Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNorth Fork Deli . . SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD UNSAFE BUILDING HEARING April 6, 2004 9:00 A.M. HEARING ON UNSAFE BUILDING. SCTM #1000-142.-2-22.11155 MAIN ROAD. MATTlTUCK, NEW YORK. Present: Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton Justice Louisa P. Evans Councilman John M. Romanelli Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Councilman Daniel C. Ross Councilman William P. Edwards * * * * Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville Town Attorney Patricia A. Finnegan Assistant Town Attorney Lori Montefusco Town Exhibit 1- Letter dated 2/13/04 to Murray Schneps, Esq. And Scott Lockwood, Esq. enclosing Notice of Unsafe Building. Town Exhibit 2- Affidavit of Service of Henry Bremer Town Exhibit 3- Affidavit of Service of Raymond Feerick Town Exhibit 4 and 5- Reverend Summers photos Town Exhibit 6- Chief Building Inspector Michael Verity's report Town Exhibit 7- Chief Building Inspector Michael Verity's photos Town Exhibit 8- Statement of John V. Sawicki Town Exhibit 9- Statement of Gregory Alvino * * * * * * SUPERVISOR JOSHUA Y. HORTON: We will move right into the hearing. We have Lori Montefusco representing the Town of South old. UNIDENTIFIED: withdrawal from the closing, which is.... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Right. PASTOR GEORGE SUMMERS: You can see also by the pictures that there is no fence around the property, the sidewalk is just a few feet to the building and it is very easy for people just walking by the sidewalk to stop by the building to sit there or to hang out there. SUPERVISOR HORTON: And you say you have seen youths hanging out there? Are they mostly hanging out in the front, the side or the back? April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing PASTOR GEORGE SUMMERS: I have seen them in both, the front and the vicinity of the phone booth but also in the back, which is hidden from the Main Road and which is not lighted. There is in one of those pictures, you can see what had been small parking area, delivery area, when the business was a deli, and they would hang out there and that puts them very close to our church. . . 2 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Okay, that is all the questions I have. INAUDIBLE COUNCILMAN WILLIAM EDWARDS: Time flies, I would say it is at least four ifnot going on five years ago. I remember it was on a Thanksgiving.... SUPERVISOR HORTON: I am sure that information can be brought forward. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Yes, we have an official witness to present. Thank you, Reverend. SUPERVISOR HORTON: I think it was in the neighborhood of three years ago, but that is going to be made clear, I am sure by the attorneys. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Call Michael Verity, the Chief Building Inspector. Could you please state your name and tell us by whom you are employed? MICHAEL VERITY, CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: My name is Michael Verity, I am employed by the Town of Southold. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: In what capacity? MR. VERITY: The Chief Building Inspector. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Could you describe your duties? MR. VERITY: My daily duties are to manage seven people in the Building Department; review plans; review site plans; building construction plans and budget information; memos to the Board and different things like that on a daily basis. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Could you tell us, Mr. Verity, what your qualifications are? MR. VERITY: College education wise? ASSIST ANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Just general background. MR. VERITY: I have an Associates degree in Architecture and Civil Engineering; I am a certified New York State CEO, which is a building inspector for the State of New York; also a certified fire investigator, arson investigator-levell for the State of New York. April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Do you have any experience in construction? . . 3 MR. VERITY: Yeah, I have approximately 20 years of experience in the private industry in building construction, general construction which is commercial and residential as well. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: How long have you been employed by the Town? MR. VERITY: Approximately eight years. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: And have you had the opportunity to go out and make inspections of different buildings and structures in the Town? MR. VERITY: Yes. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: I am going to draw your attention to the property located at 11155 Main Road, Mattituck. Are you familiar with that property? MR. VERITY: Yes, I am. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: What is located on that property? MR. VERITY: Right now a vacant building, which used to be the North Fork Deli. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Okay. That is in the Town of South old? MR. VERITY: Yes, it is. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Now, when did you first take action with respect to this property? MR. VERITY: There was a fire on, I think it was November 25,2000. I personally did not take action that night but the Building Department did, again it was November of 2000 that there was a fire at the property. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Did you have the opportunity to go out and make an inspection of that location at a later date? MR. VERITY: Yes, I did. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: When was that? MR. VERITY: It was an inspection on February 28,2003. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Did anyone accompany you at that time? April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing MR. VERITY: James Richter, the Town Engineer and Ed Forrester, Code Enforcement official. . . 4 ASSIST ANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Did you inspect the structure located on that premises at that time? MR. VERITY: Yes, I did. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Did you make a finding? MR. VERITY: We found the building to be safe and secure at that time. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Okay. Now, did there come a time that you went back out and made another inspection of this property? MR. VERITY: Yes, January 16th of this year. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Were you accompanied by anyone? MR. VERITY: Ed Forrester, the Code Enforcer. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: What was the purpose for your inspection on that day? MR. VERITY: Basically it was to review the building again, as we do with other buildings in the Town and at that point in time because of decay and neglect to the building, considered the building unsafe. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Could you describe what you observed when you went to the location that day, in detail? MR. VERITY: Basically found a lot of garbage around the premises; boards were coming off the building; the exterior siding, in quite a few areas, there was no exterior siding, which is required to be maintained as per State code; the roof had quite a few holes in it and they seemed to be getting worse from, actually there were additional holes from the previous almost year inspection. ASSIST ANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Did you observe any weathering from those holes? MR. VERITY: Yes, there was, at the time we went out, by photograph I can show that there was snow inside the building, as well as, like I said, additional decay to the building from the year prior. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Did you observe any evidence of vandalism? MR. VERITY: Yes, and it was also noticed by, I think it was a Mr. Sawicki, a gentleman who pulled up in a pickup and said he chased a few kids out of there numerous times and he was concerned of the safety of the people going into the building and the concern of fire to the building. April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing ASSIST ANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Did you observe any graffiti at the location? . . 5 MR. VERITY : Yes, I did. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: From the time that you went out there in January of '04, did you notice any improvements that had been made to the building? MR. VERITY: Negative. Actually, I went out recently and it appeared to be worse than I have ever seen it, in reference to garbage on the property. And you go by on a daily basis and there is always something that crops up. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Did you observe when you went out there in January, any safety features that had been added? MR. VERITY: Negative. Like I said, it was February, the year before, it appeared to be somewhat safe but definitely in January, the building was not taken care of, not maintained as it was previously. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: And it was still abandoned at that time? MR. VERITY: That is correct. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: You made a declaration that this was unsafe, pursuant to Chapter 90 of the code. MR. VERITY: That is correct. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Did you record your findings anywhere? MR. VERITY: Yes, I did. In a report to the Town Board. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Let me put into evidence Mike's report from his inspection. Okay, number six. Town six in evidence. Did you have the opportunity to have a conversation with either of the parties involved subsequent to your finding that this building was unsafe? MR. VERITY: I spoke with an engineer that was working on the property who originally applied for a permit in July, actually they received a permit in July of 2001 and I also spoke to the tenant of the property in reference to the concerns of some unsafe features as applied by the building code. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: And did the party that you spoke to make any reference to safety concerns that they had? MR. VERITY: Yes. Definitely. There was some concerns, the engineer as well as the tenant who ran the deli was concerned about the safety issues in the building, low ceiling heights and some other concerns about the floor and the roof. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Does the Town have any questions? April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing . . 6 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Any questions for Mr. Verity? JUSTICE EVANS: Inaudible MR. VERITY: I would say within the last couple of months. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Since your January inspection? MR. VERITY: Yes, since my January inspection. JUSTICE EV ANS: (inaudible) low ceiling heights? MR. VERITY: Well, there were other concerns about safety and the building and reconstruction of the building, fire safety issues and stability of the building. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Do you know if the building has a basement? MR. VERITY: Negative. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: And in your opinion how easy would it be for teenagers to.. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Don't blame it on the kids. A person. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: A person to get into the building. MR. VERITY: It wouldn't take much effort at all. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Would you say that if they got into the building given the fact that the roof is in bad shape that that might be a potential hazard to whoever got in? MR. VERITY: Yeah, there is a possibility, definitely if someone was to get in there to start to vandalize the building, there is a possibility that if they took out the right interior wall that you could cause severe damage to that roof and possible collapse. JUSTICE EVANS: And that is different from the situation that was in February the 28th? MR. VERITY: Yeah, definitely. The maintenance of the building has definitely deteriorated, the decay to the building has definitely deteriorated.... JUSTICE EVANS: This makes it easier to vandalize? MR. VERITY: Exactly, exactly. And now the concern is not only building inspector level concern, it is also fire related. It is a concern, I am sure, to the fire department. I am also a fire chief, so I understand fire safety of a building; welfare and safety to the public. April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing JUSTICE EVANS: Do they think that somebody is going to set fire to it or is it? . . 7 MR. VERITY: There is a possibility if someone gets in. JUSTICE EVANS: Because the electric is not hooked up. MR. VERITY: Yeah, no. There are no utilities to the building right now. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Mr. Verity, do you have photos of the location? MR. VERITY: Yes, I do. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Okay. Do you know approximately when those were taken? MR. VERITY: The 16th, they are dated on the, the 16th of January. Started around II :00. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: And those are II photos? MR. VERITY: Yes. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Okay, I will offer all II of those as the Town's seventh. Could you just maybe page through them and point out anything that you observe with reference to the un-safety of this location? MR. VERITY: Okay, first photograph here is when I was talking about the exterior of the building, the exterior of the building as per State code is supposed to be maintained and weather tight. Obviously that is not. There is open plywood to the building, there used to be some tarpaper, which is really not a suitable, weather tight covering. That is no longer on the building. The decay to the plywood in the back is severe in some areas and again, like I said, the State code requires not only the roof but all exterior surface to be water-tight and maintained. This is the interior of the building. As you can see, there is quite a bit oflight going through the entire building. For someone to say that that building is weather tight, that would be an untrue statement. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Or safe. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Or safe. This is the photograph of the boards starting to come off, you can see the board is falling off the window, with little or no effort someone could pull that off, without any type of hardware or tools to pull that off. Another area where they showed the bare plywood, which is not an approved exterior surface. SUPERVISOR HORTON: What is that doing in between the two buildings? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: That is the way that the buildings are joined together. There is like an alley way there. There is some garbage and stuff and you can't see it too well because there is snow. April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing SUPERVISOR HORTON: Is there any type offencing or ... . . 8 MR. VERITY: No. No. SUPERVISOR HORTON: ...to at least tell people not to come on... MR. VERITY: No. The building is not posted or really no type of deterrents in the way of fences or anything like that. This is another photograph showing the snow inside the building. There is a snowdrift inside the building. And again, you can see the holes in the exterior walls and the roof where the weather can enter the building. Again, a better angle of the snow. It is quite a bit of snow in the building. The holes in the roof, which obviously in time get bigger and bigger, again, it is not weather tight. There is an area in the back where there is some severe decay from the building not properly maintained and there was an area here where the window on the bottom could easily be pulled off and you can just pull it off and peek inside. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: That is the wooden boards? MR. VERITY: Yeah. Yes. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Okay, thank you. MR. VERITY: There was some areas where there was some apparent rodent entry into the building, there was small hole here and you could see where there was some gnawing of some type of animal. And again, this is just showing the holes in the exterior walls. SUPERVISOR HORTON: And you said there was quite a bit of garbage on the property? MR. VERITY: Yeah. I went out there recently and there was garbage around the property. You can see it a little better without the snow on the ground and it seems to accumulate. JUSTICE EVANS: After you were out there on the 16th, were the owners informed that they needed to make a (inuaudible) of the problems that you had found? Or did they just get the notice of an unsafe building? MR. VERITY: There has been letters to the Town Board and I am pretty sure communications with them, with the Code Enforcement official, in reference to that, yes. JUSTICE EVANS: I guess what I am asking is, did they give them a chance to remedy or where they just given.... ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: I can answer that question, Town's one provided the notice of unsafe building, which included the ability for the parties to notice the Town that they wished to make it safe. And there was a certain prescribed period of time in which that could take place also, sent to counsel was Mr. Verity's report describing what about the building was unsafe. And that is the Town's one. April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing MR. VERITY: Basically, the fire was in 2000, it has been a four year period where the building has had a chance, through the permit process as well as communications to be re-built and repaired. . . 9 JUSTICE EVANS: I understand but you did inspect in February of2003 and found it to be safe. That is why.... MR. VERITY : Yeah. Well, they were in the procedure also of getting a permit and were going to fix, so.... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: You described the process of communicating with them and they were given a time to come back and they did not come back? MR. VERITY: Correct. It has been four years and that is the way that we handle all buildings in town. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Since January 16th, they were given an opportunity to respond and what they were going to do, did they make any responses? MR. VERITY: Not that I am aware of. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: I did receive a letter from Mr. Lockwood, who is counsel for Mr. Bremer, who indicated March 23 that he would like to know if there were means to make this safe. I would just point out that that was outside the prescribed period oftime in the code. SUPERVISOR HORTON: And after we set the hearing. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Well after. TOWN ATTORNEY PATRICIA FINNEGAN: And Mr. Bremer is the tenant of the property, not the current owner. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Okay, understood. Any other questions for Mike? Mike, thank you. Did you have anything further? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: The only additional items that I had, which I also have turned over to both counsel are Town's eight and nine. These are statements from Dr. John Sawicki and Gregory Alvino, that are notarized and sworn to and these were taken yesterday. I am not going to read them in, I will just put them into evidence and you can look at them; they describe also what their observations were with respect to the deli. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Did you have anything further? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: No. SUPERVISOR HORTON: At this point, obviously... April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing ASSIST ANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: I do understand that both counsels would like to make a statement to the Board. . . 10 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Right. I think what we do is first offer the counsel for the property owner and then the counsel for the property tenant. Good morning, Mr. Schnepps. MURRAY SCHNEPS, ATTORNEY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS: I am Murray Schneps, I represent the owners of the property. I just have a few things to discuss with you and inform you about the (inaudible) of what has been going on which is not exactly what I have heard from some of the testimony. I would like to ask whether or not we will be provided with Mr. Verity's, a copy of his report, that he submitted to the Board, as well as copies of his photographs? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: I will respond to that. Copies ofMr. Verity's report, he only made a one page report. Were sent to both counsel and I have the certifications that it was received by both attorneys. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: And they were served personally on Mr. Bremer and Mr. Schneps. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: That is correct. MR. SCHNEPS: Except that one thing that you wouldn't know is that there are two owners of the property, that is Mr. and Mrs. Feerick and Mr. Feerick was only served in the last two weeks. That there had been no conversation that I am aware of. . . SUPERVISOR HORTON: You represent Mr. Feerick? MR. SCHNEPS: I represent Mr. and Mrs. Feerick, who are the owners. SUPERVISOR HORTON: You received the report on the building from the Town? MR. SCHNEPS: I received the report, yes. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: I will just respond to that, if! could. MR. SCHNEPS: Can I go on, uninterrupted? You can say anything you want afterwards. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Sure. MR. SCHNEPS: As you have known from some level, at any rate, this echo is driving me a little bit nuts, there was a dispute between the Feericks, as owners and Mr. Bremer as a tenant actually, with his corporation, due to the fire. And it was for purposes of determining whether or not anybody breached any of the agreements between the parties in connection with its purchase and in connection with the lease that existed between them. At the present time, Mr. Bremer, or his corporation (inaudible) rather they are purchasers ofthe property. The litigation was instituted in the year 2001 and it came to trial in February of this year. Coincidentally, subpoenas were issued to the Town with regard to the Building April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing Department and for records and it seemed somewhat coincidental, I won't draw the conclusion, you can draw whatever conclusions you wish but we think it was our notification to the Town that probably triggered Mr. Verity's visit to the premises, which he testified occurred in January. To my knowledge, there was no communication or warning whatsoever directly to my clients with regard to doing anything regarding the property. The first notification that I had that anything was going on is when gratuitously, I bumped into Mr. Ross in the Supreme Court, as a matter of fact, we were actually on trial of the case and Mr. Ross mentioned to me that the Town was going to be taking some action. Only thereafter did I receive notice and did Mr. Lockwood receive notice. Our clients did not receive notice directly and as far as I know, there was no discussion. . . 11 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Your client knew that the building had a substantial fire in 2000, correct? MR. SCHNEPS: There is no question about that. SUPERVISOR HORTON: I just wanted to make sure that we were clear on that. MR. SCHNEPS: Yes. Well, one of the reasons that nothing could be done is that there was really a very heavy dispute to determine what had to be done with the building and nothing could be done about the building until the case was resolved and it was only resolved in February of this year. Actually on February 25, 2004 and I promptly provided a copy of the stipulation that was entered into to counsel for your Town. Part of the agreement was that Mr. Bremer or any entity that he might form, would purchase the property from my clients and that had the outside date that he had was May 27, 2004. There is an interim date of April 27, 2004. In speaking to Mr. Bremer earlier today and to his attorney, it seems that the only thing that is preventing him from moving ahead and closing title almost immediately, certainly before the April 27th date is his inability to secure from the Town a renewal of the permit to rebuild. So that to some degree, the Town is part of the problem in not permitting him to rebuild. I mean, you can't punish people for not rebuilding when you won't give them a permit to rebuild. I don't think that adequate notice was given to my clients... SUPERVISOR HORTON: You stated that. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Why wasn't the permit given to rebuild? What was the reason behind it, does anybody know? MR. SCHNEPS: I don't know. UNIDENTIFIED: It is actually a renewal permit, is what we are trying to get. SUPERVISOR HORTON: When did your client or actually it is not your client... UNIDENTIFIED: Let him testify. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: So we don't know why the building permit was turned down? MR. SCHNEPS: The original permit was issued, I believe, in July of 2001 and I guess that permit expired (inaudible) that permit expired and I understand that there had to be a renewal permit and that is something that Mr. Bremer is undertaking as he will hopefully be .... . . April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing 12 JUSTICE EVANS: When did he apply for a renewal permit? MR. SCHNEPP: It had to have been before today and after February 25, 2004. So we are talking about something quite recent, which was the time when the stipulation was entered into in open court, settling that case and allowing somebody to go forward. I can only tell you about intentions. Intention number one is for Mr. Bremer to re-establish the premise as a deli, as a working and operational deli just as soon he can get title. Plan number two is, if he does not get title, then my client will move forward and take care of what needs to be done in terms of the building, in terms of closing it up. My information is that the building structurally is sound. I am sure that it is an eyesore, I have seen the pictures, they are not as bad as I would have thought but certainly I wouldn't want them to be next door to me but that is far different from taking action to flatten the building and clean off the land as if that is going to get rid of some of the garbage. If it is left vacant, whether there is a building there or not you are probably still going to have the telephone booth, you are probably still going to have the box in terms of the collecting the clothing and you are still going to have garbage thrown on the land, maybe more garbage than with the building on the premises. We would ask that the Town Board forbear from taking action at least until sometime in June, so that this can be resolved. We would inform the Town Board as soon as a closing takes place. If a closing takes place on April 27 or a date before, we would let you know and action would be taken thereafter to secure the building, to clean it up and to do renovation work or repair work to the building as required. The building is still sound enough to be rebuilt and to have the broken parts taken care of. JUSTICE EVANS: If the Town were to consider that, would you take action in the meantime? Of fencing it and securing it better than it is? MR. SCHNEPS: What do you mean fencing it? Fencing is a very expensive deal. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Schneps, the land has been vacant, collecting garbage and foot traffic. A building with holes in it and you are asking what type of fencing, I mean the property is not secure. Which makes it unsafe to the general public from our standpoint. It is vacant property that anybody can traverse and possibly hurt themselves. And so to ask what type of fencing, I mean, if you tell us what type of fencing.... MR. SCHNEPS: I don't know. That is not my business. I am not in the business of securing property or making fences. I really cannot tell you. JUSTICE EVANS: Like snow fence or something, sometimes is sufficient so that people are on notice that they shouldn't be going in there. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: There could be no trespassing signs posted, it should be fenced. The evidence.... MR. SCHNEPS: Well, do you have any idea who placed the clothing drop there? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: It says it right on the box, there is a notice right on the box. April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing MR. SCHNEPS: Has the Town does anything to (inaudible)? . . 13 SUPERVISOR HORTON: I don't understand why have to be here four years at a public hearing, four years later at a hearing to say whose clothing box is it? Should the property be fenced? MR. SCHNEPS: Well, you are raising the question. I am only responding to it. When you say four years, I think February of 2003, there didn't seem to be much of a problem with that building and suddenly within a year after, right before we begin the trial, which we, which the Town got notice of, suddenly we have a very badly deteriorated situation. Is it coincidence? Or is it.... SUPERVISOR HORTON: I would say that those pictures speak for themselves but is there anything further as far as requests that you would like to make of the Town? MR. SCHNEPS: No, there is not. COUNCILMAN ROSS: I have two questions. Mr. Schnepps, you indicated that it was your information that the building was sound. Do you base that on engineers report? MR. SCHNEPS: I don't have an engineers report. COUNCILMAN ROSS: An architects report? MR. SCHNEPS: Only from our engineer. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Do you have an engineer? MR. SCHNEPS: I do not. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Is it your position that your client would have no objection to Town action after June I? Was that how I understood it? MR. SCHNEPS: No, I am not consenting to Town action. I am asking to forbear. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Okay. No further questions. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: I was puzzled by something you said and I want to make sure I understood it. You said that you asked that the Town forbear pending the purchase of property. That the purchase is, that it is going to happen but in the meantime every day that the property sits there, it is unsafe and the property belongs at this point to your client. MR. SCHNEPS: That is correct. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: And presuming that your client is therefore liable if something happens in the interim, why would your client not want to make the building safe immediately? If it is an unsafe building? April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing MR. SCHNEPS: I think, I don't, somebody, I think would make the building safe, we would like to know what it is that you require in those terms rather than a general, I mean some of the testimony here was pretty general; even from the Building Inspector. Some of it was what other people said and rather than specific observations. . . 14 SUPERVISOR HORTON: For the record, if we are going to go the route of judging the word of the Building Inspector, I think holes in roof, snow inside the building, siding coming off the building when it is required is fairly specific. MR. SCHNEPS: Well, I don't know that siding coming off the building is a major problem but I think that we ought to be able to speak with somebody from the Town to tell us what the Town requires in terms of making it safe. Rather than us making that determination and then finding out it was inadequate. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Have you or your client or the associate of your client spoken with Mr. Verity since he filed the most recent report? MR. SCHNEPS: No. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: Two months ago. I would think that would be the logical thing to do, call them and say what in your opinion would be necessary to make it safe? MR. SCHNEPS: But I wasn't in touch with, since that time, with counsel with reference to finally securing a copy ofMr. Verity's report because we had no basis to understand what the allegations were with regard to the building not being safe. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: No. What I mean is, you are representing someone who owns the building, which has been identified more than two months ago as an unsafe building and I would have thought that someone associated with (inaudible), well what we have got to do is make this thing safe. JUSTICE EVANS: Maybe from Mike, maybe.... SUPERVISOR HORTON: No, I would like the Board to... JUSTICE EVANS: To me, what has to be done.... SUPERVISOR HORTON: We have a schedule and we will hear Mr. Lockwood.... COUNCILMAN ROSS: (inaudible) is conducting the hearing. JUSTICE EVANS: Josh.. .can 1 hear from Mike what might be done to make it safe, that will give us some idea of .... MR. SCHNEPS: Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Is that what you want to do? It is your hearing. April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing SUPERVISOR HORTON: We should move to Mr. Lockwood and then we can bring Mike in. . . 15 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Well, first I would like to respond to a couple of points Mr. Schnepps brought up, very briefly. Just to reiterate, Dr. Sawicki's comments that Mr. Verity testified to are in reference to the sworn statement that Dr. Sawicki gave us and is in evidence. With respect to the service of notice, the Town is fully complied by sending both attorneys registered mail, sending the notice of inspection to both attorneys, to both parties that Mr. Schneps represents; both Laurel and Raymond Feerick, additionally as a courtesy we also had personal service made to both Mr. Lockwood's attorney and Mr. Schneps' attorney and everyone was adequately served with proper respect to Chapter 90, requirements. Additionally, just to deal with the question of how to make it safe, it was spelled out in the notice that was sent to both attorneys and to both, all the parties involved. The problems that... JUSTICE EVANS: Is that in evidence? Can I see a copy of that? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Yes, they are in evidence. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Can I get a clarification of the dates that attorney Schneps referred to? There is the May's date and April 27th interim date. What is the significance of the interim date, those two dates? MR. SCHNEPS: The two dates that 1 gave you in terms of the closing, there is an April 27 initial date, if Mr. Bremer requires additional time, he was given an additional month until May 27 in order to close. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Are those dates contained in the stipulation? MR. SCHNEPS: Yes, they are. I think on the second page. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So there is an expectation of a closing on April 27, with a grace period of a month after that, is that what I understand? MR. SCHNEPS: Correct. In effect, yes. SUPERVISOR HORTON: And that was, just so, I am not a lawyer, just so I understand perfectly, that was a stipulation. . . MR. SCHNEPS: In open court, on the record, for the court as part of the settlement and discontinuance of the action. It was approved by the court. It wasn't physically so ordered but it could be so, I think it has the force of a judgment. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Okay. SCOTT LOCKWOOD, ATTORNEY FOR MR. BREMER: I just want to briefly address a couple of issues, since Mr. Schneps did such a fine job of summarizing the majority of our positions. I also have an issue with respect to the service in this matter. Mr. Bremer was not served until March 29, although I had received some paperwork prior to that in the mail regarding the hearing. It was not until March April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing 29 that Mr. Bremer himself was served. Also with respect to the photos and the investigation and the inspection, which has been done on the property, there was no permission as I understand it, given to the Building Inspector to go on there. Nor was there a warrant issued which would seriously be a Fourth Amendment violation. The Fourth Amendment does apply to localities as much as it does to the Federal government as well. There is a recent decision by Judge Hackerling on that issue. . . 16 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Care to site? MR. LOCKWOOD: It is on the (inaudible) the 2002 set, I can't remember off the top of my head, that is even a bit much for me. However, with respect to the issue here, trying to get this property back in shape and that is what we are trying to do. We have a problem now, as discussed by Mr. Schneps, with the permit. Previously a permit was issued, in 2001, I am quite at a loss as to why it cannot be renewed without additional, for lack of a better term, hoops to jump through. Certainly the intent of all the parties is to get this property up and running again, it certainly make economic sense to do that for everyone involved. I would like to, as I said, discuss this with Mr. Verity at some point and find out why the Town is holding up this process. Because Mr. Bremer is prepared to close on this deal. COUNCILMAN ROSS: When is Mr. Bremer prepared to close? Do you have a date? MR. LOCKWOOD: He needs the permit. He had the funding secured but it is contingent upon getting the permits. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Have you made an application to... MR. LOCKWOOD: Oh, yeah. An application was made, it wasn't made through Ray, he has an attorney for real estate closing but I know it was made. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Do you know when? MR. LOCKWOOD: Not off the top of my head. SUPERVISOR HORTON: A way that maybe we could find out is, Mike you would have that on file. I, too, would like to know when an application was filed. MR. LOCKWOOD: And also I should note too, with respect to the actual inspection report, we didn't actually get a copy of the inspection report, or at least I didn't until I got it in the mail and it is dated March 19,2004. So it is a one page inspection report. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Mr. Lockwood, you indicated that the closing was contingent on your client getting a building permit. MR. LOCKWOOD: Yes. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Is that contingency set forth in the stipulation? MR. LOCKWOOD: No, that wasn't addressed in the stipulation. April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing . . 17 COUNCILMAN ROSS: How is it contingent on that, then? MR. LOCKWOOD: That is through a funding company that has nothing to do with respect to... COUNCILMAN ROSS: So you are talking about your client's mortgage? MR. LOCKWOOD: Yes, yes. That wouldn't be addressed in the stipulation. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Now, under the stipulation, is your client required to buy the property? MR. LOCKWOOD: He is not required, he has the option to purchase, which he is attempting to exercise. COUNCILMAN ROSS: So he has the option not to purchase also. MR. LOCKWOOD: Yes. COUNCILMAN ROSS: And when does that option expire? MR. LOCKWOOD: May 27, I believe is the date. COUNCILMAN ROSS: And what do the terms ofthe stipulation provide ifhe doesn't buy? MR. LOCKWOOD: A judgment will be entered into against him. COUNCILMAN ROSS: In what amount? MR. LOCKWOOD: Off the top of my head, I am not certain. COUNCILMAN ROSS: And the outside date is the 27th? MR. LOCKWOOD: Yes. COUNCILMAN ROSS: And you are telling us he doesn't intend to go forward unless he gets his mortgage and he is not going to get his mortgage unless he gets a building permit, is that correct? MR. LOCKWOOD: It is not that he doesn't intend to, I think that mischaracterizes the, I would object... that is a leading question, but he is attempting to. He has the funding, everything is in place for him to purchase, except for the permit. COUNCILMAN ROSS: I have one more question. If he gets the permit, is he going to go forward with it? MR. LOCKWOOD: Yes, he is planning to. He is absolutely is planning to. April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: I would just like to note for the record that both counsel had opportunity to present any evidence that they had in this hearing. They chose not to present any evidence, as an engineer. My understanding is an engineer has not been out in the last year. Additionally, with respect to the notice that was sent to both attorneys, and again to both individuals and that was done as a courtesy, we had no obligation in the code to personally serve all the parties but we did so, the parties, it is incumbent upon the parties to notice the Town that they are intending to secure or remove or actually do so and we heard testimony from Michael Verity that there were no improvements made, that there was nothing done to take steps to do that. So what, regardless of whether there was actual permit pending in the Building Department is really outside this realm of what is to be considered here in determining if it is unsafe, as it sits today. . . 18 SUPERVISOR HORTON: Right. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: With respect to Mr. Lockwood's argument on the privacy issues, the Fourth Amendment right, there is no expectation of privacy, this is a public parking lot, public area. Clearly they are drawing on the public when they have a clothing box, a telephone, a parking lot in the area. It is considered public property, I have case law that I can present to demonstrate that even in a doorway of a location is considered a public area and Mr. Verity testified that he was around the location, he took photos from the area. His vantage point, which is the parking lot, which is a public accessed area. There is no expectation of privacy in those areas. That is all I have. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would like to hear something from our Chief Building Inspector. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mike, would you come forward? Thank you, Mr. Lockwood. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I would like to know a little bit about the status of the application to rebuild. MR. VERITY: We have an expired permit, since basically 2002 in the building department. That is the extent of what we have. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: How long is the permit good for? MR. VERITY: If you do not start the work within a year's time and the permit was issued July 5, 2001; so the permit expired July 5, 2002. So we have not had any correspondence with anyone in reference since July 5, 2002. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: No further correspondence? MR. VERITY: That is correct. I spoke recently within the last four weeks, maybe less than that, two to four weeks with the tenant in reference to the possibility to rebuilding but there was no formal application. There was a request for a renewal but the scope of the work is way beyond what they originally applied for. What they originally applied for, for lack of better words, was to add a band-aid to the building. Since then the building has been totally gutted and the permit would be null and void April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing anyhow. Not only because there is a new code but the, besides is beyond the scope of the work of what he originally applied for. . . 19 COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: They made an application to do the additional work necessary to get it up and running. MR. VERITY: Negative. SUPERVISOR HORTON: They have not.... MR. VERITY: Yeah. The problem that they have now is.... SUPERVISOR HORTON: They have not, what was said to us was that they have made application... MR. VERITY: No, they have not. The original application was the only application that came to me. SUPERVISOR HORTON: And to dovetail that, the original application, even if it were valid today, for the work that is expected to be done, wouldn't be sufficient.. MR. VERITY: That is correct, that is correct. SUPERVISOR HORTON: ....it would have to be reviewed and.... MR. VERITY: It is expired and unfortunately we can't renew, unless they have started the work, we can't renew under the old code, we can't renew it to current... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Did you make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt to the applicant or the representative of the applicant... MR. VERITY: That is correct. I did. SUPERVISOR HORTON: ....that they would have to file, they would have to make application for an entirely new permit. MR. VERITY: That is correct. I spoke to the engineer and I spoke to the tenant, just recently in reference to that. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Is that because they came in to see you, to get a permit or what was the.... MR. VERITY: Basically it was status of the old permit. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: They came in to... MR. VERITY: That is correct. April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing SUPERVISOR HORTON: They called you or they came in. . . 20 MR. VERITY: I had an appointment with Mr. Henry Bremer. And I spoke to Mr. Condon, the engmeer. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And the response from the Town was, that it is going to require an altogether new application and to specify exactly what is going to be done? MR. VERITY: That is correct. Yeab, it was starting from stage one. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: How did they respond to that. MR. VERITY: Basically when I left the tenant, I had requested he go to the engineer and see what the engineer's concerns with the building were at that time. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: And you haven't heard back from them since? MR. VERITY: I heard from the engineer and Mr. Bremer in reference to that, yes and they said that they would basically review what they could do and they didn't see it as feasible to not use, they needed to use the old permit is what I am trying to say. They could not re-do it under the new permit for whatever reasons, they preferred, that is correct. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: To re-activate the old permit, rather than going forward with a brand- new one. MR. VERITY: That is correct, I had zero ability to do that. SUPERVISOR HORTON: But no formal application... MR. VERITY: That is correct, it was just conversation. Via the phone and... SUPERVISOR HORTON: So we are working again with intentions. JUSTICE EVANS: Mike, I am looking at the notice of unsafe building and it says that in order to remove the structure, I am looking for what their remedies would be at the point of the notice of unsafe structure and I can't really, it just says here (inaudible) staying within the time prescribed, what in your opinion is what they needed to do or need to do in order to make it safe? MR. VERITY: At this point in time? JUSTICE EVANS: Yes. MR. VERITY: I think we are beyond that. The last four years we have been trying to achieve that without any progress at all, so it is at the point that the deterioration and neglect that this building is considered unsafe and needs to be basically tom down. April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Well, there are two parts to what, I think, Louisa is asking. One is, what interim measure can we do to just keep it safe from other people. . . 21 COUNCILMAN ROSS: I think he answered that and I think he said that it needs to be removed. JUSTICE EVANS: (inaudible) my understanding from what he said. They want to get a building permit on it now because it is not... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Well I didn't hear him say that. MR. VERITY: Basically, we can't. As the building... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: You can't modify the old permit from several years ago? MR. VERITY: That is correct. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: You haven't really ruled on a new application, you haven't received a new application to do the job properly. MR. VERITY: If they came in tomorrow with a building permit to alter the building, we would take that in and we would consider it for a permit, definitely. I would not deny anybody that ability. There may be the possibility of Zoning Board, Planning Board and meeting all the requirements for the state code, which may be very hard to do at this point in time. SUPERVISOR HORTON: One question that I have because I think it is, there are two components of this. One, we want to ensure the general welfare and safety of the community and our Building Inspector said that this structure in and of itself is unsafe, we have deal with that but as far as protecting the rights of property owners and encouraging business in the Town, this building was damaged severely due to fire and under our code when you start dealing with non-conformity, with this, with the property owner, whoever it is, has the right to re-build that structure without going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances and so forth due to non-conformity. MR. VERITY: I would say that there is a very good possibility that they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SUPERVISOR HORTON: But there is still the ability for them, for that business to exist on that property? MR. VERITY: That is correct. It is a permitted use in the business zone and they would be allowed to rebuild that structure. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: And what about issues, things that make it non-conforming like setbacks... . TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: They would have to go to the Zoning Board with that. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mike. April 6, 2004 Unsafe Building Hearing ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Mr. Supervisor, if I could just ask a couple of questions from what Mr. Lockwood brought up? Mr. Verity, were you on pubic access area when you viewed the observations that you testified to? . . 22 MR. VERITY: That is correct. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Was everything that you testified to that you observed at that location in plain view? MR. VERITY: Yes, it was. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Did you ever enter the building? MR. VERITY: No, I did not. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Were there any 'No Trespassing' signs posted? MR. VERITY: No, there were not. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MONTEFUSCO: Were you ever told that you were not permitted on that property? MR. VERITY: No. With that being, I was never refused entry to the property, so I would not need a warrant. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. We will close this hearing. * * * * . . ~o~ Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Board . . Doroski, Bonnie From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Krauza,Lynne Wednesday, April 21, 2004 2:48 PM Doroski, Bonnie Montefusco, Lori North Fork Deli Exhibits (unsafe building hearing) The list of Town exhibits are as follows: Town Exhibit 1 - Letter dated 2/13/04 to Murray Schneps, Esq. and Scott Lockwood, Esq. enclosing Notice of Unsafe Building. Town Exhibit 2 - Affidavit of Service of Henry Bremer. Town Exhibit 3 - Affidavit of Service of Raymond Feerick. Town Exhibits 4 and 5 - Rev. Summers' photos Town Exhibit 6 - Chief Building Inspector Michael Verity's report Town Exhibit 7 - Chief Building Inspector Mike Verity's photos Town Exhibit 8 - Statement of John V. Sawicki Town Exhibit 9 - Statement of Gregory Alvino Please let me know if you need anything further. 1 . . Memorandum To: Town Board From: Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector Date: January 16,2004 Re: North Fork Deli REPORT OF INSPECTION PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 90 A re-inspection of property and structure at 11155 Main Road Mattituck, SCTM# 1000-142.-2-22, records indicate property owned by Raymond Ferrick, 70 West Woods Blvd., Aquebogue N.Y. 11931. Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector at 11 :00 A.M. on Friday January 16, 2004, performed the inspection. Property is a corner lot in a B zone and contains approximately .22 acres and one structure. The structure is unoccupied. Openings were discovered on the exterior surface and roof allowing the weather to enter the building. There is evidence of vandalism and intrusion on and within the building. There also appeared to be evidence of rodent harborage. The building is deemed to be unsafe due to inadequate maintenance, dilapidation and abandonment. ~~$4 Signature ~-,.~,~ /~ ~ t7 Date Cc: Town Attorney . . _'_"-"-,, ,.,..~,"""'''~,,,.,~.,,'~,c''''''-'';..,,.:_~.'-'''''''. "","J.""""",,,,,""""'''-'''"''-'''".'.'''''' _,__,",~___""_""""-,-~",,,,,,,,'"',....._.,,,,,,,.",,C .::t. f>~(lif ~ U\ - t--No~~ . - ~ ~ ~ !aNJ)... - ~ --ff~ ~ ff\VZLu-r' -NW\ ~ ~ . - ~ 0vW1J OM r~ ~Vf1 - ~ ~~ ~ r~ ~ / - WWj ~J~ "'" PfIYP ~d~ / wr. " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. fv I(Y(J1.-VI t'ltMVV\J .~ ~ ~ /~ ' . . (~ qo. 8 ) ----- cJ ~ U{J ~ W 'S'l~U;:if>- '--._~-- --~------~---------- . . . . jf Sex\! fee 01- NOh G(... ~ 010 -'5 ~OO?U ~ ~~s If"~ rP ~v!-i ~ ~ ~ 1,\W!fy ') \ \ 1(, jol.j ~~ 31lCflo~ br~' GO lttttw ~ ~ '10 ~ ~ . .;l/Ji(( ~~ ~ (iqO"<O) Vf ~ p~ q) cU..tG fS) [J.~' \kM~ }Jvwe.JJJ ~ ~ 312..'1101.{ 1\ 1\ lil-nrj ~ ~1~If)Lf (J) --. - . . i {l~ "'4u. ~ ~ - ~ -~. ~~~ -S>W~ V ..~ -?V'''''aW--~ 14b/~ ~~ -~~ I -~,0// / -~~ -~// " ~..~~ -~' ~. , ~\.\ ~ t \~ ~-~' 0-. ~ 91 j.0J..bt / / (j~j \_.~~._.. , .~. ~--_._._-_. - , - . . ----, i~ -7U~~~J 1W~~~"~~~ f~ L~~ d.!aS't()~ . . Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-9502 Telephone (631) 765-1802 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Memorandum From: Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector ~(Ct. II/(D J4,V I 6 2004 To: Town Board Date: January 16,2004 10"'/'011/ 1; 01tf11 Cle"/r Re: North Fork Deli REPORT OF INSPECTION PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 90 A re-inspection of property and structure at 11155 Main Road Mattituck, SCTM# 1000-142.-2-22, records indicate property owned by Raymond Ferrick, 70 West Woods Blvd., Aquebogue N.Y. 11931. Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector at 11 :00 A.M. on Friday January 16, 2004, performed the inspection. Property is a corner lot in a B zone and contains approximately .22 acres and one structure. The structure is unoccupied. Openings were discovered on the exterior surface and roof allowing the weather to enter the building. There is evidence of vandalism and intrusion on and within the building. There also appeared to be evidence of rodent harborage. The building is deemed to be unsafe due to inadequate maintenance, dilapidation and abandonment. ~~~ h~,-,.? (/ Date It. , 'J.-oo,-/ Cc: Town Attorney JAN 1 6 2004 . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 SouthoId, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLWWING RESOLUTION NO. 32 OF 2004 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JANUARY 6, 2004: WlIEREAS the building located at 11155 Main Road, Mattituck suffered a fire and as a result is vacant; and WHEREAS said property remains unimproved since the time of said fire; and now be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold orders and directs the Southold Town BuildiDl! Inspector to conduct an inspection of the structure and propertv at 11155 Main Road. Mattituck. in accordance with Chapter 90 of the Southold Town Code, to be completed and filed by January 16,2004. Be it further RESOLVED that a copy of this report also be delivered to the Town Attorney's Office upon filing. PJ;lI/efOQ-.'tL . Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk .... f~ ~~ ~> --- res I r(VY OfP r s I . IJrr:A !2Lpt/Yf- ~ pv ~o:H' y . f ~~!J . o.htU\d.wvJ - (.VI ~ fv~, we.e..d5 ffr Jij 10 101- ~ roll d'i -r~ f/Jl-I/ 6~ \1-. 1(l.Lv - ~-S- '- : ~ 2-00 ~Ave. , . - h~J/ cvr--eJ .I-~ Ix ~6cJanie/ - e/ofA&nj h:;;u"s / -p~b~, ,~~lcUw'6 I\.Q>>.eY 9hfll^i-u.J / 9UJJ -;- y~ pu-ptL ~'i) v>J-) ~ ~cb b1~>.. TP,"~/ , rJ~ Vl/lJ?YJ ~5 CI-(J (V,rJ CllVS / CtrUJ ~ he refl!vvJ · pr;cJ 1Jo-ft4,~ / ~ ~Ct- Cfr'o.- p~~. ~ . J!Jhtfhllt"/ t-v,,,,Ji, _ / /l~/L' _ _ _ - -. A - fl vJ . / . - ..- , . .... . tyD Fr~ fmpu-0' r ~3 IUd \ YvrJi (WnJ- / to U-L (M- It #d ) (v;b J~"1 ~ f/z;( &'b ~s.pcJrL _ arr- CEo ) cert flre- (/Jr/4 , -/AflL- E 1~s ~jA.spuh~ ~ {f,s~ M~ ;2} )J uh /1UL Nr ---o.ell' v~. (l'ru. /t!z-~/~. ( _ 0 ~ 1'rI~~ P/?ff!~3 .. , NY5 I 20 r/u rt1;f {,/4- . ~/Yuc.hA. J~ 6-fz/Y1e/.)~ . >fr~ '> ~/ ~ .af ~ -h /^-<- .