Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/25/1997 HEARING INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS HELD SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 Pp~ I - 4 E. Mulligan Estate Pp. 5- 12 Joseph Melly Pp. 13 - 19 E. Nagy Pp. 20 Tonyes Realty d/b/a Southold Automotive Corp. (Citgo) TRANSCRIBED FROM POOR TAPE RECORDINGS recording microphone was not operating correctly and was full of static, leaving most statements inaudible. Transcript of Public Hearing September 25, 1997 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:45 P.M. - Appl. ~4506 - E. MULLIGAN ESTATE. CHAIRMAN GERARD P. GOEHRINGER: This is a request for a Variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 based upon the August 5, 1997 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector regarding "as built" deck addition, disapproved on the followdng grounds: "the deck addition "as built" will exceed the maximum allowable lot coverage of 20 percent, or 1500 square feet. The deck addition will increase the lot coverage to 1635 sq. ft. or approximately 21.75 percent." Location of Property: 210 Third Street, Laurel, N.Y.; Parcel ID No. 1000-126-7-11. Also known as Lot g72 on the Map of George I. Tuthili. I have a copy of the survey dated July 18, 1997, by Harry P. Hillebrand, indicating a wood deck unenclosed on the rear of this dwelling, l0 feet 2 inches by 28 feet 4 inches and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? J. KEVIN McLAUGHLIN, ESQ.: Good evening. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McLaughlin, how are you tonight, Sir? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Good, thank you, how are you? CHAIRMAN: Would you please state your name for the record. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Sure, Kevin McLaughlin, I'm an attorney here in Southold, on behalf of the Estate of Lillian Mulligan. Basically, it's a pretty straight Board application. At some time approximately ten years ago, Mrs. Mulligan decided she wanted to put a deck on hel¢ house, had a neighbor put the deck on, obviously without any Building Permit and obviously no CO has been issued for a now we - completed actually the sale of this house to a new owner subject to sometime the CO for the deck and whatever final form it takes. The deck is directly behind the house. It's really~ you can't see it from the street, the yard is most part fenced in. If you told me setback requirements is the only thing that it has a problem with, is lot coverage the Notice of Disapproval shows the lot coverage to be about 21.75%. That was done without Pa~e' 2 - Transcript' of Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals benefit of the survey and I think after, take a took at the survey, I believe this Board through its Secretary has already computed it accurately to be more like 22.8% lot coverage. I have not received nor according to everyone I've spoken with, has anyone ever objected to the existence of this deck. I personally have not received any objections after the notices were sent out. We have difficulty in now trying to put this deck down to the appropriate size limitation - structurally would be problematie. Basieally we're asking for a slight area variance to allow this deck as built to remain. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's it? OK. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERMANN: I just have a few items just to clarify. There's a difference in the lot coverage between the application, the Notice of Disapproval and the survey. So, looking at it from the survey end of it, the eoverage would be 23.14%. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I calculated it at 22.8, but I won't quibble. It's more than shows on the Notice of Disapproval because I think when Mr. Boufis - he did not have the benefit of the survey at the time he wrote up the disapproval. He did it I think from the property card which I think may not have included the open porch. I think that's what makes that smaller. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was another 100 sq. ft. MEMBER OSTERMANN: That's 100 sq. fi. from there. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Right. MEMBER OSTERMANN: But, just to bring it to your attention, that we would look at it from the survey point, of course, because that's the latest and most up to date. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you're calculating it Maureen, at 23.147 MEMBER OSTERMANN: 23.14%. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, it's 3.14 over 20? MEMBER OSTERMANN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. Anything else? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No further questions, Mr. McLaughlin. · PaRe' 3 - Transcript ~f Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no intention of ever enclosing this, nor does this applicant object to a restriction that it remain open? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't think that she will - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: The only thing. Maureen, you're at 23.]4? MEMBER OSTERMANN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: On existing lot coverage. The only thing I Linda had mentioned this to me before, that there was a dispute on the lot coverage, and really the Building Inspector should be the one who makes that determination. The reason why I say this is that I don't want to get into a situation where we're putting down 23.14 and then five years later the Building Inspector comes back and says, "oh, no, well I calculated it at this 23.75," so what happens. So, isn't there some way that we could defer that to the building inspector so we are on the same wave length. Because we have had, we actually did have a problem of miscalculation lot coverage in an application a couple of months ago or a month ago. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Well, if the Board would, you know, request it, I would be happy to go back to the Building Department and have John recalculate where the lot coverage would be -- MEMBER TORTORA: Just to confirm it. Would you object to that Maureen? MEMBER OSTER~IANN: No, it's alright with me - if they, you know, either way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just tell them about that 100 sq. ft. on your open porch. MR. McLAUGHLIN: You calculated it at 23.14. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Lot coverage from the survey - 1735.94 sq. ft. including the deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I have that again, Maureen? MEMBER OSTERMANN: 1735.94 square feet from the survey including the deck. OK, the deck is 295? MEMBER OSTERMANN: 290 - 289.7. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I'd be happy to go back to the Building Department and have them recalculate it and have them send you a letter to that fact. Page' 4 - Transcript 5~ Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. MEMBER OSTERMANN: All right. MEMBER TORTORA: All long as he can confirm it. That's his job. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would tike to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Any further questions? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. Page' 5 - Transcript Of Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals ZBA PUBLIC HEARING HELD SEPTEMBER 25, 1997: 6:55 P.M. - Appl. No. 4508 -JOSEPH MELLY CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (Read legal notice). I have a copy of the survey indicating this particular piece of property, let's get the double (map). That's the map. BOARD SECRETARY: With the waiver vacant lot on it. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The house lot being 50 & 51 and part of 52, right, and basically 'the same situation as the other. And I was just looking for the square footage on the lot they're requesting. BOARD SECRETARY: We'll have to ask for that. It isn't on there. CHAIRMAN: Or the Assessors Card. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Goggins how are you tonight, Sir? WILLIAM GOGGINS, ESQ.: Good, Sir, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. Could you just state your name for the record please. WILLIAM GOGGINS: William Goggins, 11775 Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y. I'm here on behalf of Joseph Melly ( ) I know the Board asked for a single and separate search, t didn't get it until 5:00 o'clock this evening, and so I'd like to pass it on to the Board right now. I've made copies of this and have an original. I give the original to the Clerk. (Copies distributed by Mr. Goggins.) MR. GOGGINS: I guess the first issue we should talk about is lot creation. If you look at the single and separate search~ lot 23 which is where the house is located, it was owned by a man named Wiegand - and he sold to Jeffries on September 20, 1947, so it would be lot 23. Mr. Wiegand also owned lot 24 and sold it to a man named Carlson August 27, 1941, so, it's apparent that these two lots were created prior to the Zoning in Southold Town. Additionally, I have all the deeds for these two properties before you. Mr. Mellyand his wife had purchased the hous~e that's lot 23 on October 19, 1969. Then, he and his wife purchased the adjacent lot on March 4, 1970. When Mr. Mellyand his wife purchased that lot in 1970, they conformed to the building requirements in Southold. In fact, it was represented and in fact it was a buildable lot at that time. I know the Board is aware of that between the time ( ) came to town~ so, November 23, t971 when you really needed 12,500 square feet on a buildable lot. So, I submit to the Board that as far as lot creation, it appears that the lot was the right amouut of square footage that's needed. With respect to our applieation~ Mr. Mellypurchased these lots separately as stated before, Page~ 6 - Transcript ~ Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals he's always gotten two tax bills for the two separate parcels. And I know they brought the tax bills mdth them here today, and submitted. The current tax bill for the vacant land is $335 a year. I spoke to the Chairman of the Board of Assessors today, he informed me, that upon the assumption that the lot is buildable as other vacant lots in that area. CHAIRI~LA.N GOEHRINGER: What did you say the assessment was? MR. GOGGINS: $335 is the amount of taxes to be paid. I don't know what the exact assessment was. CHAIRMAN: I'll tell you. I have it here. MR. GOGGINS: Mr. Mellyis here to testify. They've had several conversations with Curtis Horton over the years who was a former Building Inspector in Town. He always let Mr. Molly know that the lot was always buildable and he wouldn't have any problems and in fact, at some point Mr. Horton had offered to purchase this property in the sum of $75,000. In addition, Mr. Molly m-ill also testify- that he had purchased this lot for several reasons. One as an investment. Two, possibly to leave it to his handicapped son. He has had several children, one son is handicapped, and he always felt that the one handicapped child would need the extra push and he purchased the tot for that reason also. The third reason of course is to give him more living space to expand on the adjacent lot. I know the Board is familiar with the neighborhood and all these lots in this neighborhood are approximately the same size. Most of them do have houses on them. The contour of the land is flat and we don't need to require any alteration of the contour of the land to work to build a house structure and obviously avoid any economic hardship that would be visited upon Mr. Mellyif he wasn't allowed to a single and separate ownership of these lots. Moreover, other people in the same area who have made applications to this Board had been successful. The original map came out in 1935 when it was filed with the County and once such applicant was approved to build - who also owned one of the lots that were emanated from the Map of Nassau Farms, and she successfully received approval from the Board for a lot separation and it was based really upon the same fact or circumstances that Mr. Molly has todsy. He always though it was separate , they were always separate tax map bills; and the only real little difference between Kilduff and Molly is the fact that the Kilduffs bought the property at the same time Mr. Molly purchased these properties ( ) And also another applicant named Barbara Kelly had also made application and had similar facts as Mr.. Molly. If you would Hke Mr. Molly to testify to some of these facts and assertionsthat I've made, Mr. Molly is willing to answer any questions of the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know. How does the Board feel about that? (No repsonse. Jim? Page' 7 - Transcript of Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals ~¢EMBER DINIZIO: I don't mind if he wants to answer questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maureen? MEMBER OSTERMANN: Fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. GOGGINS: Would you Hke to swear him in? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH: Would you raise your right hand, Mr. Melly. Do you solemnly swear that the information you're about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? MR. MELLY: Yes. MR. GOGGINS: Mr. Melly, you purchased these lots that are on this tax map, the lot and the house? Mit. MELLY: Nodded yes. MR. GOGGINS: Would you tell the Board why you purchased the lot that is next to the house you still live in? MR. MELLY: Well, we did purchase it for an investment for many purposes. Also for my son who is disabled has a regressive disease. (inaudible - voice very low. ) MR. GOGGINS: Mr. Melly, what kind of economic hardship would the merging of these two parcels have upon you? MR. MELLY: For several reasons. One, we bought it for an investment possibility because (static) ... and that wouldn't give us much room if he stayed~ and to my sons it would mean everything because we (inaudible). MR. GOGGINS: Actually, I would like to bring your attention back to when you purchased the lot in March 4, 1970. Did you have any conversations with your then attorney at that time about purchasing the lot? MR. MELLY: Certainly. MR. GOGGINS: And did you have any eomplieations with respect to him and proposed buildahility of that lot? MR. MELLY: Yes, I was told it was buildable. MR. GOGGINS: If it wasn't buildable would you have purchased the lot? Page' 8 - Transcript of Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. MELLY: No. MR. GOGGINS: In fact, you've told me in conversations that you've spoken to Curtis Herren over the years and what were the extent of the conversations you had with Mr. Horton? MR. MELLY: Well, I had was the relation to the (inaudible - his voic~ was very low and too much static on tape). MR. GOGGINS: I don't think you really have to get into that. Do you have anything else you want to say to the Board regarding this applica- tion that you have? MR. MELLY: Yes, I never thought this lot could be merged. I don't think this law regarding property should be retroactive. As far as I'm concern it's without any adjustment by the town for the value of the lot, or for any approvements I might have made to it. I think that that's not the way it's not justified. I think it's taking away a person's rights, his God-given rights because I consider the lot and the land as my and that holds me to it that the lot can't be built. I've never received a written notice of the merger, or anything about that. I've never received any notieo that we could appeal. I know that there was a notice in the paper, they tell me, but unless you get the local paper and read it, we would get no notice. We just don't get it. Up till about two years ago I was a summer resident. We spent 40 years here as a summer resident. For 38 years I've been an owner - I say, 40 years because I rented for two years before we bought. (), I could afford. I have six children: three boys and three girls. We've all spent our entire summers there with their mother. Ideally, I ( ). Every summer, all my children are out there. I've got nine grandchildren now and there out and really it really shooks me to think that we could have put this thing in his name or my name, jointly, a year or two ago, and it would be all OK. But now it's not. I know many people did that and it bothers me that just because we didn't know about it, we couldn't build on it. So, I put it in his name now, gave the 10% interest there and I intend to do that periodically, yearly if I can, and the reason I couldn't do it all at once is that I don't want to be taxed on it, because if I give it as a gift over $10,000 it could be taxable, so, that's where I stand. MR. GOGGINS: That's correct. Thank you, Mr. Molly. Mr. Melly had came into my- office in order to do some estate planning. He wanted to transfer the lot to his son, and I told him about the gift tax consequences for the same. So I'll give 10% every year and that's when we spoke about this procedure and the fact that the lots might be merged. So since Mr. Molly took ownership last year in December, at the time the report will indicate, we did transfer a deed at ten (10) percent interest through this office. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGEi~: What was the date of death of his wife? · Pag~ 9 - Transcript DF Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. Melly: My wife? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. MELLY: July in 1982, on May 3rd. After years of trauma. CHAIRMAN GOEHR1NGER: Sorry to hear that. The other question is the Joseph M. Melly, you're referring to. How old is he, Sir? That may be an unfair question but - MR. MELLY: He was born in 1952. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. MELLY: And he just married three years ago. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. OK, we'll start with Mrs. Tot- iota. MEMBER TORTORA: What was the size the square footage of the lot? MR. GOGGINS: I have the square footage calculated at 15,475 feet. I didn't do the calculation myself. I don't know how to do it so (jokingly). MEMBER TORTORA: It's an odd-shaped parcel. MR. GOGGINS: Yes. So I called the Assessor's office, they spoke to Donald I guess who works there. He determined that it was 15,475 feet. So, I can't attest to that, that's based upon his knowledge and that's what he stated. CHAIRMAN: What do you have (to board seeretary). BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We came up with about 13,500, 13,700 so, it might be a little bit less. There might be a variable there right? MR. GOGGINS: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: OK. You can't come up with more land if it's not there, so we should put that in. MEMBER TORTORA: And the total square footage of the parcel that's merged? MR. GOGGINS: As merged. That's a good question, t don't know. MEMBER TORTORA: Will you get that for us. MR. GOGGINS: Yes, I will submit it to the Board. · Page' 10 - Transcript 6f Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Goggins, you had mentioned that you had spoken with the Chairman of the Assessors and he had said that the assessment of this property was based on a buildable lot? MR. GOGGINS: That's eorrect. MEMBER TORTORA: Would you give us an affidavit to that effect? MR. GOGGINS: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you. You also mentioned that the lots in the area were all similar in size to this lot. Do you have any kind of which is one of the things that you've done in the past - any kind of a survey of the lots in that block that would give us something to base that statement on? MR. GOGGINS: I have a map album. I've also made a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map - I can get these to the Board Members, and in it what I did note in blue outline lots of Kilduff, and then on the bottom I've grayed in an area which are for the lots that are lots of Mrs. Kelly. MR. IVIELLY: Mr. Senko lot is there too, Mr. Chairman, which was also another - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that's right. We had that a couple of years ago Mr. Melly. That's almost directly across the street from you. MEMBER TORTORA: For your benefit, there was another in that same area another application reviewed by this Board. I don't remember what the name was. Do you remember? CHAIRMAN: Yes. It's this one right here. BOARD SECRETARY: It's noted on the file, on the lefthand side. CHAIRI~AN: Senko. Yes. That's what he just said. Mr. Melly just said. What we were looking for I think, or what Mrs. Tortora was looking for, was the update of what's built on and what's not built on and what exists in - MEMBER TORTORA: What's merged. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I'm not sure that Mr. Goggins can tell us what's merged and what's not merged. MR. GOGGINS: I'm not even sure, it's probably about $20,000 to get surveys for all the lots in that area. The only thing I could do is, the only information we could get would be from the County Center would have the tax map and also the original Subdivision Map from 1935 which I have here too if you want a copy of that? Page' ]1 - Transcrip{' ~f Hearings September 25, ]997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: In the past, in fact the Assessors may have that information on file. Actually, they may have it on file from Kelly and Kilduff because they were helpful in providing their information. But, I don't think that you have to go through any expense. You may just as well ( ). I don't know if you still have a copy of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy of Kelly's. That was only last year. MEMBER TORTORA: If we have it on file. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's in the File. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have the file. If you just update that for us, we'd be greatly appreciative. Kelly's. MR. GOGGINS: You mean how it's been split? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. What happened was Mrs. Kelly took everything in Block 4, bounded by Bay Avenue to Pine Tree Road; I mean this is just off the top of my head, and everything bounded in Block 2 and in Block 1, and indicated what was vacant, what was improved; and if they were in common ownership to each other, if they were vacant, to next one improvement and so on and so forth, which gave us the idea of percentage of what was improved and merged as opposed to what was improved in single and separate and so on and so forth. Give us a good basically a good grid to look at. MR. MELLY: I would like to also state that my intention is to leave the lot vacant. I don't intend to build. I intend to leave it to my son when I die and he may be able to build on it ( ). I can't tell you but I do want to make this gift to him so the girls have some resources. They can't be taken away in case the kids started fighting amongst themselves. I don't think so. I don't think they will. They are very, very good children. They wouldn't go agsinst my wishes, I think. But you never know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything else, Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Ostermann? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRI~kN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, Mr. Melly, I just wanted you to maybe reiterate for me, you know, the reason why you think you are here. As I understand it, it's probably nothing more than the fact that both lots are in the same name. ' Page' 12 - Transcript ~f Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. MELLY: That's right. ( ) This is something I think would be different. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I tend to agree with you. Also, if during the course of time you owned this land, did you put a cesspool on it? Did you have swing sets on it? Did you put anything - a swimming pool? Will you fence the property - the entire property? So, basically it has been a separate MR. MELLY: It it the same block and it has a platform on it for a tent. When my kids come, they use the tent and that's where they play - it's a safe place. ( ) MEMBER DINIZIO: So, there's no well. Nothing that would service your property. Your house is on that property. MR. MELLY: We have been very careful not to do anything - MEMBER DINIZIO: And the reason for that is because you always, treated it as, you always thought it was a separate lot? MR. MELLY: Fortunately, my tomatoes are growing there. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you for your wisdom and your candor. MR. MELLY: I brought the affidavit of posting and also the affidavit of mailing along with the mailing receipts and the return cards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, when you get that to us, Bill, we'll address that probably around October 9th. OK? And we'll give you some time to get that for us and we appreciate that. MR. GOGGINS: And I'll submit it when I require another hearing date? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No~ we'll close the hearing subject to that submission. Alright? Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no bends, I'll make a motion closing hearing, pending the receipt of the area map from Mr. Goggins. Motion carried. · Page' 13 - Transcript Of Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals ZBA PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 7:20 P.M. - Appl. No. 4501 - E. NAGY-(carryover from 8/28/97) CHAIRI~N GOEHRINGER: This is a carryover from 8/28. We have opened this hearing. We have discussed this to some degree, and some of the neighbors have spoken in the area and we ask Mrs. Moore if there's something she'd like to add for us? PATRICIA C. MOORE, ESQ: Yes. At the last - at opening of the last meeting, Mrs. Nagy was ill and we requested an adjournment. The comments from the new neighbors I understand, I'd like at this point~ since Mrs. Nagy is here for her presentation, we're still - at the end of this presentation I understand you do not have the survey. I ordered it the day after the hearing that I found out that that is what you wanted, and it is not - before today. I asked if how much longer and -- he was not in (static). You have a great deal of information in your file already: You have a single and separate search which identifies the ownership of the three parcels throughout its history. The tots were created in the 1950s in the Douglass Subdivision, and the relevancy pursuant to the Code, is he is at the point where the Dodson family which took title of the three lots by 1965, by March of 1965, that's it. Harold Dodson had taken title to one of the parcels. At that point, Dodson conveyed 25 feet of a 1or 2 over to and it added to lot 1, with the house and he made which lot #1 reflects the house that is owned by Eleanor and Richard, or was owned by Eleanor and Richard Nag-y, that 1or was that parcel was acquired January 22, 1970. Lot 2 remained vacant and is owned by Richard Nagy who took title on October 1, 1971. The width of that lot was 77.52 feet which is what it is presently. And lot 3, which is also being questioned was purchased in the name of Eleanor Nagy and that too was taken the same date as lot 2, that was Octo- ber 1, 1971. That lot also had 77.52 feet of road frontage. These parcels were kept single and separate until Mr. Nagy became terminally i11. There was an extensive Estate Planning done. They were living in New Jersey at the time and ( ), Mr. Nag~y had just retired. He was en route to relocate to Southold and that's when he passed away. Right before that there was a great deal of Estate Planning. I have with me and I asked Mrs. Nags- ff she had any objection to giving it to you, if you care to see it. It's the copy of Mr. Nagy's Wi11. It is approximately a 20 page document. It's one of the most complex Wills I've seen in a long time and that is the document together with the creation of the R & E Family Partnership, which ultimately the parcels were conveyed to that partnership. All three parcels were conveyed to that partnership which created the merger that we're dealing with today. Mrs. Nagy was under the impression that she had separate lots. She had chosen to combine lots 2 and 3 because in making the nicer lot sell and I have with me a copy of the last two years real estate taxes which Hstening to your prior hearing, the taxes on these · Page' 14 - Transcript~bf Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals parcels: the improved house has taxes of $3,982 a year. The smaller lot is taxed at $688.31. And the larger of the three, lot 3, is taxed at $983.30. So, the assessor's office had never dealt with whether or not they merged. Mrs. Nag'y had no idea that the parcels had merged and it only became apparent when she took the parcels on the market and selling real estate had a prospective buyer, she spoke to me and we felt with the title dispute and it became apparent at that point that the pareels had merged and the application submitted to you. I have the last two years taxes and I give that to you, I have the Business Certificate which shows that the partnership consisted of Richard Nagy and Eleanor Nag~y and the three lots that were conveyed at the time were appraised in 1992 or at least as to the partnership value, at $300,000 for the house, the middle lot for $50,000 and the smaller lot for $_0,000. So, she is choosing to divide those two, lots 2 and 3, and the value of that lot, the combined lot, has been advertised at $266,000. We were at a point, in fac% preparing- I had started a preparation of a contract, when it was interfered with by one of the neighbors, I believe, Mr. Rieger, who had come in and spoken last time, had cornered the prospective purchaser, convinced him that this parcel flaods terribly and they withdrew their offer. So, I think they're letting bad interference with contractual relations through the press, this was one place where there was direct interference by the neighbor. Nonetheless, the parcel is still on the market. Mrs. Nagy gave me one today. I mean I haven't seen this one, but KapellReai Estate has a photograph of the lot, and has an advertisement. The lot is $266,000 as advertised. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the date of death was approximately 19927 MRS. MOORE: The date of death was 1992, right? MRS. NAGY: Right. MRS. MOORE: Yes. I'm sorry, what was it? MRS. NAGY: January of 1992. MRS. MOORE: Date of Death. STEPHEN NAGY (son): No, that was 1995. MRS. NAGY: 95, January of 1995. MRS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sorry, 1995. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: With regard to the standards that we have to establish. That the waiver will not result in a significant increase in the density in the neighborhood. The lots have been established since 1950. The subdivision is, as I say, the Douglass subdivision from 1950. Mrs. · Page' 15 - Transcript~6f Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals Nagyis putting together lot 2, lot 3. So~ in fact, it will be an increase of one family. The parcel is, non parcel will be 132.57 in width and 200, on an average of 220 in length to Orient Harbor. Going to Mrs. Nagy's house parcel and this vacant lot are protected by a rock jetty, and we will show through the surveys that they are quite capable of being built on. In fact, there was no problem with advertising this lot, giving it to prospective purchaser, that purchaser was dealing with builders, and there was no question that this lot couldn't be built for him. You have a copy of the survey so I won't give that to you again. Whether the waiver should be would recognize a lot that is consistent with the size of lots in the neighborhood. As I said, this will be the one remaining waterfront lot from this subdivision. All the others have been built upon. This lot is 30% larger than the other parcels. The parcels that come from the subdivision to the north which are ( ) by Douglass Harbor Road and King Street, ( ) approximately 100 feet ~dde but shorter distance 170, so I mean ( ). The waterfront parcel would be narrower and longer to the water and the internal lots would require you know square. But in size they were all comparable. If you go up Orient Harbor and you look at the area that is cut owned by the ( ), ( ) it is owned by the ( ), but up by Orient Harbor the lots are old subdivisions that were developed throughout time and those parcels began are, oh, 110 wide by 190 in depth ( ) So, this concludes the lots in the area. If you like I can give you copies of the depths that I have and probably you have it in your file already. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We do. MRS. MOORE: With regard to the economic hardship, copies from the advertisement as well as your own knowledge of the value of waterfront lots someone does not walk away from a $266,000 parcel. Mrs. Nagy and I will her tell the Board this fact, that she has expenses and those expenses are going to be covered by the sale of this lot. In order for her to continue to live in the house, she has had to consider in selling this parcel. If it was not necessary to sell it, she would make au effort to keep it, but it is a continuous ( ) a lot is for her future needs and should be recognized and sold separate. With regard to the existing house, the house parcel is modest, it is centrally located on the property, as you were questioning the other application I a, we also have a lot that's wooded, that hasn't been used other than for future use, for future sale. It is not one where the house has even been considered to straddle the property line. It has been ( ) use of this property other than for future sale, as a separate lot. Finally, the natural details and character of the slope of the lot will not be significantly and the key word is significantly changed or alter to be . changed or altered in any manner. All the houses that have been built on the Harbor, on Harbor Road and Orient Harbor, have been built on foundations. Mrs. Nagy's house has a heating, washing machine, all of the electrical, all of the appliances in her basement and I can put her here, and in fact, she will tell you that she has not experienced the · Page' 16 - Transcript 6f Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals flooding that the Board ( ), the inflammatory pictures that were presented by the neighbor last time. That will again, be shown by the ( ) and I have also contacted ( ) of SoUthold and faxed him a copy of the survey, a copy of the petition in the merger, with regard to whether or not this lot is buildable and I will also ask him for the ( ) in the file. I know that you all know the lot is buildable, but you will need the expert opinion. Do you have any questions before I have Mrs. NaRy come up? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think so. MRS. MOORE: Mrs. NaRy, please eome up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do. MRS. MOORE: I thought we'd diseuss, well let me start off with a why don't you explain to the Board what you, what your house has in the basement and what you've experienced personally the years that you own the house. MRS. NAGY: We ( ) We have excellent drinking water. In the basement I have, heating unit, I have a washer, dryer, the ( ). Water comes up in the street and ( ) and backs up to Kings Street from Harbor Road. It never comes as far as my house because the people that have cars ( ). One or two people that complain always bring ail their cars up and park on our lot. So, the lots that I'm trying to sell and I need to sell that lot ( ). It's a lovely lot. Given my age and on my family's name and I don't want to have to lose my house, I really do need to sell the lot. So, it seems that, I can't see any reason why ( ). Water comes up in that lot maybe 10 feet, but it's down ( ) into ours as ( ). It's ground water, it's not water from the Bay. The ground water ( ). MRS. MOORE: Mrs. Naguf there were some photographs of this ( ) You and I ( ) this happen when we ( ) each other in the hallway, I looked, we looked in the file and I'd like to go over those photographs and put on the record what her position is with regard to those pictures. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I have just for the record, your son's name, Mrs. NaRy. MRS. NAGY: Sure. Steven. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Steven, OK, for the record, Steven NaRy. Thank you, sir. MRS. MOORE: The first photograph is, referred to as the October 1989, Harborview Road, which now is River Road. MRS. NAGY: And that's how it used to be in that road, but, our lot - · Pa~e' 17 - Transcript~o'~ Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals STEVEN NAGY: Are you folks going to get the same photographs? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Those are our photographs. STEVEN NAGY: Let them look at the photographs and I can describe it. MRS. MOORE: No, you tel1 us, they no it, so, you just put it on the record. STEVEN NAGY: OK, you're looking down the end of Nsrrow Road, you're on Harbor Road. The lawn you see on the right side is the property that we're attempting to sell. Down further maybe another 100 feet on the right you have Rieger's property you can swim in. In fact you're looking at the spot where he parks his cars in. ( ) two ears ( ) right in front of the bottom right of this photograph and the water tends to come up the street far in this way. What you have there is we are the dome of the high dame ( ), especially on the corner where there is property and what happens you get a big storm, rather than ( ) salt water coming over berms and down parking lot, the high point of Middle Ridge Road. So this, you get something like ( ) beach we had, water comes in the street two, four days, it's hydrostatic pressure, the amount of pressure. In fresh water, most part, you do have some salt water swooshing in from ( ) mostly- fresh water ( ) while the pressure of the extra three or four feet of tide ( ) the bay and that does occur, but again, it could well substantiate further down the street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When you refer to the further down, you're referring to the easterly direction or the northerly ( ) STEVEN NAGY: Yes. MRS. NAGY: They build houses probably ( ), but again, it goes down, it's ground water and they won't build there and they're ali living there. MRS. MOORE: Here is another photograph of beach erosion in front of Harbor Road, October 1988. Harbor Road under water 3'6". MRS. NAG¥: It's the same thing. I don't know where this is. STEVEN NAG¥: I don't know where that picture was taken. MRS. NAGY: No, that's way down by Riverhead. I don't know where that is. STEVEN NAG¥: I'm not sure. MRS. MOORE: On the back page is dumping on the beach, contaminated sand from town road dumped on Nagy property and Southold truck disehargfing oil soaked sand from roads into Na~'s property in 1985. Page' 18 - Transcript 'Of Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals MRS. NAGY: Now, #1, there was half a truck load that the town assured us of being sand. That's the only tiling that I've ever been involved. STEVEN NAGY: And you have a photograph of sand right there, so you can tell it's not oil. MRS. NAG¥: No, there's no oil. The property ( ). If there had been oil, you wouldn't have a slope on that property. As you can see by the picture there was a tree ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great poison ivy too. MRS. NAG¥: And as far as the debris - STEVEN NAGY: As far as the debris, I can speak about that. There is a large berm which is right in front of our house. When they purchased the property there was somewhat ( ). There was somewhat the berms came down and ( ), the 1970s was to slowly concrete and then he got some ( ), I help him carry it for some 20 years. Some metals, slats, this, that and the other things. The ( ) and that stuff is all most part now singled in, the berm is built up and it's below ( ), and that we put concrete blocks and stone ( ), this whole bit and most of that is filled in now. We sought of create berm in front of the property which was ( ) here. MRS. MOORE: There's flood water on Alleeia's property your neighbor and you are Alleeia-. MRS. NAGY: There's property that has been built up many, many, many ( ). ( ) because if stands high above anything else ( ) and then there's pathway that belongs to everybody, right-of-way, that belongs to everybody and there's a little beach that has the right-of-way. They have worked coming into their garage the back wt~Jch is the low part of it was not built in. ( ) STEVEN NAGY: They had to get some work done last year because the section ( ) down toward the end of Narrow Road. It gets lower, lower and lower. Rieger's house was built up on ( ) house. He built a ( ) 6 inch ( ) this past winter. He's had no problem at all this year. MRS. MOORE: I'll skip over the flooding in Rieger's garage because there's nothing that could be said about that. Flooding of DePane's Harbor Road, 1992, flooding of Nagy's property on beach side of Orient Bay. MRS. NAGY: That's the berm. STEVEN NAGY: This is just the beginning. That was that big ( ) where it came in. The water stayed in a few days there. Page']9 - Transcript of Hearings September 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: But that's not on her property. STEVEN NAGY: Well, it comes close to the property line. Middle Ridge is the property line. MRS. MOORE: Yes, but that's the beach. That's the beach. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there a date on that? MRS. MOORE: Yes, December 92. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: ( ) CHAIRIVIAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I was just going to ask that. MRS. MOORE: August 21, 1997. This is the right-of-way. (Hearing recessed for continuation.) ~ Pag6~20 - Transcript b~ Hearings ~eptember 25, 1997 - Board of Appeals ZBA PUBLIC HEARING held September 25, 1997: 8:23 - Appl. ~4509 - TONYES REALTY CORP. d/b/a Southold Automotive Corp. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is an application requesting a Variance based upon the August 13, 1997 Notice of Disapproval of the Building Inspector in which applicant has applied for a permit to construct addition, an alteration to existing gasoline station, which application was disapproved for the following reasons: "...under Article XXIV, Section 100-243A, a nonconforming building with a nonconforming use- shall not be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered unless the use of the building is changed to a conforming use. The preexisting building is located in the Hamlet Business District and is not a permitted use in this district. The side and rear yard setbacks do not conform to the required [[0 ft. side and 25 it.rear yard ..." Location of Property: 54360 Main Road, Southold, N.Y.; County Parcel ID ~1000-61-4-23. Request for an addition of 13 x 27 x 9 ( ) on the westerly side of Mr. Tonyes' gas station and the gas station as we have learned has been in existence without the bay since 1927, the bays were added sometime later, and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. ( ) I'm sorry, just state your name for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And what would you like to tell us? MR. ED TONYES (applicant) and MR. DON TONYES both appeared and spoke in behalf of their application, floweret, due to a defective microphone on the recording device, the statements were not able to be prepared in writing. Static on ail tapes make tape inaudible). At the end of the hearing, the board recessed the hearing until Octo- ber 23, 1997 in order to allow additional time for the applicant to consult his attorney regarding the use variance standards required before the Board may considering approving this application.