Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/05/2003 HEAR SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS " TP, ANSCRI?T OF HEARINGS .JUNE 59 2003 SI>ECIAL 5{EETING (Prepared by Jessiea Boger) Present were: Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortora Member Vincent Orlando (recused at 7:05 pm) Member Gerard P. Goehringer Member Ruth D. Oliva Clerk-Typist Pauia Quintiefi Absent was: Member George Homing (Fishers Island) ?UBLIC HEARINGS: 6:30 p.m. Madelhae l~roe~e #5t86. (continued from 4/17/03) Request for a Variance under Sections t00-33C, 100-30A.4, i00-31C, based on the Building Department's April 26, 2002 Notice of Disapprovai stating that the proposed structure is not a permitted use, and that it does not meet the code's height limitation or minimum setback provisions. / Applicant proposes an accessory wind turbine structure at less than 50 feet from the front - property line and at a height greater than the code limitation of 18 feet, at 885 Petty's Drive, Orient; Parcel 1000-14.-2-24. (See Minutes for Resolution regarding request of both Daniel C. Ross, Esq. and Patdcia Moore, Esq. in letter 6/5/03 for postponement to September 11, 2003). 6:45 p.m. App. No. 5264 - MICHAEL PISACANO. The applicant has flied a request for a Lot Waiver under Section 100-24A based on the November 7, 2002 (amended 11-8- 02) Building Department's Notice of Disapproval for construction of a single family dwelling. The basis of the Notice of Disapproval is that this 73,616 sq. Pr. parcel is not permitted in the R-80 District because it is not a recognized lot by any of the four code standards, under: 1) The identical lot shall be created by deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's office on or before 6-30-83, and the lot conformed to the minimum lot requirements set forth in Bulk Schedule; 2) Lot was approved by the Southold Town Plarming Board, or 3) Lot is shown on a subdivision map approved by the Southold Town Board prior to 6-30-83, or 4) Lot is approved/recognized by formal action of the Board of Appeals prior to 6-30~83. Location of Property: 1457 Cox Neck Rd., Mattituck; Parcel 1000-113-07-19.11. (See Minutes for Resolution to advertise Appl. No. 536t for July 10, 2003, canceling the hearing for this evening.) 7:05 p.m. Mary Zu~a #5266 (continued from 3/20/03) Applicant requests Variances under Sections 100-24B and 100-32, based on the Building Department's October 30, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for construction of a single family d~velling. The reasons stated in the Notice of D~sapproval are: 1) the construction ora single family dwelling on 2 Sune 5~ 2083 a eo~c~ef~ng 75.687 sq. F~. p~cel ~n :~e ~-80 D~s~c¢ is ~ ~e~!7:z& 2~ ~ke i¢¢ nor reco~ized, and its use is ~ m~nz. ~d 3 the corzstmctien ora single f~m~ly dweEhg would constii~e a second use, Location of Propers: 580 Basin Roa& (Paradise Point ~: P~ce! ~ 1000-8 L- 1d,7. CHA~WOM~: is someone kere who would like to speak o2 beha!f of the application? ME~ER O~A~O: Also, Madam Chai~om~2, I~d like to mK~e a stateroom 5efore we begin this meeting. Since our last meeting, rye received info~_a?ion showhg my father-in-law h~s joined Mr. Zupa in a lawsuit against Paradise Point (PP)~ ~d a: Ibis time, I ~eeI it would be best for bot~ pm~ies and fine bo~d that i re~ase myself a~ this time [n this matter. E~C B~SSLER. ESQ: We ceiain!y respect your option as a ma~er o72aw. We donh see the need. But if you feel the need. t~en we ressect you: decision. We ~e. after ]asr heating, i fe!t we had pre~y muck sa'~d what needed ~o be ssZd, We~ve introduced Ihe doc:~enr~ evidence t~at we tlti~ suppo~s the Knpiication. Unless tko bo~d Las any questions, or there% ~y&ing eIse tiaffs going tc come up 02 b~a2ff off tlze objec~aTcs~ we are willing to stud on the record. CH~WO~N: Me~er Goe~finger? ~ER GOE~GER: What~ CH~WOMAN: Tn resz onse to Mr. Bressler, MEMBER GOE~GER: 2 though we were going on to opposition, a~d then we%e going 1o see what develops there, Then if we kayo ~ specific questions regarding this hea~ng, we'll go from there. AI~ CH~WOMAN: Fine. Is there ~yone who wouid like to sues& aga!nsz the application? STEPHEN R. ANGEL. ESQ: Stephen R, ~geL Esseks. Heifer, and ~mgei: i08 East Main StreeL R~verhead. NW i have a flew co~ents '~o make. a7~d 7 re7:esent Paradise Point Association (PPA3. i have a few comments to make. The first one has ~o do wit~ an opportunity to res~ end to a vast amotmt of documentation that was submitted rs the hoard since the last hearing. We came down rc one of lbo people from my offffce came down to Ihe ~e. looked ar the file today. ~d app~ently, in addition rc what was submitted on Marck 20tn' there was a substantial submission dated May 15. 2003. included s memorandum from Mr. Bressler. mud voluminous exiibhs, and also a ieiter dated July, June 2. 2003. whfch was received by the board yesterday~ Ea this amon~ other t~ings, there was so~ o~ a demand that you act immediately. Now. 2 note thsi none of/hose documents were sent to me. The only way I fo~nd cut about Page 2 o~ (7 ~e 5~ 2~3 S~u~h~ld T~wn B~ard o~ Appea~s - Tr~nscr~p~ o~ Publ~c Hearings was to come down ~d look at the bond's file. I had not had an oppo~iW to really review ~5em c~e~lly. I d~'t ~ow that they were being submitted. ~d as you ~ow o~, my appellee in ~s matter, ~d the opposition of my client ~e PPA was well ~o~. I also Would like to note that even before these docments were submi'aed on behalf of Mrs. Zupa, [ had made a submission at the bond's request of ple~ings in ~e case that I'm involved in which is Zupa, Zupa, and Miller, agMnst PPA. ~d I 2~smi~ed that by le~er to the bo~d. ~d ~n that le~er, I mean, I cop~ed my adverse, ~d ~ just assmed that the sine com~esy would be afforded me. So to some extent, IYe been bl~nd-sighted today. ~d, as you probably ~ow, better ~ ~.e people in the audience, the submissions &ted May 15 ~d Jm~e 4 ~e not just one or ~o pages. They are pretty subst~tial submissions. I don't thi2 I need to ~ve you ~. copy of my letter. It's ~ my file. I have copies here if you'd l~ke them. ~d it shows the copy to ~. Bressler. Now, I also, I c~'t help but cogent on a p~ase contMned in the le2er submitted by Mr. Zupa in suppo~ offs wife's application dated J~e 2. ~d ~t's on page 2. ~d ~n that he m~es ~e ~ent that s~nce he's a ~11 time resident, ~d presmably I don't ~ow which ones of ~e members of the PPA's ~e smer residents, Ms comments should be g~ven geater wei~t by the bo~d in it's deliberations. I wonder whether ~t would be appropriate for ~e Town Bo~d to consider some so2 of ordM~ce men~en1 that would gade people's co~ents so they could be put on a levei of perhaps 10-0, depending on yo'~ bi~t, or yo,~ len~ of t~e in the com~W. Now I tM~ ~at tMs should be a relatively simple case, but it's been veu, it's been really complicated by a whole b~ch of issues that have been presented to you for a det~ination. I've tried to ~alyze the legal issues. ~d I t~ ~at I've anal~ed essentially t~ee. ~d one is, is the board precluded from ~ving relief on t~s application, on the Zupa application that was submitted? It was o~ position, that ~ expressed in the last being, .~at because of the dual use you fo~d in yo~ Au~st 1995 dete~ination that this is soo of ~ inappropriate application because it seeks to mend that prior dete~ination in some fashion. Now, that could be resolved by ao~er application to come in ac~owled~ng ~e dual use. ~ oaer words, you could come in before you, and ask for a v~ance. ~d ac~owledge that there is this marina, or boat basin use that attaches to ~.e propeay in question. The next question, is this a residential b~lding lot? Given whatever approvals, or setoffs, or whatever, was done back in 1981 by the Pla~ing Bo~d (PB). I would ask, I looked t~ough the file, and I noticed that you had made a reference to the PB. ~nd the PB is looking to this issue, and the PB has a meeting scheduled for this coming Monday, at which to address it. ~d I would request that we await the dete~inafion of the PB. ~ my opinion, I looked at th~s issue ag~n a~er I read some of the memos and letters that were submitted in the interim this morning, and this afternoon, ~d I'm not convinced that when the setoffoccu~ed in 1981 that this lot was created as a residential lot. The definition of subdivision flint's cont~ned in ali of Mr. Zupa's communications to the board gives ~ exception to a one residential lot setoff, whereas what happened in 1981 was there were, I thi2, a 3 lot setoff, and only one was cle~ly desi~ated as a residential prope~y. At least that's the way it seems to me. ~d that was lot 17. The o~er soo of new or,merit is that p~su~t to ordinate section 100-24A, the fact that there was a deed creating this parcel in 1981 exempts this from the requirement of a subdivision. There is a provision to that in the code, but I don't Page 3 of 17 4 Zx~e 5~ 2003 thi~ there's a single ~d separate in the record ~here you could m~e ~hat deracination. ~nd I don~ iiziz~ tlaat determination has. iz doesn't a?pear zo have beer. made. ~d t~i~ we have enough lnffo~atioz in the record 're do that But ff~at could be solved relatively quicldy. Now, those~ I thi~ ~re the t~ee issues. As i said~ the three issues are, you ~now. is ~ proper ~o give relie~ on mae ~nplicatio~ you cruelly ~ave before you? is it a residential lot7 Oh, ~d the fizird legal ~ssue is a ve~ obvious on~. ts a vmd~ce appropriate under the 267 st~d~ds? But what has happened ~ere is that the case is blown us. ~d a whole bunch of collateral issues are brought before you for deracination ff~at ~e potentially you damaging 'co o'~ c!ien-a One offff~em is za to c~wc off~ fight to ~averse the prope~y, or at least go across !he proiae~y towards that the c!ient maintains. The second is the att~pr re s'rop the use of the boa2 basin ~uder some inreoretation oF the zoning code, or nonconfo~ing uses. 3md the ffbrd somehow that prove the io~ o~s the l~.d~ and !he watch and Ihe boat basin. ~_d not tb~e PPA, wretch has a deed, ~d has been pa~mg t~es on ir. The c,~5~g o~ of access lb~e ]e~y is mn issue that's involved ~n the lawsuit brou~t by the PPA aggms~ Mrs. Z~pa by Mr. Speiss who's sitffmg here~ Jim Speiss. ~d I~m led to believe that Ihere~s going be both a being ~d ~ argmme~: on a motion to dismiss the lawsuit nexl We~_esday, June 1 ~ before Judge Cgccerson. The issue o~ stopping the use in ~he boat basin~ the m~dna, or fine boa! use in ff~e manna, is to some exrenr a superfluous issue. But the/c is a voit ~ud~enta! issue ~or my clients. ~d ac~uaily today I wen fi~ough several ~terations of the Southold to~ ordin~ce begi~mng in 1957 ~qd ~Hug tNmu~z to date. of this ~e of matins, a maffna that does nor ch~ge people money: ~ club appeared in the code that was adopted z~ the end of 1971. The ~57 code has pro~bition. The amendments in ~58 deall with m~nas where people had to pay compensation for boat slips, not clubs. ~nd bot>~ the~ the ~57 code had mn excention ~d allowed residential as pm~ off in tlne residential ~ea~ actually allowed clubs~ beach clubs thz~ soffc of stuff that would cor~emplate this. Now as fm~ as ihe legal ownershin cf the boat basin~ I really thi~ thefts way beyond the j*~fisdicfion of tlze bo~d. ] i~z-~ ~hzt the appropriate venue for dete~ining jurisdiction, dete~ining o~ersh~n of lmnd an~here whether it's under water or noL is an action ~n co'~ which has not been brough/m tltis case_ believe it or not. at least not yet. ~nd that could either be brougls2 [u Supreme cour: o:~ county court under the rea! property actions and proceedings ~:aw Not befo~'e you. ~nd. also, I should point out that Mrs. Zupa~ ~no% raising the arK~me~2 of o~e::ship of land under wa~er, ?m nec ~oo s~e is standing re ~aise m i memn her claim is it's either the lown~s p~opexy or Paradise Poinffs. Her cisim is it's to~'s pzoper~. Our claim is it's Paradise Poinffs propexy. But there's this concent called standing. You got re bave~ have some mYerest ~o ~he issue. And *he issue is who o~s ~he prope~y? I dent think she makes the claim thai she's an owner. The only other tlning I would like re. weih this point i think thst I would request, based upon what I said before, thal you l<now. our opimon tha~ based on the application before you. this application should be denied. But ?m not going ~o ha~er at that. I would like the oppodunity re have a cony of these voluminous documents provided to me. Or if they won't be provided re me an oppo~unity where I can come here with a $!00 check, or a $!50 check and have ~os~es made. ~d I can promptly respond. [ think i cmn elucidate the issues from our client's Page 4. of '~ 7 June 5, 2003 Southold Town Board o~ Appeals - Transcript of Public Hearings position. I ~i~ this has become aveW controversial matter. ~d ce~a~nly to forecIose us from m~ng co~ments upon vol~inous records, ~der ~ese circ~st~ces, ~d then cl~m hkat it has to proceed ve~ quickly, is not a appropriate position for ~ applicant to have. Tha2 you. C~WOM~: Is there someone else who would like to spe~, ~, against ~e applhcation? ROBERT SC~: My nme is Robea Scalia. I reside at 4550 Paa~se Point Road, Southold. My family and I have been residents of P~adise Point for 49 ye~s. My fa~er was one of the first members of the PPA, ~d one of the fo~ders of the PP Co~orarion, ~vhich is the ofi~nal owners of this lot ~d the o~er lots in question. As a teenager, I used the boat basin as a sM~ing hole, rising hole~ ~d a s~e place to keep o~ boat. My cbJl&en used the basin for rising, eeling, ~d as a place to use o~ boats. IYe k~t boats in tbs basin as small as 16' and as lage as 41'. O~ family has always pmicipated in ~d conMbuted to the mainten~ce of ~e basin ~d the cost of building both the je~ies, m~tai~ng the docks, ~d the dred~ng of the ba~. D~ng the pat 49 ye~s ~ have been there, ~e PPA members always use the road and pass ~e ~averse, what is now called lot g 1, which is the propeay involved in t~s he~ng. We use the prope~ for &ed~ng maintenmce ~d for a t~aomnd. We used it for storage of &edged materials ~d for bay access. We pay for ad maintain the safety li~t pole on prope~. We, in shoa~ use that as p~ or o~ basin, as pm ofo~ co~iW. Fast fo~ard ~ead to 1999 ~d the enhance of the Zupas from ~C ~d CT. D~ng ~e last 4 yeas, they have entered into a cmpai~ of bulling ~d legally intimidating their neighbors, the PPA, ~d ~e Southold Town Trustees. They have obtained an order of protection against a 70- yea-old neighbor. They have erected a 6' stockade fence effectively eliminating the winter wate~iew of an 80-year-old ~vidow. They have had the Southold Town Police dep~ment t~eaten to axest neighbors who have used the same path ~_d roads ~ey have used for the past 50 ye~s. They have filed a criminal ch~ge ag~nst the PPA for ~ng to solve, in good faith, a runoff problem. They have filed suits against the Sou~old Trustees. ~d, I believe, intimated that bo~d into holding up o~ dredging ~o the point that boats this years ca~ot enter or leave the basin at low tide. They have intimidated the Southold Town Trustees by, into issuing some soa of a conditional building pe~it for the propeay that this board, the ZBA, has deemed ~buildable given the present usage. Therein lies the row. If the Zupas ae successful in bulling, intimidating and t~eatening the boards into destro~ng the PP boat basin, which we have had for 50 ye~s or more, they can take this lot that they bought at a distressed price, and ~en t~ it into a real estate bon~za for themselves at the expense of their 23 other neighbors. For 50 ye~s, the residents of PP have had a decent co--unity; paid for our own roads, mn our own boat basin. We haven't asked Southold Town to pick up our gabage, plow our roads, &edge our basin. For 50 ye~s we have built ~d cont~buted to our li~le community. And the four years the Zupas have lived here, they have not paid dues, have attacked their neighbors, and have tried to te~ down the comm~ity that we have built. This matter is the subject of two lawsuits in the Supreme Coua, as Mr. ~gel said, at the present time. There are issues of ownership, title, ~d easements that c~ot be judicated Page 5 of 17 6 this evening. The ~udge has proposed compromises ff~a~ the Z~:pds have rejected. ] respect~Aly submit 2q~t the ZBA s~ould stick ~c the i995 decision reg~&ng ff~s prope~. Notl~ng has bee= changed t~ induce ~y change in ~at preperly rendered decision. We believe Ge Zupa's ~xments ~e ~aced with :o~:~s. half ~mnhs, conjecr~e, exaggerations, ~_d shallow and e~oneous iega} a-g~.men,:s. PLease do not be sr~peded by a ba~age of p~oers md inaccm'a':e rhe~oJc. Lei ~he coux 2ecide if ihe p~ameters have chmged. Thap~ you. CH~WOM~-: Is there someone else who would 15ke to spe~< in op?silion? M~Y ~BE~-P~R: My nme is MaU ADe~ Pimker. My mother is H&en Albe:5 here. She's the 8O-ye~-old wom~n wJ_ose wate~iew was blocked ~ y Ma. Zupa's fence CF~WO~: Co,aid you sta!e ~ere.. MS. P~R: 4345 P~adise Poin! Road. ~*w_ just up here ro say ?m not a la, eft'. I've been to m~y of these meetings, ~d 7ye he~d a ici of ]egalistic sophis~ ~c~ Y~. Zupds ia~er. ~qd I feel thai he is ~susing the taw here. Just as he abused lais neighbors by call~g the nolice o2 ffaem. He uses, has used. the power off t72e police to e:~crce the law against us. ~d now he's using the town re~!ations, which a'e desired for the safety of people, for the well being of fine com~:~Jty. ?m s'~'e yon people don~t m~<e r4les fo damage property owners, to h~ their interest. You wmnt a good f~nctioning co,nudity here. Amd yet these people come i2 here ~d they take tine ~ties~ they tal<e tine regulations, and they twist them. They pe~e~: them. They' ru~ the law into a mocken~ When i't should be ~2 instrument of justice in this worid. ~nd I a~ee with Bob Scalia t don't thi~K you should be stampeded, i lhink you should ste7 back from this ~qd tg<e a long h~d thought5a! look. and thi~ about it, ~at kind of co~nity do you ~r~ in the future? Do you warn a community where people con, e m ar_d s:en on their neigI2bors because thW warn to cash in on prope~y? I worl~ a hglgmile from ~our. d zero. I tl2ir2< about those men. They went up into those towers. ~d ~hen i come o~ here, arzd des] with this? That's ail I have to say. I~m so~. CH~WOMAN: Is there ap~one else who would like to speak against the appiicg, l~cn? HELEN ALBE~: ?m Helen Albefi, the 80-year-old lady who bou~nl property on PP in !964. ~nd we boughl it at the time because we hoped to have retirement home up hers CHARWOMAN: Mrs. Albefi. whereabouts on PP do you live? MS. ALBERI: I'm at 4345 Paradise Point. CHARWOMAN: Do you happen co know 4345. could you telI us what let numPse: thai ~s please? MS. ALBER!: Bob. can you ineIo me with that? 2m te~ibly so~ 5 don~L Page 6 of ! 7 7 June 5, 2003 Sonthold Town Board of Appeals - Transcript of ?ublic trlear[ags CHAIRWOMAN: That's okay we can figure it out. Thank you. MS. ALBERI: We decided to build our home. And we personally built it in 1984. And with the delight of retirement and having a peaceful, joyful, retirement. And in 1995 someone else came along, and decided they wanted this unbuildabte lot. So my husband, who is deceased, who is deceased, and Mr. Cucuru, in 1995, we went through this whole fagade. And we went through it, and you gave us a very wunderful judgment that it could not be residential besides a boat basin. Because first place you can't even turn a fire truck around there. And if you have trouble turning a fire truck, you could lose a life in a minute. And you graciously decided that it was the purpose of a boat basin. And that was in 1995 with Mr. Cuddy, we went through it. And, I feel, how many times do we have to go through this? We are doing it again because somebody decides she wants, they have, at this point, they have cut off one-third of PP. That was the 1st thing he did. He came in. And he set up pine trees and 150 fort apache fence. I don't know whether I'm behind a fort apache fence or the Berlin Wall. He has cut that sweet little boat basin. He has destroyed my whole view. And I bought that property with the assumption that I was going have a view of the boat basin. We've had a boat in the basin for 12 years. We have paid our dues. I have never violated anybody up there. I have not violated anyone. I have never stepped out of t-arn with anyone up there. And I feel that this is a thing that should not happen aga'm. I feel that I really, we all need a little peace up there. And you can't ignore your gracious approval of us in 1995. You still have to remind yourselfthat we went through this ordeal before. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak against the application? Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Mr. Bressler. MR. BRESSLER: After Mr. Angel's most eradite presentation, I feel constrained to address the issues he's raised with the board, but at the outset I must note something extremely curious about the proceedings this evening. Mr. Angel invites you, on the one hand, to stick to the issues. I remember inviting a similar invitation at the last session. Yet most of what we've been heating tonight is exactly the opposite. So let's get back to the issues before you. As to the issues before you, let's address them one by one as raised by Mr. Angel. First of ali, with respect to the submission there is no doubt that at the last hearing everybody was aware that we were going to make a submission, and such as submission was made. To come here the day of the hearing, and say 'I looked at it a few hours ago" doesn't cut the mustard with me. As to Vic Zupa's letter, the difference between full time and part time, we're not creating different classes of people, although listening to some of the objective comments apparently if you come from NY or CT, maybe you are in a different class. The only point of that comment is to point out the fact that impacts are different depending upon the nature of your residency, tf you are there full time you are obviously going to be impacted a greater percentage of the time. And that's a pretty obvious concept. Now to the legal issues raised by Mr. Angel. He first raises, without identifying it, the issue of res judicata. It seems clear that doesn't apply Page 7 of 17 here. Thaffs a differenl application before you, There was an app!~calion for a va/~ance. There were setback vafiamces resulted. No such reques~ of you is made im this proceeding. Ii is plain that res judicaia doesn't s~pp~y here. Reasoy. one. reason CH~WO~N: Fm going to stop you fi~zi there Mr. Bress!~ the bo~d hasn't made that dete~Jnafion you I said. the bo~d has nol made that dele~:kafion yea ~ B~SSLER: No, Fm m~ing fire ar~mem m you in responding !o ~, ~geFs com~ment. [ would hope you had not, but if you ~ad. ffzat it would be my way, No. I was co,airily of the opinion ffnat you were keeping ~_ open mind ~fdl the close of al evidence, ~d clearly we don't believe res ju~cata ~nplies here, Tr_e naive of the application is different. The factual proof before you is differed, The actual issues ~e breugz/ up for a ~!1 ~d fMr [ifigatisn before yon are different. [ tkhrL~ thaffs something you should look at. ~d I thir~ you have to make a deter!nation As co whether or not ifs a residential building lot~ ~ don't 2~fmA there% ~y do~s! ifs a residential building lot The docnments a-e before you, Ali of them. aB of them ae before you. WeYe ali looked a~ ffnem. ~d maybe M:r, ~ge[ has the aNlity to look a'; those documents and see something about recreation in t~mre. But [ c~A There's not a word in there ~soui that. The ~em is made u~ off ~hole doric, The doc'~enis are ~hai they ~e. Lei 17 is build,ale. Our lot is b'~ldable. They were selohf at irs s~e time, sgme resolution, l invite you m look at the decrements. There they ~e. v~s! ihe PB ~s going to bring to this. I carfi *~a~ne. You have the entire file. They've looked -- it ~[ce. They wm~x re look at it again. I don't see t%e pu¢ose. Yon have the entire file before you. CH~WOMAN: I will clarify thai ri~at away. W~ asked ffzem m give us ali !nfo~ation that they had on this file, The file is v~G toni:by. 51% veiny long. AS you well l~zow Mr, Bressler: we are render a little sho~ stafff at town hall~ and we cmnno,r simply dedicate full resom'ces re one application Not when we have abont i00 before us at this time, So x [s, resx assured, they are working as tis. si as fizey cmn to ge': finis info~ation, But t would nor wan~ them to t~ ~o nut :ogee~er someffning for us that we may or may no[ have in a rushed situation, mhd m~e a decision tlnat is obviously you critical m the welfare of your client as well as to the co~munhy, based on inadecuate fnfo~ation, So. I do want m see that infonmafion, I do want to review it. as the whole bo~d does. Thais in fairness to you as well. If it's duplicate info~atiom so be MR B~SSLER: Well. we don't believe there's an~kfing new or differerX in the:e, but in the evem there ~s. we'd be pleased to look ar it. ~d we'd be suofised if there'd be an~hing dff/~rent in there We'd certainly like an oppo~unity to commem on k. As to the iasi thing ths~ you said. I win get tc that m $ minute, as in fairness ~s the neighborhood. Now as m the deed. as tc the deed ar~smem. [ am nor aware thai there's any issue as m whether or not that lot met the single smd sons. ace resuiremenm We are nleased to demonstrate that k does. If you thi~ there's an issue. I donl thir2 there's any issue there. I didn't hear any xssue raised, Do we meet the 267 st~_d~ds for a variance? If you reach that issue. I don't think there's any doubt about it Page 8 o~ ~ 7 June ~ 2(}03 S~uth~d T~wn ~vard vf Appe~s - Transcr~p( ~' ~ubl~c ]]ear~ngs CHAIRWOMAN: Let me ask you, that's one of the things that's kind of confusing. Ln the original application you would have either requested lot recognition or in the event that the board found that there were two uses, you had asked for an area variance. Is that request still on the table? MR. BRESSLER: Yes, absolutely it is. CHAIRWOMAN: In other words, it was not part of this submission which, believe it or not, I read every word of it. MR. BRESSLER: I'm sure you did. C~WOMAN: So I just wanted to make it clear that what you are requesting is a reversal of the Building Depamnent's determination that it is, the lot is not recogn/zed pursuant to I0024B or t0024D. And, in the alternative, you are asking for an area variance for the two uses. ils that correct? MR. BRESSLER: Yes, and as to the first part of that when you say the lot is recognized, I take it by that you mean to include the issue that it is not subject to a marina usage as well, which the building inspector also raised. CHAIRWOMAN: He also raised the issue in the notice of disapproval that there was a prior determination, that (interrupted). MR. BRESSLER: That's fight. CHAIRWOMAN: On a number of other issues, which I think you kind of (mnfinished). MR. BRESSLER: I think I addressed them in there. But, you are fight. In the alternative, if you don't think an outright reversal is mandated, we tbJ~c so plainly on the fact, given the size of the lot which is very close to what would be required, were we to find two uses. The nature of that use were you to find it to be a prixtcipal use mandates some sort of relief here. Now, as to the extraneous issues, I welcome Mr. Angel's comments to the effect that they are indeed extraneous. [ recall them being raised at the last hearing, certainly not by us in the first instance. And we concur that they are extraneous. The issue of the jetty. The issue of whether those docks have a fight to be there. They were extraneous in the first instance. And the issue as to whether there is a prescriptive easement across the property is extraneous to you. Those matters are before the Supreme Court. And they will be decided in the Supreme Court. The issues before you, narrowly flamed, although I certainly don't agree exactly with the characterization or certainly the outcome urged by Mr. Angel, I do agree that, in general, the issues are as described as laid out in our memo. That's what's before you. As to what's maybe fair, getting back to the point I raised before, as to what may be fair or not fair to the members of the community who claim to have some rights, with respect to a prescriptive easement, Page 9 of 17 will be decided by the Supreme CouP: ~ether or no~ ~he docks have m go is that :s going ro be decided by :he S'~preme Cor~a if you decide ~hat Mm7 Zupa can build a house ~here~ ~hat dete~ina~ion in no way de:.e~ines whe*~er or not ~hose extraneous issues m'e going ro be resoIved cr.e way or the CHA~WOM~: Thafs (iniemap~ed). ME~ER GOEH~GER: C~ X respond ~:o ~. B~SSLER: It does not. as a matzer of 1aw. l s~H have io slug tho: eul wiS: Spiess and Mr. ~gel in the Supreme ME~ER GOEH~GER: Judge Catterson~ Jn an ~ss~e ~hat was diiferep2/hat, ih~s one, down in La~ei~ plo!Ced an entire road ~om Peco~c Bay Bouiev~d ali the way m DiB~olo property, which was s 2s:~e zf a dec2sior. :ha2 we made reopen %e hemdr_g 1onigh% okay, some ~c years ago. How do we ~now. how do we 1~_ow~ Mr. Bressler~ what Judge ~at/erson is going ro dog Ve~ simply *here may not be er_cuba prope~ after Judge ~a:ierson~s decision m render enough bufld~ole propemy or_ 2~Js ~mce prope~. ~. B~SSLER: ~d if !hals Ge case, the BMIdnng Depm~m~_t will du!y am. ~nal you have before you... M~MBER GOE~GER: The Building Dep~enr w2H grve yeu another Notice cf Disapprovak MR. B~SSLER: That's cmTeci. Tear's co~ec4 but who! you have before yeu, you act upon. Let me aisc say thai we have no ~dea ~cere those iow suits are going. We never had an idea where ti~ose law suiis are going. ~nd ie: me jus~ sram for rize record that whm Mr. ScMia smd ~s jusi plain wrong about what happened in/hose proceedings. Bul Fm not going to go into that because wha~ hsopened in the Su?reme Cou2 happened in the Supreme Coun. ~nd [ don't ~hi~( ar~oody needs to be ?n~ m thal. But suffice ro say what's in 5ont of you ~s m ~on~ of you, ~d yon make the dete~inatio2. ~d Judge Catterson fa!es something else then we*!i have 1o dcm wid~ that Bnl whafs before you is bePore you. and to thai exrem I a~'ee wl~h ~r. ~gel. ¢~qal is beffore you is before you, snd that's wha~ has ~o be dete~ined ~d as far as ihe fights of people to maintain something 1here. that's the subJec~ of a Htigafion. As :o whether or no~ they get re walk t~ough the middle of the prope~y ~s the subjem of a ]itigation. ~:.afs before you whether m no~ a house is appropriate on this rather large water,om 1oi. Thafs whafs before you. CHARWOMAN: That's one oflke things before us The other thing thai is before us is there a dual use on ibis prope~y; is ~here a marina use: and ~hai. when~er or nor this board detm~ines tho: thru dete~ination was made in 1995 ~d is therefore hinted by doctrine of res judicata. Paae I C of 17 S~u(hold Town ~oard of Appe~s - T~anscr~p~ of Public Hearings MR. BRESSLER: Well~ you have to decide that to get to my application. All I want is a house. And you have to decide whatever you think you have to decide to get there. And if you think yon have to deal with the issue of res judicata, then you'll have to deal with it to get there. I sffggest you don~t. You say you havefft decided it, but you will. CHAIRWOMAN: We are plotting through everything. That was the purpose. MR. BRESSLER: Exactly. CHAIRWOMAN: And I think I made that very clear at the first hearing that we wanted to be able to get all of the information to make that determination. MX. BRESSLER: Absolutely, but ultimately, the issue is do we get to build a house there? Because we are now sitting with the approvals necessary to do that. And we are sitting here before you, last in line, waking to go back to the Building Department. We have been to the Trustees. I respectfully disagree with any characterization of what happened before the Trustees. But we ended up whth a permit. And now we are before you, that*s all. CHAIRWOMAN: There are a couple of things that I Would like that I did not see in h~re. There were filed C & R's with the 1963 subdivision. I'd like a copy o£those in their entirety. MR. BRESSLER: We have no objection to that. They are not at all relevant to this. But you are certainly welcome to look at them, and decide that for yourself. CHAIRWOMAN: That I would like to see. We do not have that. (Off the record conversation between Mr. Bressler and Mr. Zupa.) MR. Bt~SSLER: I'm advised that in the June 2nd submission you will find the covenants that were filed with the individual deeds. We're not aware of any C&R's that were filed as such with the subdivision map. CHAD~WOMAN: This is the June 2nd? MR. ZUPA: Yes, and a sehes of deeds. MR. BRESSLER: Aren't there a series of deeds in there? CHAIRWOMAN: Could you speak up for the record, please? VICTOR ZUPA: Victor Zupa, 4565 Paradise Pt. Road. With my submittal yesterday, I gave you four deeds that directly were from the Paradise Point Co~. (PPC) to owners on Page '1 '~ of 17 the basin. One was ~o s Mr. Monticello. which covered them~ ' ~!at my wife a::a presently have cur home on That was a 198! deed, Tha~ contslns the resticfive covenants, covenants mhd resections. ~other is a conveyance in 1966 wi~ch is He.efta E!fers, Cm~e Elfers K~at contains C&~. CHA~WOM~': What about the C&R's ti:at were fi~ed with the Corn:fy of SuffoLk? MR. ~A: There were no C&R*s fi~ed separstely wkk Suffolk C~WOMAN: Wi~ the subdivision? MR, ZL~A: No there were riel The subdivision was done separately in 296~, subsequently as the owner, PPC sold off [o';s, they wo:~d include C&~s in the individual co~voy~ce8. CH~WOM~N: The original subdivision approv~ was s:~ect to C&R% though. ~. ZL~A: If it was subjec:: m C&R's they were not filed with 2:at subdivision map o= !mowledge. [ me~: We checked. 2ye seen subdivision. Pve seen the approwi with the co'Jmty. ~nd Fve checked i~oug~ ail the deeds. ~d, m ~oint fact, noi all the deeds m that subdivision: which by the way dorft inchde the otier side of the road where Scalia mhd some of the people who m'e o~e¢ing Hve. Ti~ose pa~zicuim' pro~eF::es lNe C&R's on~y were applicable to those in which the deeds were included. ~Grs. Albe~a has C&R's. The MonticeI!os had C&R% i~zd the house that we have ou: home om we have a sep~ate iot with a rei~mis cou~ on k, which a v~ance was ~anied some tLme ago, That lot does not contain C&R's. Nor does ~r. Pe~cone% ici contain C&R's. Nor does the lot across fi~om us. What Fm t~ng to say is thai there was no m~fo~_ filing of C&R's tlnat were applicable to eve~oody. CHA~WOM~: There are no C&R's on this lei then? MR, Z;~A: No. there s~e none. CHARWOMAN: Then why [inte~apted ~. Z*~A: There were conditions of conveyance, when ~ did the con~ac~ negotiations that were that they not contain C&R's. ~nd there is no masmr ~ing, as t!ere nox~mNy in a development, such as the one you would thi~( this was. a master se! of C&R's. which somebody says ~s applicable to a pa~fcular conveyance. They were done [ndiv:_duaMy. ~d some people decided they wanted tc pu~ a pooi in. so they said. '[ don't want C&R's on my lo~', and they weren't included. ~. BRESSLER: So the smswer lo yom' question is no, This lot re our !mowledge. no~ subi ec~ nor is it a title lot. 13 June 5, 2083 Seuthvtd Town Board of Appears - Transcript of PubUc t~eartngs CHAIRWOMAN: There were C&R's on this lot before. MR. ZUPA: Absolutely not, not pertaining to the ones PPC raised. There are covenants going back to 1920 dealing with no oyster shells can be stored on the property. I have a title report. And we've done exhaustive search through several title comparfies and they are absolutely... CHAIRWOMAN: I have a copy of a title report from Mr. Miller's application in 1995. And in that title report it does show a C&R for an electric easement so I, I'm confused. MR. ZUPA: I thought you meant a C&R with respect for the development. There is a C&R with respect to an electric easement. CHAIRWOMAN: And there's also an easement over the property. This is from a prior fide. MR. ZUPA: You are absolutely correct there is an electric easement. MR. BRESSLER: I thought you were talking about C&R's. There is an easement. And in fact the ??A has a deeded easc~nent. That's certainty true. MR. ZUPA: As Mr. Curcm~u does ns well. He has an easement with respect to n driveway. So there are easements on the property. But the C&R's that were used on 80% of the properties within the '63 subdivision are not on. this property. That was a condition of my contract. I would not have those covenants. They are not uniformly enforced within the subdivision, and I would not have those in my deed. I have a title policy here that shows 'insured without any C&R's.' MR. BRESSLER: If you were referring to easements, the answer is, yes. If you are referring to the C&R's then Mr. Zupa's answer pertains. So I'm not sure exactly. CHAIRWOMAN: I was referring to the fact that there, in the 1963 there are notes. And as I say that's one of the reasons that We do want to get all of the information from the Planning Board. That they had requested that C&R's be filed with the subdivision as was common practice at the time. MR. BRESSLER: I don~t know what happened, but if the Planning Board comes up with something our title company will be most enlightened. Did you have another question? CHAIRWOMAN: No. MR. BRESSLER: Now, a couple other comments. There were certain references made to certain other issues I'd just like to deal with very briefly. There was an issue as there was an issue as to dredging. The Tmstees moratorium is what it is. The Trustees have that under advisement. It would appear that dredging, in the town of Southold, Page 13 of 17 8oa¢koid Tawn Board of Appeals - Transer~pi ef PxbEc excem to the extent that .... re s an aCplica!ion_ for_ exmnsion of a~exm~mg~- p~m.= per,tied under the Tmsiee~s moratofimm. CHA~WOM~N: Were we ~ven aatno~ on that ~y ~y ckmnce? ~. B~SSLER: No, you weren% The Tov~ Board fTB~ wasgxv~' ~o~ .... .... ~.~ CHA~WOM~N: On the waiver :srovisions. ~. B~SSLER: 0n the waiver provisions, but upfo~mnaieIy the TB~ in ifs wisdom. ~mnted waiver provisions a - only ;m stmc ~es tkat were in im~ment danger of CHARWOMAN: I haveffi seen a copy of tko local !aw ye~. M~. B~SSLER: Bul. ' ' ~ taa~ s agam~ ex~aneous issue, and it ~s whg/r 2 is. ~d 2% for ~:e Trastee~s to dom '~ ~ w~,.x_. AS to the vmious civil ~nc .... mat cn~m=, dfsoutes ..... ' pm~es have had. the record spe~s for zfmoteetxve order was optamed~ we2 a judge have t~o~gh~ ilia: it was wm=~Ped: or he woul~'i have done it. Se, i don% wzm m say mn;~hing more about that I~ seems to me, ma~ in m~ effo~ ro get ~rs the board is of a mind~ no'~ithstan~ng o-~~nosifion on this. rc tg~e xrO~t' ~ ~om the~ Dmz:her inpuz, ~cm the PB. ~:at ~ would like to do is ge; a date ~om yom ~. ~nge] has asked ~ ~or me oppo~arJV ro res:2ond. ~d ~iven the board's posit!on~ wkh respect ~e PB. 2m presuming he will have that opportunity. ~d. what ~ ask rs mat you se~ ~ge so we c~ gar some finality on this. Giving eve~oody one las~ oppormrJ:y co~enr on whatevefs in the record, ~d close the hemSng. ~d at [hat time. ~.d sta~ the period running. CHARWOMAN: Okay, Mr. Bressler~ fi ~s common pracdcm as you know. you ve oee:~ before this bo~d many, many rimes, u is comxmon practice [ha m_omca.mn presented to the board is also copied m the mher~ atmmey,'~ That is a courtesy ~'~,.a: ....... ye.re well aware of. and. actually, youYe been ve:~ good a: doing in the pasL MR. B~SSLER: Well sometimes, ifs (unfinishecl~. CHA~WOM~: i would have m ask why thai wasn't done here. i wasn't, ~m~iy, wasn't awsre thzt it hadn't been done, MR. B~SSLER: Sometimes_ Wss m~e ~hats honored m the breach. WeYe had ooponun{ues~ -m go through the ZBA files in this case. and we find we've no* ~w=ys~ '~r~_~ made privy re ever~hin~ thais been submitted on behalf of the objectam, q '= wm:ts ~ ~ssue a direction wkh respect to both sMes we'd be heppy CHALRWOMAN: We xvfli do that as we soeak t~ a :moody .s caugm MR. BKESSLER: We'd be happy ~o comply with that. Sc ~ ~ '~ ; ~ Page 1z~ ~ ~7 ~5 June 5, 2003 Southo~d Town Board of Appeals - Transcript of ?ub][c tle~r~ngs CHAIRWOMAN: Well, it would also save our office a lot of time and effort trying to take in something like this and make copies of it at 25 cents a page, quite frankly. Yes, I would like you to make a copy of this for Mr. Angel, I would hke all submissions copied to both attorneys. Mr. Angel, all of your submissions, all of your memorandums, all submissions, copied. MR. BRESSLER: All of h~s people's submissions as well. I mean he's representing a group. I don't want him to say "well, people are submitting things on their own". I thank they should go through him so that we have an opportunity to respond to them. CHAIRWOMAN: He can only account for the people that he is directly, you know, representing. As you can only account for the people you are representing. MR. BRESSLER: He's representing PPA. And the members are here malting these submissions. And I don't want to be put in an unfair simatiun here~ I think it's only reasonable that if his members are going to put something in, that you know, we'll g~ve him ours if be'l! give ns his. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that agreeable, Mr. Angel? MR. ANGEL: It's agreeable. But you can swear me in, but those comments that were made today were not past before me~ I had no idea what these individuals are going to say. I mean certainly if somebody wants to make a submission, and discusses it with me, and that submission is made, ][ will give it to Mr. Bressler. But I can't account for an individual, who I don't even know, making a comment here before the board. CHAIRWOMAN: I think you recognize that Mr. Bressler, don't you? This is in the context of a public heating. So, I think you are fully aware of that. MR. BRESSLER: I think that representing an association though, that the association can take steps to make sure that while we provide things, I don't have to keep running up here. I mean, the PPA is governed by a series of trustees or managers. They have voted or not, as the case may be, to retain these folks. And I think, I think I don't want to have to keep nmning up here, so. ),md everybody who's here, maybe that word can be passed down from management, that things could be passed through Mr. Angel. And if something slips through, well, so be it. But at least someone's going to make the effort. CHAIRWOMAN: Are we al! on the same plane, on this? MR. ANGEL: I fully expect to submit everything, I mean, I thought that's what we're doing beforehand. If I'm submitting anything, I'll take care of it. I just, as you well know, I mean I can't control anybody who lives in the area. But certainly anything off~cially from PP is coming through me. And, certainly, Mr. Spiess is here tonight. I heard the stage whisper. And he will certainly comply with the same request. If he Page 15 of 17 snbm]ts sometNlng e~tSer on bis own. or on m~ beha!5 i~ wi!] cop~ed appropNate~y Bressler. C~WOM~: Lefs set z 6ate for ~ new 5emSng and, ~s ~ m~¢ter of co'~se 5n tk~s he~ng, aL s~m~ss~o~s, a~, eve~h~g, m~st be submit:ed by 4. ~m ~ater th~n 4. pm t~e Friday prior co ~ke Thursday pufolic berating. There wiH be nothing accepted al:er tha~ date. There wfi~ no co~enzs on ~hing ~er that da~e. sxcep: a'~ the public Okay? ~nen ~s the next date we have? CLE~ ~D~: The speciaI meeting? CH~WOM~N: ~Jch wonld be, on what date? CLE~ QL~T~: CH~WOM~X: Okay 6:45. July 10. ~]i m~(e a morton to a{m'~ f~s to f:4,5: July MR. B~SSLER: Madmm Chai~ommm did you say July CH~WOM~N: Yes. -- MR. B~SSLER: Fm go{ag m be ou~ of to~ that day, [f you could possibly acc a~moda~e us with something e{Ixer a week before, or the week CHARWOMAN: We don't have any meetings then. The next meeting would be July 24m ~. B~SSLER: Please. CHA~xWOMAN: WeYe going to have m say about 2:30. I c~n~i g~ve yon ~ exact time, because we dc not have tlne agenda. Eye.one w~l! be notified when we se'r tl~e agenda~ when we cmn set 2_e agenda, but xt will be abouz 2:30 gporoximately on July 24?~. Is that a~ee~ple? Fl! m~re that morion. Motion ca. ed. SEE M~TES FOR ~SOLUTION S~ Sachmam an~ A, Onadran[ ~5302~ :continued from 5/]5/03 Based on the Depa~ment's October 1, 2002 Notice of Disapproval gp?llcam;s recues~ g Variance Sections 100-33C and 100-32 ro [ocge mn gccesso~ swimming pool as mn accesso~ sc~dcrm~e Page '[ 6 cf ~ = 17 June 5, 2~}03 Southold Town Board of Appeals - Transcript of Public ]~earings less than 50 feet from the front lot line, at 4705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 1tl-9-9. (See Minutes for Resolution regarding applicant's May 30, 2003 request for adjourmment.): 8:00 p.m. End of heatings. Prepared by Jessica Boger from tape recording. Page '~ 7 of '~ 7