):any remaining investment would be nominal. An
attempt has been made to influence the Board by reciting an
unsubstantiated, or at least at that time unsubstantiated, estimate of
real estate taxes paid. One does not capitalize real estate taxes.
They don't add to the value of the property and proof of this will be
ascertained quickly from the IRS if an attempt were made to deduct
these taxes paid from a capital gain. Valuation of highway frontage on
a front foot basis is common methodology. This is somewhat involved
and I request that I be paid somewhat close attention to these short
figures here, that they be studied when I submit this. The property's
Page 32 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR. FLYNN (con't.):
total l~ou~e 25 frontage was two thousand seven hundred fifty six, plus
or minus (2,756 +-) linear feet. The purchase price, overall, was two
dollars ($2.00) a linear foot. Even if all the property's utility is
conceded to lie in that portion west of the pond, the usable frontage
is eleven hundred and thirty-six plus or minus (1~136 +-) linear feet.
Ascribing the entire purchase price to this portion of the frontage,
provides an adjusted purchase price of three dollars and thirty-six
cents ($3.36) per front foot. Now, seven hundred sixty-one (761)
linear feet of the total usable frontage of eleven hundred thirty-six
(1,136) linear feet is used for business purposes, currently. This use
constitutes sixty-seven percent (67%) of this westerly frontage. Thus,
at best, only thirty-three percent (33%) of the investment or eighteen
hundred and fifteen dollars ($1,815.0.0) is imputable to the vacant
land. Included in the vacant land, is an M-II zoned parcel,
approximately one hundred feet by two hundred and seven feet (100' by
207'). The value of this parcel, alone far exceeds the-remaining
investment in the property. It is estimated that this parcel, by
itself, has a value approximately tell times the remaining investment.
Even without consideration of this business zoned parcel, the market
value of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) ascribed to the
residential portion alone, ~by the applicant's appraiser, is
thirty-three (33) times the remaining investment. The residential
portion alone, yields a thirty thousand two hundred percent (30,200%)
return on investment. By any standards, this certainly constitutes a
reasonable return on investment, far exceeding both the rate of
inflation and other indices over the period. Even casting aside ali
considerations of public health, safety, and welfare, and the impact on
both the character df the neighborhood and its property values, the
logical conclusion, is that the applicant cannot prove financial
hardship and as a result, there is no basis for the Board to grant this
requested variance. Now, I have a couple of notes, some testimony that
was introduced here, if I could read them.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you let Mr., the attorney... I was
just thinking, why don't you let'him and then you can compose your
thought and then you can come back. That would be the best thing. Not
that I didn't remember your name Mr. Cuddy, I was only trying to
verbalize what I was trying to say to Mr. Flynn. Mr. Cuddy, is there
something you would like To say? First of all, this is a very lengthy
presentation okay, there is no question about it. You may want to sit
down with this and critic it and come back with some rebuttal, I assume
you probably do, don't you? Or maybe you don't want to rebut it at all?
MR. CUDDY: I am not sure I understand you. But I would like to try.
I have a lot of thoughts about it. I would Like to Mr. Fly-nn just one
question. The answer which is indicated, it would probably take me a
while to look at it, because I am not sure I understood the lower kids
math. And I still doubt the veracity of it, but, I could only do that
after looking at it. Because I wasn't able to write fast enough. Mr.
Flynn portrays to live someplace close to the site. I am wondering how
far away you do live Mr. Flynn, and ....
Page 35 '- LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
MR. CUDDY (con't.):
by tins, are the LaCollas. The LaCollas have kept their property for
thirty (30) years. Everybody forgets that. It is very convenient to.
But other people have moved in during the time as Mr. LaColla
indicated, that he has kept his property in fairly pristine condition.
He is not asking for a change of zone, he is asking for a use variance
for five (5) acres of land. He says, he is going to keep all ~he rest
of it with a scenic easement. He has also answered the question about
traffic, going to give the ten (10) foot strip to the Town or to the
State. He is the one that is victimized by this, not the people that
are imposing it. Zoning isn't to condemn property, effectively, what
has happened here, it that he has kept his property and he is being
penalized. And to hear otherwise is just nonsense. I am done.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask you a question Charlie before you
sit down? We have discussed this before. You went before the Open
Space Committee and you spoke to Art Ross and you didn't get anywhere.
MR. CUDDY: Yes, right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We discussed this the last time, Peconie Land
Trust, you didn't make an application.
MR. CUDDY: No, I am trying to get in touch with Peconic Land Trust,
only because I understand just as of two (2) weeks ago, that they were
in the process of purchasing land which is to the north on the other
side of the railroad track.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. What about Nature Conservancy?
MR. CUDDY: No, I haven't had personally good dealings with Nature
Conservancy, doing this sort of thing. One of the things that Nature
Conservancy does, quite regularly, is that they buy parcels and then
they sell them off. People know of the Marshamomaque on Shelter
Island, which is a big, big nature conservancy parcel, but generally
smaller parcels, they only keep for a period and then sell them. The
intent for most of this, was to try and keep the good part of it open
space. I thought if anybody would do that, initially, I thought the
Town would do it. The Town didn't seem to interested, as I indicated
to you. I thought that maybe the Peconic Land Trust people would do
that, and I am trying to talk with them, because they are buying the
pieces a little bit to the north.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before I loose touch here and 1) if we choose to
close this or if you choose to make, you know, some sort of rebuttal in
reference to Mr. Flynn's statements, which I don't have any particular
problem with. I just don't want to leave here forgetting to tell you',
that I would dearly like to have your two (2) appraisers, and it does
not have to be any more than just a letterhead, give us a fair market
value for the piece that is the most westerly piece, that hundred by
two hundred (100 x 200) foot parcel, which is M-Ii I know, I realize
that it has a big cavern out of the center of it, but I would like a
value on that in the next two (2) weeks, if they could just give it to
Page 36 '- LaColia
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
CHAIRMAN GOENRINGER (con't.):
us. AgaLU, it doesn't have to be a formal appraisal, just a short
little thing on the letterhead would be greatly appreciated.
MR. CUDDY: Fine.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, thank you. Mr. Flynn have you... You
are all set now. Okay, great.
MR. FLYNN: Reference has been made to value accordingly established
by an appraisal of the 1960's. An appraisal does not establish market
value. Market value is established in the market place. Now, another
comment was made upon the valuation of the property, predicated upon
potential use by Mr. Goldsmith. Obviously, it is not acceptable to
predicate the value of the property upon uncertain acts of others and
any appraiser should be well aware of that. Now, comments were made at
Southold Shores, was filled in. It was certainly filled in subsequent
to 1946 and that possibility existed for the owners of this property
until the SEQRA act was established. Now, again, taxes paid on real
estate are not evidence of its value. What they really indicate and
are utilized for is a relation to AV's and the assessor's estimate of
value. But that is turn is useless before the courts, it is just not
accepted. Now, finally what the question of granting variances,
Anderson made a substantial study of the granting of variances. I
think, I really don't remember exactly, I think maybe several thousand
were involved, and he found that of the variances that were granted and
contested, sixty-five percent (65%) or approximately two-thirds (2/3)
were over turned by the Courts. The reverse of that is where variances
were denied by Boards of Appeals only twenty-five percent (25%) were
overturned by the Courts. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, we come now to
the situation of whether we are going to close this hearing or not. I
assume that we probably could close the hearing, bearing in mind that
Mr. Cuddy can do his normal rebuttal to Mr. Flynn's presentation by
mail. I don't know if that is the proper way to deal with it however.
And I am really throwing thai out the Board at this particular point.
(tape turned over)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (CCh't): You want to come back to the Board
Charles with your rebuttal?
MR. CUDDY: If I could at least have that privilege, initially, I may
not, but I will know in a day or two, I just want to make copies.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, sure. Then what we will do is, we will
recess it to the next regularly scheduled meeting and we will complete
the process at that point. I am only going to request of the people
that speak at that hearing, that they would limit their remarks to no
more than five (5) minutes, so thai we can conclude this hearing,
except for the activity that might occur and a situation of a back and
Page 37 '- LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (con't.):
forth motion. You know, in that general range. I offer that gentlemen
as a resolution.
End of hearing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, oh I am sorry, Mrs. LaColla? Is is Miss
LaColla?
MRS. RICHARDS: No, it is Mrs. Richards.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do?
MRS. RICHARDS: I would just Hke to remark to Mr. Flynn that that
property is all filled in property that he lives in his comfortable
home there and it was filled in after 1946, because I have lived for
forty-five (45) years on the Main Road there, and right across the
street from him. And I can tell you that I watched them, saw it,
Mr. Reese, a man by the name of Mr. Reese owned that property. And, I
would like to say also, that there are no houses at all visible, you
can drive down that, any of the roads down there, and they see nothing
at all, till you get way deep into it, where the first house is. I
mean, there would be no absolute destruction of a view for them in any
sense of the word. But he is wrong on the filling in. Let me tell you
another thing that I have lived on the Main Road. And I wouldn't
recommend anybody to build a house and live there. And I would say one
more thing about this house, which was Conklin's house, across from
me. That house was left abandoned. The windows were broke and it was
just a dilapidated mess for years, and years, and years. Even the
children didn't even want to have anything to do with it, Mr. Conklin's
children. So, finally after the Conklin's died, they fixed it up and
they had a "For Sale" sign; ! think it was four hundred and fifty
thousand dollars ($450,000.00) around that amount. And it stood there
for six, seven (6, 7) years. An~ finally, they reduced it to, I
think, maybe one hundred and sixty, one hundred and seventy thousand
dollars ($160, 170,000.00.). And someone bought it, right. That was
last year or so. The someone that bought it last year or so moved out
in a hurry. It was resold a couple of months ago, because they
couldn't stand it either.
MRS. FLYNN: That is not true.
MRS. RICHARDS: That is quite true.
MRS. FLYNN: No,...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to tell you that we did close the
hearing. We are taking this testimony, but we have to continue the
next time.
MR. FLYNN: I have to raise a point of personal tribute here. I have
been contradicted by the lady, and unknowingly she said exactly what I
said. Mainly, that this property that was purchased in 1946 and was
Page 38 - LaColla
Public Hearing
Southold ZBA 6/30/92
not filled. In the interim, Southold Shores by and large was filled
and then the SEQRA act prevented any further development of this type.
And, incidentally, the SEQRA act also prevented Mr. Reese from
continuing with his plan.
MRS. FLYNN: And the SEQRA act is what has made us suffer hardship all
these years, but not you, because you got in there before.
MR. FLYNN: Because I complied with the act and I got in there five
(5) years after the passage of the act..
MRS. FLYNN: Whatever.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes, Mr. LaColla.
MR. LaCOLLA: I would like to speak again. I would like to take
exception of being compared to a murderer.
MRS. FLYNN: Yes, I didn't also.
MR. LaCOLLA: Okay, I don't think that that is appropriate. No. 2) I
pointed out before, that after this act, this SEQRA act or whatever it
is, in the 60's the State and the Town decided to dredge Mill Creek,
they had to do something w~th the fill. · Our property was bypassed.
The fill was put on Cassidy's farm, next door. I don't know how many
hundreds of square yards of fill was put there. And yet the logical
place was to put it right where it was taken out of the creek, on our
property. And it wasn't. The next thing is, this property has been
zoned since the zoning came in as residential. How can you build homes
on wetlands?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Gentlemen, we have to reincorporate these
statements back into the records, I will offer that as a resolution.
All in favor - AYE.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it, Mrs. Richards? Is that what your name
is.
MRS. RICHARDS: Yes it is.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again, the information you had given up is
correct To the best of your ability, is that correct?
MRS. RICHARDS: Yes it is.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We thank you all and we hope to see
you again the latter part of the month and wrap this up. July 29th.
[orraine A.
bed by tapes recorded 6/30/92.)