HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/01/1996 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS
MAY 1, 1996
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
Draft Prepared by
Noreen Frey
7:35 p.m. Appl. ~4374 - Patrieia C. Moore as attorney for FRANK AND
LOUISE PALUMBO. This is an application under the Southold Town Zoning
Code Article XXIV, Section 100-244 as amended 11-28-95 (which removed
former subseetion C thereof pertaining To former code setbaeks for former
subdivisions), for s variance based upon the issuance of the Building
Inspeetor's Mareh 22, 1996 Notiee of Disapproval to eons~rue~ a new dwelling
with insuffic;.ent side yard setbaeks. Location of Properzy: 3200 Sound
Drive, Eastern Shores Subdivision Lot ~,108, Greenport, NY; County Tax
Map Psrcel No. 1000-33-1-7. The requirements are for total side yards of 15
and 20, or ~reater, and with a to~al of 35 feet on this 27,400 sf. parcel.
Patrieia Moore as attorney.
CHAIRMAN: On behalf of Patrieia C. Moore as attorney for Frank and
Lonise Pahimbo. This is a survey by Roderick Van Tuyl surveyed Oetober
16, 1995 indicating a 13 and one half foot setbaek on the Westerly side, and
17 and half foot setback on the Easterly side as proposed. I have a copy of
the Suffolk Connty Tax Map indieating this and surrounding properties in
the area. Ms. Moore are you ready?
PATI~ICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight.
PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Fine, thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be
here. The first hearing on today. The first of last month we were the
last.
CtiAIRMAN: You did ppomise me that it's not going to be as chaotic as --.
PATRiCIA MOORE ES~: Well, certainly form us. t hope it won't be from
us. Dr. Palumbo is here, and we hope it wilt be a good evening for him.
He's a first time ~randfather today.
CItA [RMAN: Congratulations.
Page 2 - Public Hearing Transcripts
May I, 1996 - ZBA
PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: So, I'm very happy for him. The Palnmbo as were
indicated last month were effected by Local Law #23 of 1995, that changed
the setbacks for properties that were part of older subdivisions. We have
this lot as with the Kane~s, that it is part of the eastern shore for
subdivision, and all through the time from it's creation in '65 till 1995,
they have had 20 foot setbacks. Now that has changed to 35, so obviously
that creates a hardship, where the Palumbo's proceeded with the
develop,ment of their plans with the survey's and were ready to submit a
building permit when Dr. Paiumbo actually was notified that he needed to
change his thinking, and to come in for a application, when we notified him
on the Kane applicalion, that there was a setback, a side yard setback
requirement for variance.
So.~ we are here tonight. I have a letter of support from the
Kane's. I will submit that to the board. We also have the plans of the
house, which I have one set of plans for your records.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, thank you very much.
PATR!CIA -~v'IOORE ESQ: Thank you. When you take a took a look at the
foundation dimensions on this plan, it shows that the distance is actually
60 fee~, l0 inches. That measurement gives somewhat a little bit of
latitude during the construction process to place the house here. So, what
we're asking for is between 62 and 63, yes four feet aitogether. But, the
measurement as to the property line is actually 93.5, 94 feet width. Rather
tlman the 100 feet shown on the roadside. So, at the property line it's an
narrower distance~ approximately between 93 and 94, which give us the
setbacks that have been requested tonight, the variance ~hat's been
requested tonight.
So~ when you took at the plans, we still request the setbacks tha~
have bees proposed because, obviously placing the house with a one foot
margin of error, becomes difficult for the applicant and his construction
crew. As it is, the variance requested is only !.5 feet on the westerly
side, and 2.~ on the easterly side. So tl~ere has been a minimal of variance
to start wlti~ if you have any questions, i'd be happy to try and answer
ti~em.
CHAIRMAN: I'm going to let our engineer talk to you first~ and that's Mr.
Villa.
PAT~ICIA MOORE E$~: OK. Do you have any questions.
MEMBER VILLA: The 60 foot you were talkin~ about is the prevention from
the bluff?
PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: No, Fm sorry. No~ no. If you take a look at the
plans~ there is the foundation that, page 2 of the plans.
MEMBER. VILLA: Oh, the overall width of the house is 60 feet.
PATRICtA MOORE ESQ: The overall width of the house that is from one
end to the other, tt doesn't include biiko doors and stairs, because i
don't believe that those are measured.
Page 2 - Public ttearing Transcripts
May 1. ]996 - ZBA
CHAIRMAN: Those are exempt. Right.
PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: However, the 60 foot, t0 inches is a very tight
measurements, and because of the distance of the width of this proper~y az
that location, being less than ( ). We have a one foot margin of
error.
MEMBER VILLA: OK
PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: So, it's very possible that when it's actually built,
we'll have a greater setback on one side or the other. The house is
going lo get any larger. It's just that it's going to be placed so that it
Increases the side yard, the need for a side yard variance, is reduced.
MEMBER VILLA: I have no problem.
PATR[C!A MOORE ESQ: OK, thank you.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You would have been able m build this house, and you
wouldn't have been here, had the law nol changed, right?
PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Correct.
MEMBER, DINIZIO: That's all [ ask~
PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK
CIIAIRMAN: Lydia.
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN: ']'he only question we had is. Are you closing esther side up
on things tha~ are waived or exemp~ such as: bilco door.
PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Oh no. [ believe that the measurement there is,
maybe 4 fee~ maximum on --.
CHAIRMAN: So you'll have 9 or 10 feet on either side.
PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Correct
CHAIRMAN: Unobstructed, so as to be able to ge~ m the bluff area if you
have tO.
PATRICIA MOORE ES(~: Correct.
CHAIRMAN: Let's jus~ see if any~txing developes in the hearing. Would
anvone like to speak in favor of tDAs application? Anybody like ~o speak
against this application? Ok, seeing no hands. Does anyone wan~ m make a
motion Ladies and Gentlemen?
MEMBER DiNIZIO: I'll make a morion that we gran~ it as applied.
CItAiRMAN: i'll second it Dr. Have a lovely evening.
Page ,i - Public Hearing Transcripts
May 1, i996 - ZBA
7:43 p.m. App[. #4375 - Bi, UNO AND FELICE SEMON. RECESSED PER
APPLICANT REQUEST.
7:45 p.m. Appl. #4378 - JOSEPH CORRETTI. This is an application for a
variance under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Artiele XXIV, Section
!00-244B for permission so reduce front and rear yard setbacks for a new
dwelling on which was deemed to have more than one front yard. The code
requires a 40 ft. front, 50 ft. rear, and 15 and 20 side yard setbacks on
this 21,200+- sf parcel located at 2285 Westview- Drive, Mattituck~ NY;
Collnty Tax Map Pa.rcel No. 1000-i07-7-1.1
CHAIRMAN: [ have a copy of am survey from Smith and Young dated July
tl, 1983. it indicated the approximate position of the house and it is
presently stakes. ! was over there this morning. I have a copy- of a
Suffolk County- Tar~ Map indicating tbAs and surrounding properties in the
area. How are you Sir?
MR. JOSEP.H CORRETTI: Fine
CHAf[~.MAN: Could you state your name for the record?
MR. JOSEPH CORRETT!: Joseph Corretti.
CHAIRMAN: How are you.
MR. 3OSEPH CORRETTI: I have to turn this in for the record.
CHAIRMAN: OK, thank you, very good. What would you like to tell
MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: When I submitted the building permit I assumed
the one side yard would be 15 feet, and I found out that the property has
three front yards, and no side yard. So, t need a variance to put a house
55 feet across as it states in the survey. So, I need a 15 foot from the
property- line into the house on the side whieh~ they called an arrear~ and
on the other side 95 feet which would mean I would need a 15 foot variance
setback from the front. Do you follow what i'm doing?
C~tA [t~.MAN: Yes
MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: In other words, the back of the house will face
the water, and the side~ what I assumed was the side is facing my
neighbors house. So i would need the proper variances according to the
Zoning Board.
Ct!AIRMAN: Ok. The nature here basically is the fact~ the road leaning to
the pork and playground area is what the Building Inspector is construing
to be. a road.
MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: Right. t didn't know that when i bought the
proper~y. I thought it was a right of way. But also, what that does is.
it makes no--. The~'re saying, there is no side yard which means. The
parcel was taken over with a 20 foot wide house on the property- accordin~
to the Town Code.
Page 5 - Public ltearing Transcripts
May 1, 1996 - ZBA
CItAIRMAN: OK
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I just want m mention that, the reason
they're saying it's a road is because it's showing on the County Tax Map as
a road right down to the creek. So, he has no choice but to come in for a
variance.
CHAIRMAN: Sure
JEANNE CORRETTI: May I bring this up
CHAIRMAN: Surely
JEANNE CORRETTI: The road., the one they consider a road, is a path
going to the water. This is approximately what the house is going to look
like, and this is the house aex~ store, and this is where we went for the
house ( ~, so this would be a side.
CHAIRMAN: Ok, we'll leave that up here, and if anybody wants to take a
look, we can recess for a couple of minutes. Is there anything else you'd
like --.
MR. JOSEPIt CORRETTI: No, I just don't know how they're going to fig~tre
it. The lots has no side or three fronts or what. But, I'm going to need
two variances ~hen, according to the building application.
CHAIRMAN: OK
MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: t want 55 feet across.
CHAIRMAN: Let's start with Mrs. Tortora.
MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any questions.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio
MEMBER DINIZIO: Nothing at all.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa
MEMBER VILLA: Did you ever give any thought of turning the house
around, so [hat 55 feet goes along ~he other side?
MR.. JOSEPH CORRETTI: No, it wouldn't work that way because, ~ want
the back of the house to face the water, it's senseless to, you know
Then, there is no yard that way.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: He would still need a rear yard variance,
probably or something.
MR.. JOSEPH CO~RETTI: The property is in the half acre.
MEMBER VILLA: He would need one variance, not three.
Page 6 - Pnblie Hearing Transcripts
May l, [996 - ZBA
SECRETAi~Y LtNDA KOWALSKI: Yes. It's only two variances Bob, today.
Two variances, not three. A front yard and --.
MEMBER. VILLA: it's only 40 feet right~
SECRETARY LiNDA KOWALSKi: What do you mean Bob?
MEMBER VILLA: And if you turn it around the other way, you would have
40 feet.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: 25 foot is the variances they are asking for.
MEMBER VILLA: Right, and the house is 40 feet deep, and it's 5§ across.
So, if you turn it the other way, you have 15 feet there. Add 25 and you
have 40 feet.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes: but then. His back yard would be
hfs ael~hbors house, you know. It's kind of hard. He wouldn't have any
privacy that way.
MR. JOSEPH CORRETTi: The property is 250 feet from the pond to the
back. Tha?s why [ wanted to put ~-. I have an ample back yard facing
the water.
CHAIRMAN: Right
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: He teehnicaily doesn't have a rear yard on
his. He has three front yards. So, that's what causes the problem.
CHAIRMAN: i don't have any particular questions. ! understand your
plight. We will see. We may recess to see if anyone wants to took at these
pietures~ but we'll see what happens.
MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: Sure
CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this
application? Thank you very much Mrs. Corretti. Anyone want to speak in
favor of the application?
MRS. GALLIGAN: I'd like to see the plans. We're neighbors.
CHAIRMAN: Surely. Ok, we take approximately two minutes. Yes, I
know you are.
MRS. GALLIGAN: You see, here we are. You see Gerry, we're here.
C!tAiitMAN: Right, ! was there this morning.
MRS. GALLIGAN: Oh, you were. So, it isn't the --.So, it really isn't a
big problem.
CHAIttMAN: It's reaiIy much better to have it this way, than having the
~ie ,~
back of the house towards your p e~.
Page 7 - Public Hearing Transcripts
May 1, 1996 - ZBA
MRS. GALLIGAN: There realIy no~ asking for anything but for their own
property. I don% see any problem. They're off the site of us. There on
~ nice. you know --.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Cute house
MRS. GALLIGAN: [ don't see --,
MR. GALLIGAN: Give them a chance ~o go bsck zo work.
MRS. GALLIGAN: OK
CHAIRMAN: So nice to see you both.
MRS. GALLIGAN: Nice [o see you ~oo, always.
CHAIRMAN: OK. We reconvened. I need a motion To reconvened.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKi: We didn't recess, it's still open.
CHAIRMAN: We'll leave it open. [s there anything you would like to add,
Mr. & Mrs. Corre~ti?
MR.. CORRETTI: I need a one story home ~o --. The building depar~menz
said. why don't you build up because my Mother is 80, and she can't be
walkhig up snd down the stairs.
CHAIRMAN: OK. all right.
MR. CORRETTI: That's about it really. Like I said, I didn't know the lot
had three fronts until last week. I never heard of that before. Three
fronts ond no sides.
MRS. CORRETTI: And we've had it for 18 years.
CHAiRMAM~ it's a great place. It's a great subdivision. Looks like it's
going to very nice. OK, hearing no further comment I can close the
hearing or I can address any motion Ladies and Gentlemen.
MEMBER TORTORA: I'H mske a motion to approve it as applied for.
CHAIRMAN: Who would like to second it? I'll second it.
All in favor.
MR. COR. RETTI: I just want to say one thing. Going through this ~dth the
Tax Assessor and the Building Department. Everyone was so nice to us out
here. It was incredible. It really was. I was shocked.
CHAIRMAN: It was nice o£ you to say that. Can i just reflect on one
thing. That's the great part of being a small Town.
7:55 p.m. Appl. #43?7 - DANIELE DUPUIS. This is an application
request.lng a Waiver under Section 100-26 of the Zoning Ordinance based
upon the Building Inspector's March 21, 1996 Notice of Disapproval, in -which
Page 8 - Public Hearing Transcripts
May l, I996 - ZBA
applicant was denied a building permit to construct a one-family dwelling.
Under Article 11, Section I00-25A enacted 1/1/96, the subject lot is
substandard in size and has been held in common ownership with an
adjoining lot, 1000-137-i-i4, referred to as M.S Hand Combined Lots ~!03
and #~04 (improved with a single-family dwelling. Applicant alternatively
will provide a more e¢luai lot size by enlar~in~ the dwelling tot (adding M.S
i!and Lot ~105 to the above-noted lot now consisting of #i04 and #103.)
The subject property for which a waiver is requested is identified as County
Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-!37-i-15, located along Stillwater Avenue,
Cutchog~le, NY~ also referred to as M.S., Hand Combined Lot Nos. 105, !06,
107, 102. Zone District: R-40 Residential.
CHAIRMAN: This is an application requesting a waiver under Section 100-26
of the Zonin~ Code based upon the Building !nspector's March 2!, 1996
notice of disapproval, in which the applicant was denied a building permit
to construct a one-family dwelling. Under Article i!, Section !00-25A
enacted l/1/96 the subject lot is substandard in size and has been held in
commou ownership with an adjoining lot, 1000-137-I-14, referred to as M.S
Hand Combihed Lots #i03 and #104 (improved with a single-family dwelling).
Applicant alternatively will provide a more equal lot size by eniargin~ the
dwelling lot (adding M.S. Hand Lot ~105 to the above-noted lot now
consisting of #!04 and #i03.) The subject property for which a waiver is
requested is identified as County Tax Parcel No. 1000-137-1-15~ located
along Stillwater Avenue, Cutchog-tte, NY; also referred to as M.S. Hand
Combined Lot Nos. 105, i06~107, !08. Zone District: R-40 Residential.
CHAIRMAN: This is a. copy of a sketch indicating the present position of
tl~e house, accessory building, proposed house on lots #!06:#t07 and ~108.
I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
properties in the area. Would you like to be heard?
DANIELE DUPUIS: Are we having the hearing tonight.
CHAIRMAN: No, we are opening the hearing and we are going to regroup
at the next scheduled meeting. But~ you are very welcome to say whatever
you like.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: He's going to start to_night, but he's going
to continue it. Daniele, we'd like to talk about why it's difficult for a
postponement for her.
CHAIRMAN: OK
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: ! thought we'd discuss a postponement
first_ So, but you could speak about the postponement now if you'd like.
DANIELE DUPUIS:. I'm sorry. I haven't done this --.
CHAIRMAN: We're not sure we understand either, but we're working toward
ail understandL~g.
DANIELE DUPUiS: The reason I'm here is, to defend the value of my
property because as i understand it. If my lot is considered a buiidable
iol ii: has one value, if it's not a buildable lot, it has another value.
Page 9 - Public Ilearing Transcripts
May l, 1996 - ZBA
I'm selling at this point, so it inflnences alot of people, and alot of
people are waiting for this decision. Because, on the one ]land, I'm told
~bal ~his prol)erty has merged. On tile other hand, ever since my parents
baught the house in ]957, and the other lot in 1966, they have been paying
taxes on lhe lot now termed 137-115 as if it was a buildable lot. So, they
have been payiug taxes on it since 1966 as a buildable lot. I continue to
pay taxes on it as a buildable lot. So, basically just for everyone sake,
il wouht be good to lmve a decision. I need to be able to tell buyers what
tile? price is, because I cannot ask a buyer to pay the same price for a
noa-buildable lot as for a buildable lot. That's why I would have preferred
a decision louight because, I'll still be in a position where I can't tell
anyone anything.
CtIAIItMAN: I don't want to --. This is not a derogatory statement in
saying, bu! 1he phrase usually is, "I don't want to bust your bubble".
have 60 days to make a decision so --.
We
I)ANIELI~ I)UPllIS: I'm sorry, I'm just not --.
CIIAIRMAN: We may if we close the hearing, we could address it tonight,
but we don't necessarily bare to.
DANIELE DUPIJIS: Oil, I see.
CIIAIRMAN: More than likely it would be addressed if we close the hearing
around tile end of May. So, I'm just mentioning it to you. The situations
that we had before us, and tile other two decisions we made, we were aware
of, ok. So that's the reason why they were made. Very rarely are decision
made on, at that particular time. We go into a deliberation process after.
SECRETAI~Y LINDA KOWALSKi: Well, I had explained to Dan]cie, that many
times --. She was at our last meeting and so that night we made alot of
decisions. She wasn't aware at that time, I guess that there were going to
be abjections on it, and further postponement requested. So, your policy is
Jerry, when people ask for a postponement.
CllAIRMAN: That we usually grant one. In this particular case it's a three
week postponement because we're having a meeting at the end of May. So,
it's not catastrophic because we probably wouldn't make a decision until
Iben anyway.
MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, we'll have the hearing tonight but it
will be recessed until tile next hearing.
CIIAIRMAN: Yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: 1 will continue as you like in support of your
al)plica~ion tonight, or--.
CItAIRMAN: Or hold off until the next time.
I)ANIELE DUPUIS: You decision is anyway, is to postpone the meeting.
MEMBER TORTORA: To recess it.
Page 10 -Publie Ilearing Transcripts
May l, 1996 - ZBA
CttAIRMAN: Is to recess it.
MEMBER TORTORA: We're having an official hearing this evening, the
hearing will continue at our next regular meeting, because it's the board's
policy that if there is a request, to have it recessed, to allow someone
else to have a legal council present. That's the board's.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: We have the option of presenting your case
now, or waiting till the next meeting. That's your choice.
MEMBER TORTORA: Or both.
CtfAIRMAN: Or both.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Both
MEMBER TORTORA: You can present it tonight, and at the next meeting.
DANIELE DUPUIS: There is no point in doing it tonight because, you
know. It would just be easier if you hear both sides, and consider it, at
lhe same time I think.
SECRETARY L1NDA KOWALSKI: I couldn't give an answer to anyone at
4:30 today, whether it would be postponed because it's the board's
decision, l~'s not my decision.
I)AN1ELE DUPUIS: No, I understand. I just --
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I'm sorry that you had to come out.
I)AN1ELE DUPUIS: No, no. I just came --. I thought I would explain why
I would have preferred a decision tonight, that's all.
CIIAIRMAN: Right
DANIELE I)UPIHS: But I think it's --. My decision was that it was up to
tile board to decide, that's all.
CHAIRMAN: Sure
DANIELE DUPUIS:
it is.
CIIAIRMAN: Yes.
DANIELE DUPUIS:
CHAiI~MAN: OK.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI:
CI1AIRMAN: May 29
To weight both sides and then decide. So that's where
In that case, I'll wait until next time, I gmess.
What's tile date of that meeting.
May 29.
Page J1 - Public Itearing Transcripts
May 1, i996 - ZBA
SECRETARY [,INDA KOWALSKI: May 29, Wednesday night. It will be about
7:30.
DANIELE DUPUIS: So~ the status right now is just that --.
CHAIRMAN: IUs in recess., and will be in recess.
MEMBER TORTORA: Do you have to re-notice?
SECRETARY L[NDA KOWALSKI: No, I don't have to re-notice. We recess it
with a date. IU's not re-advertised, it's not re-posted. It's set for a
(late. It should be here and it probably won't be further postponed.
That's the policy.
CHAIRMAN: OK. is there anything you would Hke to say for the record?
Mit. CARL VAIL: Yes, thank you for the postponement.
CHAIRMAN:' Ok.
MR. CARL VAIL: Fll have our attorney here on the 20 th.
CHAIRMAN: Great. is there anyone that is not going to be here on the 29,
that would like to say something regarding this hearing? Again, this is
barring my agenda. Appeal ~4377, seeing no hands I'll make a motion in
recessing it to the next regular scheduled meeting.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Could you give a date with that please?
CItAIRMAN: Yes, May 29 th.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Thank you
MEMBER DINIZiO: Second.
CItAIRMAN: All in favor, aye.
8:03 p.m. Appi. #4376 - SCOTT A. RUSSELL k AND. This is an
application requesting a Waiver under Section i00-26 of the Zoning
Ordinance, based upon the Building Inspector's March 14, 1996 Notice of
Disapproval, in which applicant was denied a building permit to construct a
one-family dwelling. Under Article il, Section 100-iliA enacted 1/1/96~ the
subject lot 1000-I36-1-19 is substandard in size~ is referred to as Eugene
Heigt~ts Lots 78 & 79 fronting along Oak Street, and has been held in
common ownership after ~953 with an adjoining lot, ~000-136-~-fi9,, referred
to as E1t~ene Heights Lots
#lli and #112 fronting aion~ iiarbor Lane, at Cutchogue, NY. The total
combined lot area is less than 40,000 sf and less than i50' lot width. Zone
District: R-,10
CIIAIRMAN: i have a copy of a map produced by John Metzger, it's a
survey I should say -most recent date is September 27, 1995 indicating a 50
by ]25 tol. i have s copy of the County Tax Map indicatin~ this and
surroundin~ properties in the area. Scott, how are you tonight?
Pagt~ 12 - Pablie llcar'iag Transcripts
May 1, 1996 - ZBA
SCOTT R/JSSELL: Fine, how are you. I don'l want to sound inconvenient
h~ anybody. I was hoping that [ could presort[ any argument I might have,
['or a JFnll boarxl of lbo Zoning Board of Appeals. I know that you have a
CtIA1RMAN: Yes, lie had a death in the family.
SCOTT RUSSELL: i don't want to inconvenience anybody, but is it possible
thai I could be granted a recess if [ requested one. I'm ready to prepare
and l~'osem aow if that's what you want, but I was hoping that I could
recess it and have it before all five members.
(UIAIRMAN: Sure, no problem. Just say it if you want.
SCOTT RUSSELL: I want it.
CIIAIRMAN: Ok, no problem.
SCOTT RUSSELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak either
for or agaiost this application, that might not be here on the 29th. Seeing
no hailds i make a motion recessing this unti] the 29th.
Prepared by Noreen Frey from tape recordings.
RECEIVED AND F LED BY
THE SOUTHOLD ~OWN CLEkRK
To~m C,lerk, Town o~ Seuthoid
MAY 1, 1996 PUBLIC HEARINGS
Continued
8:05 p.m. Appi. ~4373 Richard F. Lark, Esq. attorney for
RONALD J. MAYER. This is an application for a variance based
upon the Building Inspector's March 19, 1996 Notice of Disapproval
issued under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2 whereby applicant
applied for a building permit for permission to convert existing
separate building for a one-family dwelling occupancy, and/or to
create a separate parcel containing less than the required tot area,
width and depth in this R-40 Zone District. Building permit #12554Z
issued 8/27/83 indicates the Building Inspector granted oermission
"zo construct two-story non-habitable accessory building." Location
of Property: 7735 Main Road, East Marion, County Tax Map Parcel
1000-31-2-26, a corner lot, oontaimng a total area as exists of
25,210 square feet. Additionally, the building as exists will not
conform to yard setbacks for a principal dwelling and additional
variances are necessary for approval as a principal dwelling
conversion.
CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a map survey indicating the parcel
which is the parcel that we are addressing with the building on
tonight, of 12,605 square feet indicated on the survey to be set off,
and the house parcel which sits directly on the corner o£ Rocky Point
Road and Main State Highway 25 which also comprises of
building, 12,605 square feet. I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating this and s~rrounding properties in the area.
And, Mr. Lark, whenever you're ready. How are you tonight?
RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Good evening, Richard Lark, Main Road,
Cutchogue, New York for the applicant Ronald Mayer. As indicated
in the notice that you !lad read, the petitioner - and I'll cover the
history of it, as best I can. When he discovered that this property
that he had purchased at the foreclosure sale, as a result of
foreclosing his own mortgage, had in effecz an illegal two-family
dweiling constructed on it. And he wan~ed zo figure ou~ the best
way ~o proceed, and it was decided by after giving it serious
consideration that h] order ~o legalize the de facto or existing
situation, that it was best to reqnesz the board to subdivide it into
two parcels, each having a single family dwelling, which I will cover
the reasons for, in a couple of minutes.
The petitioner received title to this property by
referee'sdeed in foreclosure, a copy of what you have as Exhibiz i on
September v, 1995. Prior to that, the petitioner was the principal
in a company called the American Mortgage and Loan Corm.. which
Page 2 - i~Iay 1, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
is a licensed New York private mortgage lender, who had granted the
~h~ particular parcel, a John Porfiris and a
prior owners at * ;-
Nicki Porfiris~ his wife~ a mortgage in September of 1989. And
that mortgage is a recorded mortgage, and it covered this parcel, as
well as several other parcels in the Town of Southold which
Mr. Mayer wi!! inform you about, as well as another parcel in
Queens~ I beHeve.
But in any event~ when Mr. Mayer runs his mortgage lending
business much like any bank doest, and you have to make an
application, after you make an application, then there is a credit
search, and t_en there is a title search to see what the collateral
is, and so on and so forth. And when ~lr. Porfiris applied for this
mortgage, he represented that one of the parcels of the collateral
with this property contained two indfividuai, one-family houses: and
indeed it did. Mr. Mayer inspected the property. It did have that
back in !989. Building #i which IHt refer to in ibis presentation~
fronts on the Main Road~ corner of Rocky Point and the Main Road.
Building #2 which is in the rear of the property and fronts on Rocky-
Point Road facing Sep'sFarm.
At the mortgage closing~ which was in September 7, !929 Mr.
and Mrs. Porfiris presented the appHcant~ who was the lender at
that time, a survey~ a currenl 1989 surveys, showing the property
w~h the two dwellings. You have a copy- of that survey- as Exhibit
2. And in their mortgage application~ they represented that Building
#1, which is on the corner~ was constructed many years a~o, and
had suffered extensive fire damage in !988, and had been repaired.
Indeed Mr. Mayer investigated it. He found that to be true, and
they producedthe CO for the closing for this building reflected on
May 22, 1989, which was issued for repa~~ of fire damage that he had
previously issued by a building permit by the Town of Southold.
Ok. That's also at~ached to Exhibit #~.
In addition~ he represented that building #2~ which facin~
Sep~sfarm on Rocky- Point Road, had replaced a prior two story
pre-existing structure, which had been used as a seasonal dwelHng~
and was a built many years ago. Mr. Porfiris explained to
Mr. ~I=yer that he rebuilt ~h~_s building in !983-t984 time frame, and
he indeed showed him the Certz~cate of Occupancy dated Septem-
ber 27th showing this dwel!in~ as a ~'... two story, one family
dwelling." Ok. A copy of that is also attached as mxmm~ 2.
Mr. Porfiris, Mr. Mayer will testify as to that because he was
present, i was not, at the closing. And i~r. Porfirisalso
represented, although the CO for Building ~, had been issued for
one family dwelling since the time of the construction in t982~ and
keep in mind this was i989, that the buildiug had been used as a two
family dwelling because when Mr. Mayer investigated the property he
discovered that indeed ~
.t had two separate entrances. It had a
downstairs and an upstairs, completely independent of one another.
Both having three bedrooms, a large living room. Both having
kitchens, bathroom facilities and that dwelling indeed had its own
cesspool facilities. M.. Porfiris renresentem at the Heat tn
Suf._o!k County Health Department had approved the
Department, ~
water line to come through the main building ~.1 on the corner to
supply water to this building. Mr. Porfirisatso indicated that he
Page 3 - May 1, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
himself had physically lived in the building after the fire in
building .~1, wkile it was being repaired. The title search performed
that's normaity done by a lender indicated that there were no
outstanding violations in the Town of Southotd and the title then
closed.
Unfortunately for Mr. Mayer, and probably why the reason he's
here today, the Porfirises defaulted in paying their mortgage, which
resulted in a foreelosure, which I indicated zo you earlier in my
remarks as a result of which in September 7, 1995 a foreclosure deed
was passed over to Mr. Mayer. Hence his problems really began as
far. as this particular piece of property.
Apparently, when he took title to it, the prior owners had done
some, In essence, some vandalism type damage [o the premises, so,
Mr. Mayer was in a quandary as just what to do with it, and how to
fix it, and so on and so forth. [n obtaining advice of a local
broker Lynda Spangel, it was discovered that "you better cheek it
ouT, just what the legal status of everything was." In that process
he discovered that, in fact, the CO for building #l was indeed valid,
but the CO that he presented to him at the closing was a forgery
because someone, presumably Mr. Porfiris who gave the CO had
altered it, from what was the real document. A copy of it was in the
Building Department file and you have it as Exhibit #5 which was a
two story, nonhabitable accessory building which is far different
than a one-story residential dwelling. Ok.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Mr. Lark, it wasn't the altered
CO that was in the Building Department file?
RICHARD LARK: I didn't say that. t said Mr. Porfirisfile given
to him at the time of the mortgage closing, he discovered later after
taking title in 1985 what the true CO was. And that the CO given to
him was indeed a forgery.
RICHARD LARK: Further investigation revealed that the local
contractor, who both not only did the renovations zo house Il where
the fire loss was, but also had constructed this building ~2, was one
Mr. Chester Orlowski, a local builder. And upon checking his
records, Mr. Mayer discovered that in 1983, Orlowskireceived a
building permit for a ~wo story nonhabitable accessory building.
And investigation further realized that it brought forth that, when
Mr. Orlowski was in the process of exercising a building on the
building permit, and he was tearing down the barn that had been on
there before he encountered a stop work order by the Building
Department, and even though, Mr. Orlowskiwas trying to put it in
the same footprint, the Building Inspector at the time said, "No, you
have to move it back 35 feet from the road. It has to conform with
Zoning and tt~ere were some o~her difficulties with the design of the
roof," which were ail worked out, so on and so forth. And
Mr. Oriowskithen apparently complied with ail the requests with the
Building Department, passed all the inspections and completed the
building.
In 19S2 after ~he fire damage took Building ~1~ indeed, the
Building Department again came to the premises, and issued a
Page 4 - May 1, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southo!d Town Board of Appeals
building permit for the repair of the damage that was caused to that
building. I t~h~nk it's apparent from just what live said so far~
that the d~fficulties to the petitioners are obvious. The property
in its present condition, ~ is not !e~itimately saleable to a
bonafidepurchaserbecause of this Certificate of Occupancy status.
Further~ in researching the problem, the petitioners found that
in ~984, Building ~2 has been used as a two-family dwelling in
particular in the Summer season. But it's his belief that if the
Zoning Beard granted the relief requested here for the area variance
of two individual lots; they would be in his best interest~ so that
he could sell them, and as well as the Town~ to okay two single
family dwellings here, that would be owned independently of one
another. There is no question that he will have to make some
improvements to Building ~2~ because he m~lI have to open up the
downstairs to the upstairs~ so that the two outside doors will be a
front door and one would be a side or rear door. You could get
internal access to upstairs from downstairs, and move the !4Jtchen on
the second story floor as well as some other housekeeping items.
It's well constructed and in pretty good shape, it just needs to be
converted into a one family, rather than a two family home.
At ti~As point~ not to belabor anything~ ! would like to --.
CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask a queszion?
RICHARD LARK: Surely.
CHAIRMAN: So at this time there are two separate tdtchens in that
building?
RICHARD LARK: That's right. Two separate kitchens. Actually
there are just two complete units to~aily independen~ of one
another. One exactly right on top of one another. Both ~dth three
bedrooms, a large- huge living room, a dining facility,
kitchen-dining facility~ and a full bathroom. Al! substantial rooms.
CHAIRMAN: How many electric meters are on that house?
MR. RICHARD LARK: i think at the present time~ one. Is that
correct (to Mr. Mayer)?
RONALD MAYER: Yes.
MR. LARK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
RICHARD LARK: One, ok. At this time I would like to present to
the board Lynda Spangel~ who more or less i think, asked al! the
right questions when she was asked by Mr. Mayer, how to properly
market the property after he got it in foreclosure. Lynda?
LYNDA SPANGEL: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Board of Appeals. Thank you for zhe opportunity to introduce
myself and address the issues of the Ronaid J. Mayer application for
Page 5 - May 1, 1996
Transerip~ of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
a permit To subdivide the property on the corner of Rocky Point Road
and the Main Road. My name is Lynda Lee SpangeI, and I've been a
permanent resident of the Town of Southold for 30 years, and a
summer resident for 20 years before that. You can tell by the gray
hair that there's more years in addition To that Too.
From 1984 until very recently, I resided on the Main Road in
Orient. Driving by the subject proper~y a minimum of four times a
day, seven days a week. The major portion of my professional
career was spent as an officer of Southold Savings Bank and
subsequently as a Senior Vice President of North Fork Bank Corp,
where I was in charge of loan operations. At one point during my
ten~re a~ Southotd Savings, I was in 6harge of foreclosures,
bankruptcies~ and other real estate owned, and tlmis property that
Mr. Mayer now owns was the subjec~ of several foreclosure actions.
Thus, I have in excess of 25 years' experience with morIgage
lending, everything from application through to liquidation or
satisfaction.
After I retired from North Fork Bank, i attended the American
Real Estate School, where I became a licensed rea] estate sales
person. After a year of experience, and meeting the point systems,
taking more schooling and graduation, I now I'm a fully licensed real
estate broker, affiliated with HahnRealty in Greenpor~. Thus as you
can see, [ have had continuing and concentrated experience with
analyzing and evaluating property values within the Town of Southold
- both from a lending prospective and. or a marketing approach.
Mr. Mayer came ~o me in the very late fall of 1995 ~o discuss
selling his Rocky Point Road property. Upon inspection of the
subject properly, I, of course, remembered the problems and its
negative history. Before giving Mr. Mayer my opir~on as to the
range of current market value based on my banking background, I
requested copies of CO, survey, deed, permits, and building card.
Of course, my due diligence included further inspecting the
neighborhood, which I was already very familiar with. I would like
to present to you a chart showing the adjoinining properties, their
addresses and what they are currently used for.
CHAIRMAN: Could I see that?
LYNDA SPANGEL: When Mr. Mayer informed me after his due dili-
gence and mine, that the CO was for a one family dwelling with two
story, nonhabitabIe accessory building~ he said to me, "What am i
going to do?" Mr. Mayer and I, both of us realized then, that the
property was of a lotlesser value than we had ori~nally
anticipated. Mr. Mayer was very definite and so was I, to keep
compliance of course, with my license, that we must address this
issue in a legal manner. Therefore, he requested further assistance
from me.
We entertained several thoughts that we might present to you,
regarding this dilemma of the highest and best use of the property.
We thought of a bed and breakfast. We thought of asking you for a
permit for a two family structure for the accessory structure, which
indeed it had been used as if iz was a two family. However, we did
Page 6 - May i~ 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
agree that the fairest and most reasonable and best use for the area
was to subdivide the property and ask you permission for two single
family dwellings.
That particular house and area~ as I would pass by and would
observe on weekends~ summertime there would be a iotof extra cars~
trucks. Many people milling about; obviously being habited by more
than a single family. If you were to ask my opinion as to "as
value of the property with the current CO~ t -would have to say it
was in the range of $125,000.00 to $139,000.00. Now, '___you favor
us with the request that Mr. Lark has presented to you this evening,
the rear house ti~at faces on Rocky Point Road as a single dwelling,
we'would value it in the range of $85,000.00 to $99,000.00 with the
parcel, the main house that faces on the Main Road, ~dth a separate
value of $!fi0,000.00 to 125,000.00. The price for the front house
may seem low to you. But if you -were to visit the site, you -would
see that in the main house, it was totally destroyed by the previous
owner and occupant, in that, there is not a working kitchen. They
just ripped everytbHn~ out of the walls. The bathroom was totally
destroyed. There are holes in the -wall. So there is Httle
that's why the vaiue, is as it is. But yet the taxes on this parcel
for $5,300.00. ! want to thank you very much for Hstening to us
and giving us this consideration. Should you have any questions or
need further research on behalf of a real estate broker~ as myse!f~
would be happy to do so.
CHAIRMAN: Just before you leave Mrs. Spangel. The house was
renovated after the fire. is tha~ correct?
LYNDA SPANGEL: Yes~ and during that time the Porfiriseswere
occupying the back dwelling -while it was being renovated.
CHAIRMAN: So that the vandalism that occurred, occurred~ you
knew - (interrupted).
LYNDA SPANGEL: Between !989 and when Mr. Mayer had
successfully (interrupted).
CHAIRMAN: Successfully foreclosed the mortgage.
LYDNA SPANGEL: The referee deed was ~ranted to him.
CHAIRMAN: Ok, ~reat. Let me see. Does anybody else have any
questions of this nice lady? Bob.
MEMB ER VILLA: Are you familiar with Health Department
regulations? How is this going to fit iD_ with Article 6?
LYNDA SPANGEL: I do understand that there will have to be~ but I
refer that to Mr. Lark because he's the expert, i am not in that
RICHARD LARK: Mr. Mayer at my request did go to the Health
Department, and they told him he would have to put in another well.
it can be put in because Van Tuy!did the survey to show ~ha~ there
is enough separation between the neighboring ~ro~erties. He cam~ get
Page 7 - May 1, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
100 feet, and they told him depending on the depth of the well and
everything. He has not done those tests yet, whether or not he
would have ~o go for a variance because he can ge~ 100 feet
separation. But as you now, he would like 150 fee~ now especially
with an undersized lot.
MEMBER VILLA: In fact, he has ~o subdivide this piece of
property.
RICHARD LARK: Right, he can't do anything until he gets the
Board of Appeals approval. Then he has To ~et Article 6, under the
Health Department. Then he has to get the local Planning Board to
approve it. So he has three hurdles to go before he can, and then
convert the house to a one family, a true one family before he can
get a proper CO. So, he' has four hurdles to overcome. But, no
one will do any-thing until the Board of Appeals grants the land use
of it which they can under the Zoning Code, by granting a variance
because the structures are already there to quote, "for the
undersized lots".
MEMBER VILLA: Because I have concerns on it.
RICHARD LARK: No~ no.
MEMBER VILLA: It's a one acre area, and you're asking for lots of
12,000 square feet.
RICHARD LARK: That's correct.
MEMBER VILLA: Which is a great deviation.
RICHARD LARK: There's no question about it. But in my 30 years
of practice I've never had a problem like this before, and I can't
tell you how many hundreds of mortgages I closed. When you're
working for a lender or somebody else, and I can't tell you how many
times we've taken photo copies of COs, because you couldn't get one
with a seal on it, and all the other kind of stuff. You just do it.
I can't tell you how many times we've done that. I've never had this
happen before, and when I questioned him, how did it happen? He
said, "Very easy. I went there. It was wh8t he said it was. It
was what the papers said it was. It was what the survey said it
was. Everything was in proper order and the title search. They
did the departmental, and-it didn't show any violations." So they
said, it was one of these things.
MEMBER VILLA: Because you know, this is different with the Health
Department too, ~eeause in the past if there were two valid houses,
they would subdivide them. But here, you've got an illegal.
RICHARD LARK: You got an illegal. It has to be made to "legal."
That's as far as the land use is concerned. The Health Department
told me that. Come back after you get done with the Board of
Appeals. Then we'll wrestle with the problems. Make sure you've
got at least ]00 feet that you could put a well. You know, play the
musical wells and the cesspool game. Ok, i know.
Page $ - May I, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
LYNDA SPANGEL: I just want to reiterate the fact that, I can:t
see anything detrimental as far as the area goes to subdividing it.
I think the chart demonstrates that. That already is an area that is
of mixed use and certainly is a traffic area. It certainly-
would be far better to have two single one families, than to have the
illegal type operation that was continuing there and perpetuated
itself for many years. Thank you.
MEMBER VILLA: I just have a problem trying to !egalfze something
that was done in violation of the Town at! these years.
RICHARD LARK: We'll come to that.
MEMBER VILLA: It just doesn't seem right.
CHAIR~ZART: OK,
MR. RON MAYER: Good evening. My name is Ron Mayer, and I was
the President of American Mortgage & Loans, that originated this
mortgage back in 19799 back in !989 ~ excuse me. it feels Hke '79.
Just to reiterate a little bit what Mr. Lark said, and Lynda said.
When we originate a mortgage, we do a title search~ so on and so
forth. TbHs mortgage encompassed four different properties. Ali the
COs for all those different properties were present. There was no
problem with any of them, because we had - during this foreclosure
we had, the Porfirissold off certain properties to reduce my debt.
MEMBER VILLA: Were these were all adjacent properties.
MR. RON MAYER: No, these are different single and separate
parcels. One in (~ueens. Claudio~s Liquors.
MEMBER VILLA: You had one mortgage to cover all these --.
MR. RON ~_YLA_YER: Yes, blankets. A one blanket mortgage covering
all. So~ it wasn't an easy deal to begin with, and i had taken them
out of a prior foreclosure. I paid off ali the ether stuff, i mean~
they were being foreclosed before I got involved. Which should have
told me something.
MEMBER VILLA: What was the total of the mortgage. Do you mind
saying that?
[,/IR. RON MAYER: It was $410,000,00. During that time~ after six
years in bankruptcy court, six years. We set all kinds of records.
The Porfiris hired !7 lawyers. ! went through six judges.~ three
retired. My attorneys have never seen anything like this. This was
a nightmare. The history-, without attacking anybody personally was
that Mr. PorfJris had a sickness which was due to drink, ok, and
he could not go into a courtroom and react properly, i mean, the
screaming and yelling in the courtroom. Court guards would have to
take him out. Everything was a nightmare from beginning to the
end. That's why he went through 17 lawyers. They couldn't take
him.
Page 9 - May l, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
I built up costs during those six years, and I have a balance
due me of over a quarter of a million dollars. I have a breakdown of
cost. This tas~ parcel that went off, I was owed $185,000.00 still
left on foreclosure. Needless to say, the taxes weren't paid in five
or six years. As soon as I got it back, Southold Town wanted their
taxes. I had to lay out $52,000.00 mfith penalties and interest. The
back property that was not CO'd, was being taxed higher than the
front property. Which I found out, because when I was in there,
and Lyntold me about tiffs, I ran down to the Building Department
and I said, Oh. What else could go wrong?. I went to the assessor
and looked, and he said your taxes were $5300.00 and Mr. Lark has
the breakdown of how they figure out here. i don't know. It
worked out that the uninhabitable structure was being taxed at
$3,000.00, and the legal one family was $2,000.00. I couldn't figure
that one out either.
MEIVlBER VILLA: Can I ask a question at this point? How do you
get $52,000.00 in arrears ~vithout the County taking it over.
MR. MAYER: Bankruptcy.
CHAIRMAN: It was in bankruptcy.
MR. MAYER: You can't do anything.
MR. MAYER: Then other things such as plumbing problems, legal,
sheriff evictions. She was right at the doorstep. She wouldn't even
give herself the grace of moving out. She was at the doorstep when
the sheriff was throwing stuff out. Reciting the law, and this and
that, .and the other thing. So the sheriff gave her a stay. So I had
to wait another six weeks to get her out. I could go on and on
about this, but meanwhile, I have a breakdown. I'm in here for
$250,700.00. As Mrs. Spangel, I do ok, but when she came up with
an appraisal of $125,000.00 to $139,000.00. I do ok -- but I
don't do okto take a $t00,000.00 bath here. i'm sick, I'm
physically sick over this. My wife is sick over this. All this can
be documented by my lawyers, as to what I've laid out. ! have
cheeks to prove everything.
CHAIRMAN: Can you give us a copy of that breakdown.
MR. RON MAYER: I scribbled this out. I would be more than happy
to send this to you broken down. Whatever you want to do. May I
approach?
CHAIRMAN: Surely.
MR. RON ~ZAYER: This is part of the costs. I think I even forgot
one in there.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Is this for this property, or is it
for ali four.
MR. RON MAYER: For this property alone.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, I was just wondering.
Page l0 ~ May 1, 1998
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. RON MAYER: Sheriff's fees of $2500.
CHAIRMAN: What did you say, Linda (Secretary)?
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Are you going to ask ~him the
values of the ether properties?
CHAIRMAN: What other properties?
SECRETARY LiNDA KOWALSKi: On the $400,000.00.
RICHARD LARK: Do you want a formal copy of that?
CHAIRMAN: I don't know. We'll see what happens. Go ahead,
Mr. Mayer~ i'm sorry.
MR. RON MAYER: I could probably add some more costs in this, you
get nickeled and dimed~ I owed some old g~uy $80.00. I'm not even
counting this stuff.
CHAIRMAN: Now, you have presently have a house that's not
habitable, is that correct? The front house is not habitable.
MR. RON MAYER: The front house is habitable. The rear house,
that's the illegal structure is not habitable.
CHAIRMAN: Oh, that's the one that they ripped everything out.
r~iR. RON MAYER: No: no. Because she was being thrown out, she
didn't care so they ripped the appliances out of the walls~ left
holes in the walls. There were holes in the ceFHng where there was
freeze ups.
SECRETARY L. KOWALSKI: Which house, number 1 or number 2?
MR. RON MAYER: The front house.
CHAIRMAN: The one that was redone after the fire.
MR. MAYER: Yes.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKi: The number i house.
CHAIRMAN: The one that was~'ehab'd after the fire.
MR. RON MAYER: Right.
CHAIRMAN: OK
MR. RON MAYER: Right, That was a mess, a total mess. The
days of course, I didn't look down. The five or six hundred bucks
that I had, i had a guide to go in, just to do general cleaning of
the place. If I sound excited, this deal after 25 years of doing
business has killed me. Then when she told me I had an illegal
structure in the back, you ought to have ( ) My greatest thing
was, why couldn't I find tbHs out four years ago, so when t could go
Page ll - May l, ]996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
to the bankruptcy court Judge, and show them they committed a
fraud on me, they would have let me auction this thing off. I would
have saved all this time, method, and money. Then they would have
seen who they were dealing with, and the fraud that was perpetrated
on me. If I was to go after them for fraud now. Number one,
they're bankrupt. They have nothing. Number 2, I don't know
where they're at. They're floating around in Queens some place.
(Hesitation) (I got off my track, I'm sorry.)
When I went to Lynn Spangei, I said maybe I could get, I'll
take a little loss here. I'd Hke to get $225,000.00. I said, see
what you can do. So she is the one that went to look at the
property. She went down to the town board, She said," Ronhie,
you don't have a legal two family or a legal one family there."
I said, "What are you talking about." "You better go down to town
board," and fortunately for her I did, and that's how come I'm
here. I could have probably pushed this under the carpet, and said
"OK, we have a problem here. It's been used since the last seven or
eight years. Let me throw tenants in there, bolt it up, and get all
the money I can get out in rentals." Nobody will know the
difference, because nobody has known the difference. I mean, in all
honesty, it's been like that for the last seven or eight years.
When I closed this loan¢ I went to visit this property. There
were people upstairs and downstairs in that two-family house, and
they lived in the main house. That was people in there right along.
Maybe one apartment was vacant, but another one was occupied. I'll
tell you one story of how bad it really got. I went to the tenant
that was upstairs, an old Greek man, who was at the auction, and he
said, "What are you doing with Mrs. Porfiris." I said, "I'd like to
get paid." He said, "they owned this house free and clear." I said,
i'm afraid they didn't. Well, I said, what's going to happen to me?
I paid them three years rent up front. They take $700.00 a month
that I'm paying, times three years, they told me they would ~ive me
a discount if I paid up. i paid them $20,000.00 up front to get a
discount. So, ! let the old man stay there, and he will move back to
Greece, a little bit later.
At that point, I asked Lynn to recommend an Attorney. I said,
we're not going to do this. We're not going to rent tt~is stuff out.
We're going to try to get this thing, try to get it legitimized to
the best we can do, and I got to try to recoup some money here. At
that point, she referred me to Mr. Lark, and here i am, seven years
later. Still trying to get out of this mess. They settled the
Robins Island bankruptcy three years before this little thing.
would like to just end my statement here that I would appreciate if
the board could do anything that they could possible do here, and
I'm willing to go, whatever they tell me to do, with the Health
Department and so on and so forth. But I cannot conceivably, I
thought the property was worth more money, because the Town says
it's worth on the assessed rolls, over $300,000.00. I have brokers
that are dealing every day here, telling me it's worth $i40,000.00.
I believe the brokers. They are there every day, pounding it out,
pounding it out. I believe there's a comparable next door.
Page !2 , May 1, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
LYNDA SPANGEL: The property next door that faces on the Main
Road, you will see on the charts, sold for $160,000.00 two years ago,
comparable size~ a home in~ oristine condition. An o_aer ~ome ~ that
had been renovated~ country- kitchen, and the whole works.
was two years ago. The market has not improved in the last two
years~ as you know. Not for inland property.
RON MAYER: And it sold for how much?
LYNDA SPANGEL: $160~000.00
i%ON MAYER: Take off a commission, transfer taxes, this and that,
and you're down to $142~000.00 there about. Does the board have
any questions of me?
CHAIRMAN: (Member) Lydia?
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I have a couple of questions. The
Certificate of Occupancy, the one that's the alleged forgery. On the
certificate it says~ righ~ at the top~ "~ .~This certifies that the
building, accessory building .... " It says~ accessory building right
on it. The forgery is an exaet duplicate of the original except that
one line has been whited out~ or appears to have been whited out.
RON MAYER: I didn't have the one that said~ accessory building.
just had the one, at the closing.
MEMBER TORTORA: This is the one you've, the one Mr. Lark said
that was submitted at the closing. Tlzis is the one i'm referring
tOO.
MR. MAYER: No~ it was the one at the closing, yes.
MEMBER TORTORA: If you read at the top, ii says "...accessory
buildillg."
(Mr. Mayer came up to look at Member Tortora~s reference.)
RON MAYER: Yes. I was concerned with the "two story, one family
dweL~ng. That's what i was concerned with.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes.
MR. ROW MAYER: When t have six CO'son a blanket mortgage. My
lawyers looked at it and said, yes, it's a one family- building, and
we looked at all the others, and they seemed ok.
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. It says accessory- building, and also I
mean. You didn't ask for an original at the closinE?
M~. t~ON MAYER: No~ many- times we don't ask for originals.
MEMBER TORTORA: That's the second time (interrupted).
Page 13 - May 1, 1996
Transcript of PubLic Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. MAYER: I do now. But even the other properties that I had,
the liquor store, this, it was alt photos, all photos
MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, what you have submitted here appears
to be a forgery. The problem here is, that Mr. Porfiris isn't
here. We're hearing one side of this.
MR. RON MAYER: I would love to have him here.
MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know who forged this, and you
haven't submitted or you - Mr. Lark, haven't submitted any proof
that it's virtually you know, just your word that he's done this. I
don't know that for a fact. You haven't given me any evidence to
substantiate that. The other thing that keeps going back through
my head about all the money that you have invested.
MR. MAYER: Yes
MEMBER TORTORA: In this property, this tremendous hardship
that you've had with this man. A lotof this seems to be a civil
matter, and I'm havhlg a problem understanding why this is
something, that's before this board in essence, in a sense that, this
is a civil matter in my mind.
MR. MAYER: It's a civil matter to the extent of money.
MEMBER TORTORA: The very thing you're asking is substantial~
MR. RON MAYER: We have a building that has been used --.
MEMBER TORTORA: You're asking for to subdivide two lots in a
one acre zone, which requires 40,000. square feet. You're asking to
create two, 12,500 square foot lots. That is a 70% request, and it's
much smaller than any of the other lots in the area, and you're
basing all this claim on the alleged (copy) Certificate of Occupancy
that was forged without any proof of who did the for~ing.
MR. MAYER: Well, it's to me, that's pretty logical. I mean, I was
there. They gave me the COs, right. I was there. The
properties are rented out. Put yourself in my position too. You're
there, you're a lender. You see COs on Claudio's Liquors, on the
building that's across the street, that they own. On this, on the
Woodside, Queens, and you're making the loan, and it's legal, and
the people are Living in the properties here. What happened to the
Southold Town Building Inspectors. Why didn't they evict all these
tenants over the years. The)- knew who's illegal. I mean, that's
what got me upset. ! mean, it's been used for seven or eigilt years
over here, as an illegal rental property. A guy gives me a (copy)
CO~ that says it's ok. It's a legal one family or two family house
there.
MEMBER TORTORA: But, all the other documentation that goes
with this, says that it's not. There is tlzis correspondence that
goes all the way back clearly saying, that it's not.
Page 14 - May 1~ 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. MAYER: Yes, but I only picked that up after the fact, of
when Lyn went to the Building Department. I thought I just went
by that CO.
MEMBER TORTORA: Buyer beware.
MR. MAYER: What?
MEMBER TORTORA: Buyer beware.
MR. MAYER: Well, Fm a lender, i didn't buy it. You know, there
was a letter that came in here accusing me of going to an auetion~
and trying re steal the preperty to m~me money- by some fellow here.
Believe me, if I could make a profit I'll, give it to _him. I'll
donate it to the Town. i'm not looking to make any profits here.
I'm looking to minimize my losses in a house that has been used that
way for many years in an area that is not going to hurt anybody
because the property across the street. I see he has two cottages
rented there, that I don't thizak are legal, i see Sep'sfarm stand
there. The man in the back has no objection. I don't know.
SECRETARY LiNDA KOWALSKi: Mr. Mayer, ! was just curious.
I'm the secretary to the board, but i was looking at the file, and
there's no title report that would show that there was a survey
inspeetion~ before you gave the mortgage, and there is no mortgage
in the file. Could you give us copies of those for the record?
MR. RON MAYER: Sure.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKt: Survey inspections sometimes will
show if your COsconform or agree with the survey. There is
nothing in the record on that.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: Don't forget. There wouldn;t have been a
survey inspection there~ because the survey given to him at the
mortgage was a brand new survey.
SECRETARY L!NDA KOWALSK!: It's a brand new survey.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: it's in that exhibit there, it's almost
contemporaneous with the mortgage. When you have a survey that's
contemporaneous with the date of the documents, they don't do a
survey inspection.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKi: There's no inspection of the
property- at all?
RICHARD LARK ESQ.: I'm sure there's not. I'I1 get you the title
report. We can get it from .his trial lawyer. That's not the issue.
But I looked at that myself and .
SECRETARY LiNDA KOWALSKI: I know~ but normally in Suffolk
County it's done. That's the only reason i'm asking,
RICHARD LARK ES(~: No, i~m teitin~ you. It's not done when you
have a conzemporaneous survey.
Page 15 - May 1, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Souttmtd Town Boardof Appeals'
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, it's just odd. Excuse me.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: Well, we'll get it right in the record. What's
the date of the survey that you have there. It's done by Homan.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI; Well, let's see. There are
photocopies, let's see if I can find an original. They're a couple
of different ones. The original in here is March 1996. So, that's
apparently not the survey.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: No, that's Exhibit 7.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Maybe you could give us the
survey that was with the title report. That might help.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: You have it with the file.
CHAIRMAN: It down here.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They usually attach it to the title
report.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: No, they don't, no they don't.
SECRETARY LtNDA KOWALSKI: They do in mine. I've had three
closings.
MR. RON MAYER: I've had hundreds. Everyone is different.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Ok, this one is dated August
30, 1989. You're mortgage was 1983, you said, right.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: No.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What is the date of your mortgage?
RICHARD LARK ESQ: September 7, pardon --
MR. RON MAYER: September of "89.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: September of '89. You see, it's
contemporaneous with the mortgage.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: But it says, two story frame
dwelling, it doesn't say two family.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: It matches the CO's.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, no, it doesn't because it
says --.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: Yes, what does it say on the survey.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It doesn't say, two family dwelling
on there (on the survey).
Page !6 - May 1~ 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
RICHARD LARK ESQ: it doesn't say, but the COssaya, it's a one
family dwelling.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You're CO, you said --.
RICHARD LARK ESQ:: Both of them. There are two
SECRETARY LiNDA KOWALSKI: I'm talking about house ~2. The
one that (interrupted).
RICHARD LARK ESQ: One says, it's a "one family" CO.
MEMBER D!NIZIO: '...Two story family dwelling."
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Says; "two story framed dwelling"
on the survey, tt does not indicate it's a two family dwelling. It
doesn't indicate anything ~-.
RICHAI~D LARK ESQ: That's correct. Now, lets look at CO for
building #1. What does ii say, you have it there?
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, 'I'll show it to you. Why
don't you read it into the record, Mr. Lark, because I'm asking a
question - you know. I'm saying, may be we need more information to
help Mr. Mayer get a better decision, that's ail. It helps. The
more information you have Mr. Mayer's, and that's the only reason
we're asking for ~t, so please don't
MR. RON MAYER: Yes. No~ I have no problem doing whatever I
have to do.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: This was the survey probabl~-,
right.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: The mortgage was dated, and I'll give you a
copy of that. I will fur,-fish that, September 7, i989.
MR. MAYER (came up closer to members): I wasn't concerned with
that. I was concerned that it was ~uaranteed.
MR. LARK, continued: The time of the mortgage closing on
September 7, 1959~ the applicant presented your petitioner
Mr. Mayer; with a survey which is Exhibit 2. Exhibit
a two story framed dwelling, #50 on the corner of Rocky Point Road
and Main Road. That was given a CO, which is Exhibit $, which was
dated May 22, 1989. As I indicated in my initial remarks, il~s
certified that a repair was made to that building at 7735 Main Road
and 50 Rocky Point Road, givinM the Tax Map number, and says.
"repair damage from fire only to existing one family dwelling."
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: So~ this survey was done after
that CO, because you said~. May 8 of '89 was when the CO --.
i~ICHARD LARK ESQ: That is correct.
Page 17 - May 1, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, that's all. I just wanted a
date.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: Also, the survey shows on Rocky Point Road
a two szory framed dwelling. The CO that Mr. Mayer stated, that
was given to him au the etosing was Exhibit 4 dated September 27,
1984, and it's issued as Ms. Tortorasaid, for "accessory building,
two story, one family building." That's what it says on it, ok.
What Mr. Mayer and [ said m my initial remarks, is that CO is
obviously a phony because after he took title ~n September of '95,
and talked to Mrs. Spangel, and came to the Building Department, he
discovered that the original CO which was in the file of the Building
Department which is Exhibit 5 was the same CO except it shows two
family, non habitable accessory building, hence why we're here.
He had no knowledge of the zolzing, that there were ~wo single
family dwellings on the property at the time that he closed. That's
what he was operating under the illusion of. As it turned out, there
were not two legal, one family houses. There was one legal, one
family house, and an accessory building which has been converted
illegally ~o a habitable dwelling, which shouldn't have been, and he
was given the CO, which as I indicated To you. You get as the
practice, good or bad or indifferent. You ge~, more times you ge~
copies, than you get originals with the seals.
It's kind of interesting, because the more I thought about this
afterwards, no one takes a death certificate or a birth certificate.
Although~. they are getting lax about that unless there is a seal on
it. But CO's they take it, and I can tell you how that happened.
In the early 1980s When we were under a tremendous crush building
boom, not only in Southold but throughout Suffolk County, the
Building Departments couldn't keep' up -with it, and you couldn't get
duplicates. You were hieky to get verbal atotof times, and you just
went ahead and closed, because things were happening so fast.
That's what happened. It got lax and to be honest with you, he got
screwed. That's what happened.
MEMBER VILLA: You won't find carbons in the Health Department
because we require the originals.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ: Right, and as it turned out. As I put in
the exhibits, because when I got into investigating, I couldn't
believe this had happened~ and as it turned out, you have it as
Exhibit 6. That's the survey, and notice the difference in surveyors
too. That was 'the Van Tuylsurvey that was done in t969, and that
had the original - I was always told it was a barn, as I remembered
it was kind of barn like structure. In any event, that was given to
the Health Department with a proposed accessory building, wherein
they g~ranted the water line, which is existing today from the main
house out. And you notice, that Mr. Brigham quite probably put
nonhabitable building, because they were feeding off the main
house. The interesting thing is, when he went to closing he didn't
give him that survey. He went and got a brand new surveyor, and
you see how it's doctored up, not to tell the true facts. This is
wha~ the ~muy had.
Page ]$ - May !, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
But, 'the point of it is. He was careful. He goes to the
property[ as the survey shows it, unfortunately- it wasn't.
i've got one last person to talk to you about tithe because, it
bothered me, when I got into the act. i had never seen anything
like this in my life because ! realized, although not al! the
property-, even those zoned for one acre. There are many half acre,
or less properties, which i'll talk about that in a moment, in the
needed neighborhood. But, when i went down to the Building
Department, I got copies of everything, and of course, the existing
personnel in there didn't know anything, and properly so because
their names didn't appear on anything that was in the file. You can
see that, from what you have exhibit's except for Mr. Fish. But, he
was only- involved later. So~ I contacted the original person who
granted the building permit to find ou~ what had happened~ and
asked him to come here tonight just to inform the board~ by way of
historical fact~ what the situation is. Vic, would you address the
board please?
CHAIRMAN: Hi, Vie~ how are you doing? How are you feeling? (He
was ill. )
VICTOR LESSARD (Former Buildin~ Inspector): It's DHoe to see your
smilin~ faces again~
CHA!R,~ZAN: I see you brought your wife torfight,
MR. LESSARD: She~s my- nurse, my b_~ide, whatever, you know.
When Mr. Lark told me about this coming up~ i said, "I want to ~et
on lhere and listen to this." First off, i don't know anybody in the
room outside of Mr. Lark. I want you to understand that. When
started with the Town in '82~ they- finally straightened out the
titles, and alt that nonsense I was involved in. tn the Spring of
'83, when i was made officially the Inspector, whatever that was, the
first thin~ I got into was this thing. Now, nobody wants to take a
job, where the first one takes a dive on you, and that's what
happened here. For ten years~ i couldn't cure this problem, and
explain that to you in a minute. When the thin~ was applied for by
Mr. Orlowski --. Oh, I would use different things, but I don't
want to put proper names to them unless this board insists on it, bu~
you'll know who i'm tal!dn~ about. I wrote myself some notes se I'm
going to be repetitious~ and I know how you people like to ~o home
at night. When ! looked at the original application, and looked at
the blueprints - I have a copy of the blueprints here - iHI get that
to you, as soon as ! get done talking.
On the original blueprints, it has sHdin~ windows upstairs,
downstairs~, a couple of bathrooms~ a ptayroom~ two bathrooms,, two
kitchens. Now, being in construction 50 some years, ! may look
stupid but !~m not that stupid. So ! said to the other chubby
Building Inspeetor~ that was about my size. i said, what's going on
here. He said, don't worry about it. So~ I had this ~Ir.Porfiris
come in my office, and talk to him. ! said, why do you need two
kitchens. WelI~ he said~ my wife is an artist. She has to follow
the sun around, and sometimes she'll be upstairs, sometimes she'll be
downstairs. But, he didn't want her rum~in~ up and down. So, il
Page 19 - May I, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southotd Town Board of Appeals
she wanted to have her tea, or what not, she wouldn't have to run
downstairs ~o get it, if she was upstairs.
CttAIRMAN: That's the best one I've heard in a long time.
MR. VIC LESSARD: I must be a damn gullible slob because I
looked at him, and anyway.
VICLESSARD: The application was made to me. I never went to
the Building Department, right away, so, I can't help you out on the
COs. The application was made to me on the 27th of June. Linda
(secretary), by the way, you notarized it for me.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I probably did
MEMBER VILLA: What year,'82?.
VIC LESSARD: June '83 - I'm sorry that's when it was notarized.
I wrote the permit, I disapproved the permit application for zwo
reasons. Even though it was on a corner lot, this so called barn was
right up on the road. I have a copy- of the no~e that I wrote To
Curt,with four reasons why this job was going zo be stopped. I
have a copy of the note that I wrote to Curt, ok. I stopped this
thing on July 22. First off, the design put the building too high~
for an accessory apartment. When we finally decided, Mr. (Curt)
Horton and myself and Chet(Orlowski]. Accessory buildings are
only allowed 18 feet, so they put a flat roof on it.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
VIC LESSARD: Exactly, ok, and I said, that's fine. But don't
give me that garbage that this isn't a barn. I couldn't stop this
thing. But, don't give me that garbage, this isn't a barn foot
print. I said, because it's a corner tot, I'll let you move that
building back so that it's at least beyond the protrusion of the main
house. But, he went ahead with it anyway, and I'll give you this
too. I have an electrical thing that says if he pays $500.00, he
could get his underwriters (certificate). The building permit reads,
"...construct a two story nonhabitable accessory building". And the
address, acting for John Porfirisin, yes, June 27, 1983. I'I1 give
you all [hat. If you can't use it, throw it away.
MEMBER VILLA: So, that didn't limit the height of the building?
VIC LESSARD: I'm sorry?
MEMBER VILLA: That didn't limit the height of the building?
VIC LESSARD: The height was limited to 1S feet.
MEMBER. VILLA: OK
VIC LESSARD: ! made lzim stay at 18 feet, anything. But you
couldn't stop him. He wanted to keep going.
Page 20 - May 1, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southoid Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: Vic, did you look to see if it was really uniquely just a
barn~ or was it more than a barn?
VIC LESSARD: The whole thing was down, Curtwas down
there. The whole thing was down, when I got involved. But t
mean, the building right on the street. If someone drives off the
street and hits the house.
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
VICLESSARD: So, i also have a plumbing breakdown if that is
going to do you any good. But anyway, I talked with Curton this,
and he lived down there, if i find one excuse,~ that building is
dead. Like I told you, this is one of the few jobs that ! couidn~t
resolve. So later on~ down the road, the Town hired a permanent
town attorney, and an assistant Town attorney. I said to the
assistant Town attorney-, jump in the car, we're going for a ride.
He, Curtand I went down and parked. What's that, Bay Shore
Road?
CtiAIRMAN: Rocky Point Road.
ViCLESSARD: Right in front of the place. Rocky Point Road. You
could see the women~ going by the ~rindow back and forth~ and i
said to this assistant attorney. Is someone living there or is she
painting? Just about that time, she came out that front door
screaming like a banchee. She came to the car, pounded on the
windows. What the hell are you guys, mafia or what? Russian
something, she called us. i said, what are ybu talking about, lady.
[ stopped the car on the side of the road, and we're having a
conversation here. She said, you're spying on me. I said, excuse
me, get away from the car and I'll move it. I came hack here, and
I got a phone call. Come to the Supervisor's office. So he said to
me, what are you doing in East Marion, everybody's screaming. So i
said to him~ ! took the assistant attorney- down there, to find out
what ! could do, to get these people out of the house.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Is that '88 or '89 Vic.
VICLESSARD: Yes, yes, and the attorney said to me. The only
way, once you gdve them a CO, you can't go on that property any
more~ if you walk on that property, and you caren the guy robbing
the bank, and he can prove that you set up an entrapment thing.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
VIC LESSARD: They will throw it out of court. They don't care
how guilty he is, and that's the end of it. So, I said to this
assistant attorney, what am I going to do with this guy? He's
driving me nuts. So anyway, the Supervisor advised me not to go
down there anymore. He also advised me to speak to a Judge. The
Judge told me~ Vic,I don*t want to be gullible, he said, but these
are appointed jobs, and I'm not going to get anybody mad unless you
can prove to me that he's 96% guilty, i said, what am i going to do
with this ~uy? He said, unless you get an official complaint. But
anyhow. The man never got a building permit for a one famiiy~ two
Page 21 - May 1, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
family, whatever dwelling. It was an accessory building. It was
moved back from the road about 26, 28 feet. I think to the corner
of, Bay or something on the main house on the corner. It's 18 feet
high because that's what it called for an accessory building. It
struck me funny that he could get an underwriters for an accessory
buildiug, but he got one.
This is one of the few things that I could never put to bed.
God knows, we tried. At least, I tried. So, I thought boy, I'm
coming down there to see how tbJs works, and that's why i'm here.
CHAIRMAN: Welt, we appreciate you coming down, Vic.
VICLESSARD: If there is anything that t can answer, I'd be glad
to.
CHAIRMAN: Bob, has a question.
MEMBER VILLA: Well the only question t had. If they're Living in
there, they must have put cesspools in at sometime. How did they
gel: those in because --. They must have been inspected by
somebody.
VIC LESSARD: I had specific order from my boss, to stay out of
East Marion. Now, you've worked for bosses before --.
CHAIRMAN: I have to attest to you, that you know we've had a man
on this board, until he passed away, from Orient. He was always
doing a double flip ever this, and he was always talking to you about
this.
VICLESSARD: Yes, I noticed.
CHAIRMAN: I never knew what the discourse between you and he.
Ali he kept on reporting to us was, "What was going on down
there?" So, I assumed, he was just as frustrated as you were, and
you were equally frustrated.
VIC LESSARD: It was frustrating, and the fact, with all the laws
in this Country, you can't enforce the law. It drives you nuts.
mean, you run a bluff on the guy, and you might get away with it.
But, if you don't, forget it.
CHAIRMAN: Well, I can remember quite vividly when Bob Douglas
said, "They're raising that barn, and they're slaking a dwelling out
o[ it." So, I said well, did you speak to Victor. He said, yes.
We're speaking now. I'm speaking to him now. But we watched the
e~tire thing materialize.
ViCLESSARD: He, what's his name. He used more bad language,
than you'll find in the dictionary. I'll tell you that. But, I know
where he was coming from, but there was ~othing I eould do with
it. Two Town attorneys I tried talking to, and the Judge. Anybody
else.
CttAtRMAN: Would you give us those, Jim, Lydia. Thank you
Page 22 - May ], 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
VIC LESSARD: These are my notes. You have to be half French to
read it. ~'
CHAIRMAN: Vic, thank you. Good seeing you.
ViC LESSARD: I just want you to know that this government was
doing all it could. That's the point I was trying to make°
CHA!RS~AN: Yes, did you want to ask a question Mr. Mayer?
MR. MAYER: No. (Just doing something else.)
RICHARD LARK ESQ.' Ok, it's getting late, and ! just wanted to,
like I said. This is probably one of the worst situations that I've
been ever confronted with all the years in practice, i couldn't
believe that this thing could exist as long as everyone said it was,
until I finally confronted Mr. Lessard about it. He said, 'Oh yeah,
we all knew about it but we couldn't do anything about it.~' i
couldn't believe as Lydia said. A careful lender wouldn't have been
able to discern what was happening here at the closing, until after
ali this unraveled on me. I want to correct one thing, and then
make a few closing comments.
it is true that the property- produces a little over $5,000.00 in
taxes. The way they have it assessed. They have the corner
piece, .buiidin~ #1 'which we refer to, they have that assessed at 5400
square feet building, tax dollars, $2~$5o97. That's the building
itself. The building in the rear which is the one in question, they
have it as ,4_900 square feet, as $2~0.4~. So~ with the land involved
in each of 108 and ~, building #2~ produces 2~90.85.. whereas as the
front builciing produces 2616.41. So, that would be straightened
out. They do have it laid out in the assessment card as a, they- call
it on the front, an accessory structure, but then they assess it on
the back, as a full dwelling. So, there's no question about it.
Like I say, I was one shocked person, when I went down and viewed
the property myself, i couldn't believe it.
The reason he said, he could have left it alone, and rented it
out, snd probably no one would have said something, because it's
been going on for so lon~. But~ because he's a licensed lender and
the way he took the property, he just wanted to get rid of it, to
sell it, and oould have possff~ly passed it on to a buyer at a reduced
price~ with just "as is' condition with the two, or he could have
perpetrated the fraud and not told anybody and with the phony CO
he was giving. But when he thought about, what to do wdth it, and
talking to the neighbors, Mrs. Spangei talked to the neighbors,
and in fact, as I understand it, two of the neighbors on either side
wrote favorable~ because they ~dewed that to have tv¢o single ~amily
lot. s, small as they might be, is much better than what went on there
previous for the nast decade. That was #1. And when i tt~nk of
my experience of~ having two dweUdngs on one lot, it tends to a
commercial nature, especially as a property like that witi~dn a mixed
neighborhood like it is here -wdth the busy commercial farm stand
right next door, Rocky Point Road has a business use property on
it, aud if you look at the Tax Map; some of the lots are equally as
small as this one.
Page 23 - May 1, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
I noticed in the file today that Mr. Siderakis. the
neighbor across the streez filed an objection. It reminded me that
one in glass houses should not throw szones. He had two illegal
cottages for the summer. You. see them in the picture there, and in
Mrs. Spangel's presen, tation. Far be it from me, zo cause anyone
problems, but I thought it very interesting.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: (Secretary interrupted to change
tape).
RICHARD LARK ESQ: Certainly, you would never come here and ask
that it be built. It's existing. I can't do anything about it. You
heard what Mrs. Spangle, whose e~zinently qualified zo testify as To
vai'ue. He's going ~o take a loss on it, one way or another. It's
just a question, whether zo nnnimize the loss. Now, when you look
at the criteria zo grantir~g an area variance, you have ~.o took az, if
there will be a~3 undesirable change will be produced in the character
of the neighborhood, or a detriment zo the nearby properties. It's
there. It's been there since 1983. There will be no detriment
created. In fact, if we can get approval and if he can make the
changes to crea~e with conditions, Two single family dwellings and
have the Board of Health and the Planning Board go along with it,
you would have ~wo independent owners. [ think, it would be an
improvemenz in the neighborhood. Certainly noz a detriment which is
what's going on.
i don't know what other method that the applicant can get
relief, other than just renting it ouz and continuing what
Mr. Porfirisdid for the fast decade. I don't know what to do. I'll
be honest with you. Other than jus~ leaving it alone the way it is,
and operate as an illegal use, which is certainly ~lo~ an answer ~o
the probtem. Is this area variance substantial? Yes it is, when you
look st the properzy. But when you look at the neighborhood, it's
not really. They're not truly 40,000 square foot lots surrounding it
that are one family dwellings, particularly right in the
neighborhood. Particularly when you go the North Road on Rocky
Point Road, which would be an impacted area if there was traffic.
But, I don't think there will be any traffie affect created.
Will it have any adverse impact on the physical environmental
conditions of the neighborhood. There are two cesspools now, and
they will continue to be two cesspools there. They have been three
or more families. ! think the truth of it is, i think the residence
that sre down there. They used to rent it out by the weekends by
the room. So, there was much more than two families there. But,
that's neither here nor there, that's past. Vicis embarrassed as he
explained it. They knew about it but, they couldn't do anything
about it for one reason or another, whatever that reason might be.
But no, I don't think it will have any adverse environmental effect.
The thing is there. I think the proposed use will be less-
Now certainly, what bothered me from the beginning, and !
certainly think you have evident proof. The difficulty that the
applicant Mr. Mayer finds himse~ in~ I do not think is self
created. Yes, sure, he had lawyers, surveyors, title companies and
everything. He did everything what he normally did on any other
Pa~e 24 - May i, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings.
Southotd Town Board of Appeals
loan, and I have to submit to you what a banker would do, on any
other loan, and this one got by. It certainly was not a self created
hardship. But most important, and i hope the beard wil! take this
into consideration. I think you have a full, (we'll gdve you those
other documents). But, ! think you have a full understanding of
what happened here. When you use the balancing of interest test
here, as to what is there~ what is to be done with the property-,
how we can make the best out of a had situation, I feel, that
granting the two single families, would be the answer, t certainly
would have no objection if you would grant two single families on one
lot. One as an accessory structure., and rent out. it would be the
name thing exeept you would be Hmited to one buyer. You'd have
Mother/Daughter situation. He'd get the same relief. But, I just
question. Would the property be valuably used if you have one
owner for two things. ! think it lends itself' to abuse. ! spoke to
Mr. Mayer. I said, if the board grants this, you'!! have to grant
before any CO~s were ever issued to the Planning Board, and the
Health Department approved it.. you would have to submit yourself to
physical inspections of the property by the Building inspector to
make sure they are, it is an independent single family. Because as !
said to you.~ and you're welcome to go look at the property and make
that accessible to you.
When you go in it, it's your classic two family house. You
can't get from one place to the other in the building, unless you go
outside and go around. That all has to be changed so that it would
be a single family. So, i think it would be !ess density use. I
could argue on the other thing. I'm not~ if he built it, he created
it, or he went into it with his eyes wide opened. He doesn't want to
be here. He's here because he had to foreclose on Forfiris, and take
back his security. Now he's stuck with this situation, so ! think
when you balance the interest in the interest of justice, and the
standards that have been set forth by the Legislature, and the Town
Laws, as well as the court precedent before us.~ in this ty~pe of
situation, I think it cries for some type of relief. If you
certainly can fashion a relief with conditions that is different then
I propose, i would be more than happy to do it. Because, i think,
just to walk away and ignore it~ !fmc has been done by our
predecessors, is just going to perpetuate a bad situation. He didn't
create it, and I just ask you to consider all the equities in the
case, in granting him some type of relief~ so he can get on with his
life. Do you have any questions of Mr. Mayer or anybody.
CHAIRMAN: Is that building in the rear built on a slab?
MR. MAYER: Crawl space.
RICHARD LARK, ESQ: Crawl space, yes that's right. Didn't have a
cellar. If you notice on that one survey you have, a wooden bilco
door that goes under the crawl space. Thetis how you get access to
the rear of the property. Yes it is, like a three foot, two-three
foot situation.
CHAIRMAN: Is tl~e~e a question back there.
Page 25 - May 1, 1996
Trauscript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER VILLA: Yes, you're saying, he foreclosed To get back some
of his equity. In the original mortgage, what was tkis property
valued at?
RICHARD LARK, ESQ: That you have to refer to him. In other
woras, you granted a mortgage of $410,000.007
MR. RON ~YLAYER: I figured that that property was worth about
$250,000.00 au that time, having a one family, and a Two family on
that property.
RICHARD LARK ESQ. And that was '89 then right.
MR. RON MAYER: Yes.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Lydia was asking if -we have paper
work· We don't have anything in the file m substantiate--.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: On these original mortgage applications
papers, no. Now, what's she's asking. Do you have anything?
CHAIRMAN: Do you have an appraisal?
RICHARD LARK ESQ: An appraisal where you base, whether it's
yours or otherwise. The '89 time frame when you g~ranted the
mortgage, that's when you furnish the title report and the mortgage.
MR.. RON MAYER: I'm the direct lender. I go out, and do my own
appraisal. I'm no~ selling these loans off ~o other banks. So when
I ~o ou~, [ do my own numbers on the properties that I'm lending .
RICHARD LARK ESQ: Do you have notes and stuff az the time in
your file.
MR. RON MAYER: I would have to find it in my file.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: If you do, would you make them available to
the board. She's asking for.
MR. RON MAYER: I'll give you what I have.
MEMBER VILLA: I think we'd have to see that. What you're saying
ti~at there were four properties,. You Hquidated three of them. I'd
like to know the ~lumbers involved.
MR. RON MAYER: OK
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKi: Couid you give us one set, and
then I'll give duplicates for everybody, but we need one set of
something from you.
MR. RON MAYER: A set?
RICHARD LARK ESQ: I know what they want.
Page 26 - May 1~ 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southo[d Town Board of Appeals
MEMBER VILLA: Well you're saying, that you have to get your
equity out of your house. How do we know that you didn't get your
equity out of your three previous settlements on the mortgage.
MB. EON MAYER: It's right in bankruptcy court of --.
RICIIARD LARK ESQ: That's what he wants to see.
CHAIRMAN: We would also like to see any notes, Dick, that he may
have, and what he valued_ that property.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: Yes~ and there obviously had to be some ldnd
of field notes. You went there and you did the numbers. When you
did the numbers crunch, and yes that's correct. We can furnish
that, whatever we have.
MR. EON MAYER: We have to report that back to the bankruptcy
court, as to what I~m owed. That's the trustees
MEMBER VILLA: All we're hearing is you throwin~ out numbers.
We'd like to see some proof.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: OK~ I underszand what you want. It's a
ver~ication.
MR. BOM MAYER: I have no problem with that.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: I understand.
CHAIRMAN: Good, ok.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: Anything else.
CHAIRMAN: No, that's good.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: I realize we've got a tangent on tendentious
issues, other than land use issues. But they don't explain the land
use, unless you understand where they came from. That was the
point.
CHAIRMAN: Et never ceases to amaze me what goes on.
MR. RON MAYER: Thank you very much for hearing ---.
CHAIRMAN: Well, I was somewhat close to this based upon
Mr. Douglass.
RICitARD LARK ESQ: I did not know that you had to ~-.
Ct!AIRMAN: Wixh Mr. Doug!as~s was concerned continually and
RICHARD LARK ES{~: No matter who i talk ~o, this is off the record
now, when Lynda came to me she said, I know of this property. We
had trouble with this. We loaned it at Southoid. i said, with
these, and she said yes, you know-
Page 27 - May 1, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings .
Sou[hold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: Now, if you don't mind me calling you Lynda by your
first name.
MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: Not at ail.
CHAIRMAN: You lent the money from North Fork Bank to tl~is
property, and Mr. Mayer balled these people out?
MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: Southotd Savings was the original under
lender, bnt it was getting out of foreclosure. It never actually
went on the auction block, and then after the acquisition, Southold
by North Fork, there was a department that took over loans, and
sold them to people like Mr. Mayer, and packaged loans to get rid of
nonperforming assets, and Mr. Mayer happened to be the unfortunate
person to purchase this property.
MR. RON ~YER: No, I didn't purchase a mortgage loan. I
originated a new mortgage and paid off all the other ones.
CHAIRMAN: Paid ail the other ones.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How much was the old mortgage
for' Southoid Savh~gs that North Fork had?
MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: It was satisfied. It was paid off.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It was paid off. It was paid off
by Mr. Mayer?
R. RON MAYER: There was another private lender like myself. It
was a first bank mortgage and there was another private lender that
had a second mortgage, and they were some judgments and liens and
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How much were they altogether?
Do you remember?
MR. RON MAYER: Between all the properties, it totaled over
Sd00,000.00.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Just for this piece of property.
How much were those liens for?
CHAIRMAN: Well, he can tell us that.
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You would have that in your
record?
R!CItAlqD LARK ESQ: We wilt give that to you.
MR. RON MAYER: I going to look up my original closing
statement.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, yes.
Page 28 - May !, 1996
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, that will help us understand,
you knew.
CHAIRMAN: Good, all right. We thank you very much. Safe home.
MR. RON MAYER: You're asking for a litany of six years of ~-.
CHAIRMAN: Yes~ ! know and it's just not one piece of property.
It's four pieces.
SECRETARY L!NDA KOWALSKI: It's slot.
~H~iRM/~N: We will entertain t~his, after you g~ve us the
information, and we'll go from there.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: Give me a week or so to get this from his
prio~ lawyer.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, you have until the next meeting which is the 29.
RICHARD LARK ESQ: OK.
MEMBER DiNIZIO: Did we get the real estate agent appraisal in
writing?
SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No.
CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Spangei, could you give us something on your
letterhead indicating the values that you stated to us?
MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: Certainl.y.
CHAIRMAN: Would you mind doing that for us? Thank you so much.
MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: Not at ail.
CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that~ ok. Hearing no further comment,
Itll make a motion closing the hearing, pending the receipt of the
information that was requested from both Mr. Lark and from Ms.
Spangel and Mr. Mayer. Mr. Mayer, Ms. Spangle and Mr. Lark.
Ali three.
MEMBER TORTORA: Second.
Duly carried.
,~]d 'iown Board of Appeals
SI~CI~Ig'I'ARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, that will help us undeestand,
~ou Know.
CIIAIt~MAN: Good, all ~ight. ~e thank you very muoh. Safe home.
MR. [~ON MAYER: You're as~ng for a litany of six years of --.
CIIAIt~MAN: Yes, I know alxd it's just no~ one piece of property.
It's four pieces.
SECI~ETAI~Y LINDA KOWALSKI: It's clot.
CIIAIII. MAN: We will entertain tt~s, after you We us the
hd'omnation, and we'll go [rom there.
RICIIARD LARK ESQ: Give me a week or so re get this f~m ~s
prier lawyer.
CIIAIIi. MAN: Yes, you have until the next mee~ng wl~ch is ~he 29.
R1CIIAI{D LARK ESQ:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Did we get the real estate agent appraisal in
writing?
SECRETAI{Y LINDA KOWALSKI: No.
Cf{AIl{MAN: Mrs. Spangel,' could you We us something on your
lettet'head it~dicating the values that you stated re us?
MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: CertainLy.
CItA[RMAN: Would you mind doing that for us? Thank you so much.
MS. [,YNDA S}ANGEL: Not at all.
CIIAiRMAN: I appreciate thai, ok. Hearing no further commen~,
I'll muke a motion closing the hearing, pending the receip~ of the
inFomnatiou that was requested from both Mr. Lark and from Ms-
Spnngel and Mr. Mayel'. Mr. Mayer, Ms. Spangle and Mr. Lark.
All three.
M EMB ER TORTORA: Second.
Duly curpied.
AND ILED BY
~Ou.__O~ TOWN~