HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarine Associates, Inc
JII
.
.
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL stATISTICS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
August 14, 1985
Victor G. Lessard
Executive Administrator
Building Department
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Victor:
The Southold Town Board at their regular meeting held on August
13, 1985 adopted the following resolution with respect to the Notice of
Pendency, Marine Associates, Inc.:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby
authorizes and directs the removal of the Notice of Pendency
(Index No. 85-1958) in the Supreme Court matter of Town of
Southold, Plaintiff, against Marine Associates, Inc., Defendant,
dated January 9, 1985; as recommended by Executive Administrator
Victor G. Lessard.
Very truly yours,
t*",c1;r-
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
t!{;aI{l2fK~~;Lf ~/Fs-
.
.
.
TEL. 765-1802
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
RECEIVED
AUS 5 Ql5
Town Chwk Southold
Aug. 5, 1985
To:
Judith Terry
Town Clerk ,j.
. d ' (c.
VJ.ctor Lessar c--..:.
Exec. Admin. Bldg. Dept.
From:
Subject:
Marine Associates
(Unsafe Buildings)
An inspection by the Building Department indicates
that four of the unsafe buildings have been demolished.
The fifth one has now been put in a safe condition. My
judgement is that all the conditions specified by the
Town Board have been satisfied. I would suggest that
this file should now be closed and the Notice of Pendency
be removed.
VL:dsm
.
.
)
SUPREME COURT : STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFPOLK
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -x
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,
. NOTICE OF PENDENCY
.
Plaintiff, ,fs--j :Js-r
. INDEX NO.
.
against
:
INE ASSOCIATES, INC.,
:
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - ------ - -X
Notice is hereby qiven that the Southold Town Board held a
earing on November 20, 1984, in the matter of Notice to MARINE
SSOCIATES, INC., pursuant to Chapter 90 of the Code of the Town
f Southold relative to structures located on the easterly side of
irst Street, New Suffolk, New York, which were determined to be
tructurally unsafe and dangerous by the Southold Town Building
nspector. A certified copy of the Notice of the Building
nspector dated August 30, 1984, and a certified copy of the
esolution of the Southold Town Board adopted on November 27, 1984,
re attached hereto. The defendant, above-named, MARINE.
SSOCIATES, INC., has failed to comply with the conditions of
aid resolution by January 28, 1985, and pursuant to Section 90-7
f the Code of the Town of Southold this notice is being filed
ith the Suffolk County Clerk.
The following is a de.oription of the real property affected
y said action:
ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land,
with the buildings and improvements thereon erected,
situate, lying and being at New SuffOlk, Town of
Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York,
.
.
bounded and described as follows.
BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of
First Street, at the southwest corner of the premises
herein described where the division line between said
premises and land now or formerly of the Radel Oyster
Company adjoining on the south intersects the said
easterly side of First Street; running thence North
6- 54' 30. East along the easterly side of First
Street, 211.02 feet to the corner formed by the inter-
section of the easterly side of First Street with the
southerly side of Main Street; thence South 83- 45'
East along the southerly side of Main Street, 49.50
feet to the northeast corner of Main Street; thence
North 83- 45' West along the northerly side of Main
Street, 192.94 feet to the corner formed by the
intersection of the northerly side of Main Street with
the easterly side of First Street; thence along the
easterly side of First Street, North 6- 54' 30. East
272.45 feet to the land formerly of David H. King,
thence South 83- 47' 30. East along said last mentioned
land to Peconic Bay; thence in a general southerly
direction along Peconic Bay to the northerly line of
land of Radel Oyster Company; thence along said land
of Radel Oyster Company, North 83- OS' 30. West to the
easterly side of First Street at theppoint or place
of BEGINNING.
Suffolk County Tax Map Designation: District 1000,
Section 117.00, Block 08.00, Lot 018.000.
ated: January 29, 1985
RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff,
TOWN OF SOUTH OLD
Main Road - P.O. Box 973
Cutchogue, New York 11935
(516) 734-6807
THE CLERK OF THE COUNTY OF. SUFFOLK:
You are hereby directed to index the within notice to the
of the defendant: MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC.
Main Street
New Suffolk, New York 11956
January 29, 1985
RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff,
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Main Road - P. O. Box 973'
CUtchoque, New York 11935
(516) 734-6807
.~.('. .t,
..
TEL 765.1802
TOWN OF SOUTBOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD. N.Y. 11971
NOTICE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 90 OF THE CODE
or TUB TOWN OF SOU'l'HOLD
Datel August 30, 1984
TOI Marine Associates, Inc.
Main Street
lew Suffolk, New York 11956
A. The last Assessment Roll of the Town of Southold shows
that you are the owner of the following described
pr8llia.. I
ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with
the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate,
lying and being at New SUffolk, Town of Southold, County
of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described
as followal .
BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of First
Street at the southwest corner of the premises herein
described where the division line between said premises
and land now or formerly of the Radel Oyster Company
adjoining on the south intersects the said easterly side
of rirst Street, running thence North 60 54' 30. East
along the easterly side of First Street, 211.02 feet to
the corner formed by the intersection of the easterly side
of First Street with the southerly aide of Main Street,
thence South 830 45' East along the southerly side of Main
Street 193.50 feet to the southeast corner of said Main
Street, thence North 60 IS' East along the easterly end of
Main Street, 49.50 feet to the northeast corner of Main
Street, thence North 830 45' West along the northerly side
of Main Street, 192.94 feet to the corner formed by the
intersection of the northerly side of Main Street with the
easterly side of First Street, thence along the easterlf
side of First Street, North 60 54' 30. East 272.45 feet tQ
the land for.-rly of David H. King, thence South 830 47'
30. East along said last mentioned land to peconic Bay,
thence in a general southerly direction along peconic Bay
to the northerly line of land of' Radel Oyster Company,
thence along said land of Radel Oyster Company, North 830
OS' 03. West to the easterly side of First Street at the
point or place of BEGINNING.
The above described premises are the same premises
described in a deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's
Office in Liber 910lpage 505.
~~t~?e: -Z:/~k/ .JZ.-
'1~?';;;rr '
-f}1,.,,,, _-~d"-'L.'A:'-t'dd:.->.../,+c-,
'~.r .t..
.(
."
Also referred to aSI Suffolk County Tax Map Designa-
tion. District 1000, Section 117.00, Block 08.00, Lot 018.000
B. (1) The shed marked as Building No. 1 on a map of
Roderick Van Tuyl, PC dated August 21, 1982,
(attached hereto as Exhibit 1) is structurally
unsafe and dangerous and as such constitutes a
hazard to safety by reason of inadequate main-
tenance, dilapidation, obsolescence and abandon-
ment. In particular the .shed has no foundation
and there are holes in the easterly exterior wall
and doors exposing the i~terior to the weather.
(2) The Paint Shop marked as Building No.2 on a map
of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC dated August 21, 1982,
(attached hereto as Exhibit 1) is structurally
unsafe and dangerous and as such constitutes a
hazard to safety by reason of inadequate main-
tenance, dilapidation, obsolescence and abandon-
ment. In particular there are holes in the roof
exposing the interior to the weather, the southerly
portion of the building has split away from the
main structure, the foundation has rotted and de-
teriorated.
(]) The Machine Shop marked as Building No. ] on a map
of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC dated August 21, 1982,
(attached hereto as Exhibit 1) is structurally un-
safe and dangerous and as such constitutes a hazard
to safety by reason of inadequate maintenance,
dilapidation, obsolescence and abandonment. In
particular, the floor and sills are rotted, the
northerly side of the building has been removed
causing the northerly portion of the roof to
collapse.
(.) The Northerly Boat Storage Building marked as
Building No. 4 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC
dated August 21, 1982, (attached hereto as Exhibit
1) is structurally unsafe and dangerous and as SUCh
constitutes a hazard to safety by reason of inade-
quate maintenance, dilapidation. obsolescence and
abandonment. In particular the building support posts
and sills have rotted and deteriorated so they are
not properly supporting the building, the columns
holding the steel girder which supports the second
floor have deteriorated to the point they are not
adequately supporting the second floor, there are
numerous holes in the roof and exterior walls ex-
posing the interior of the structure to the weather.
, 4 ,., . ·
.. ..
'.(
.(
(5) The Southerly Boat Storage Building marked as
Building No. 5 on a map of Roderick Van Tuy1, PC
dated August 21, 1982, (attached hereto as Exhibit
1) is structurally unsafe and dangerous and as such
constitutes a hazard to safety by reason of inade-
quate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence and
abandonment. In particular the support posts and
sills have rotted and deteriorated so they are not
supporting the building, there are large holes in
the roof and exterior walls exposing the interior
to the weather.
(6) The property is not adeqQate1y fenced and secured,
debris has been allowed to accumulate on the
premises, the remains of the above~mentioned
buildings have been left exposed allowing the public
to enter the property at will which is dangerous to
their health and safety.
C. You are hereby order to either: demolish and remove the
remains of the shed marked as Building No.1, the paint
shop marked as Building No.2, the machine shop marked as
Building No.3, the northerly boat storage building marked
as Building No. 4 and the southerly boat storage building
marked as Building No. 5 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl
PC, dated August 21, 1982, (attached hereto as Exhibit 1)
or immediately board up these structures in order to pre-
vent any further deterioration, and properly fence and
secure the perimeter of the property to prevent
unauthorized people from entering upon the property.
After this is accomplished if you choose to rebuild and
refurbish these structures, you will have to obtain a
Building Permit from the Southold Town Building
Department. '
D. The above work shall commence within ten (10) days from
the date of service of this notice and shall be completed
within thirty (30) days thereafter.
E. In the event you fail to comply with the above, a hearing
will be held before the Southold Town Board concerning
same at 9:30 A.M. on October 23, ,1984.
, P. If the Southold Town Board after the aforementioned
hearing shall determine that the remains of the structure.
are unsafe or dangerous to the public, the Southold Town
Board may order the remains of the structures taken down
and removed.
G. In the event the remains of the structures shall be deter-
mined by the Southold Town Board to be unsafe or dangerous
and in the event of your neglect or refusal to remove or
correct same within the time provided, the Southold Town
'..,It' .,'
, .(
e('
t res by whatever means it
Board may remove such struc u 11 costs and expenses in-
deems appropriate andfS ass~:~l~ in connection with the
curred by the Town 0 ou same including the cost
edi to remove and secure, 0
proce ngs tructures from the premlses,
of actually removing ~~ehsthe said structures are located.
against the land on w c
~~~oz4n4;
Building, Inspector
.
\ STATE OF NEW VORK I
SUFFOLK COUNTY
I Office of the Town CI.rk II:
1 of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
'\
.,....-
. "l.
" ,iUA,ij >~,
(SeeU ,", , ".
r'" ....0./, v,...
;,1 ~.e. '!l. ~,~
1 'I, ",-'I '\:,)
,,::-. .
, ' , '-', "j.
\, ". ,.~, ':;:," ,"
\.~~ ,,,. ...,,',
",~~i;i"':<",
........:-.:-,,,,,;...
';~~;
(
.\'
i. t. .
."",;~\
\:t "
.'- I .
,I I:
! .
I':'
,
,,:
l,~: I
\,
.,
I'
"
_'\0.___.____
This is to c.rtify that I. Judith T, T.rry. Town CI.rk of th. Town of
Southold in the said County of Suffolk. have compared the foregoing copy
Notice pursuant to Chapter,' 90 of the Code of the Town of
~uthold; . dateif August' iil;'lilsiJ' from' EiLiiidlnii inspecto;,' C'urtll '
w.. Hor-ton .to Marine .AUOc:lates." ~oo.. " . " . . . o. o. , . . . .. . .. "
with the original now on file in this office. and that th. same is a correct and
true transcript of such original ,~q~l!=!il, P,4':l!41!1)~ ,t,~ ,C;l:1pp,t~r, IJP. 9f, tl)e
Code of the Town of Southold, dated August 30,198/f, from
8ulldlng'ln.pet:tor' Curti. 'ri.' HOftGI1 'ta Matrl111 'AliliOtlilfe's': lhc.
. . . .. .... . ". .. . . . .. . " . . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. " . .. and the whole thereof.
In Witn.. Wh.reof. I hav. hereunto set my hand and affixed th. seal of
said Town this.; o. .~~t.~. '... daV~d'" 1911~~.... 0 .... 0
. - - :/
'~
. ....::;;..t'.'u7~rl~
Town CI.rk of the Town of Southold. County of Suffot( N.Y.
...,. .A'
'.
....
...
....:..~'7~~~~.
..'( ,::","''':~ .',',,":'\..
',:; ..."...,.,.... ~
/..'" "I \"\'C\
I. l .. .....' . f' -' . -'-:~.::..."., .
. ..... .. ~ ..
'.t:"" .,. ... "'1
. ~ :. ,~:
" )' ...;)
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold. New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 76$01801
:'t~ -.'i.'::r
--'-'..-
\, ...,
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR 01' VITAL STAIISTIC'S
. ",.., '.,.:-.;.~..:.-
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK .
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOllOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27, 1981l:
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold has made a formal
Inspection of the premises owned by Marine Associates, Inc., premises described
In' a deed recorded In' the Suffolk County Clerk's Office In liber 9101, page 505,
also referred to as: Suff(!lk County Tax Map Designation: District 1000, Section
117.00, Block 08.00,' Lot 018.000, and thereafter prepared a written report thereof
and flied the same In' his' office, and
WHEREAS, It was determined by the Building Inspector that the following buildings
or structures on said' premises are dangerous or unsafe to the public; said buildings
or structures are described in his Notice as follows: (1) the Shed marked as
Building No. 1 on map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21, 1982, (2)
The Paint Shop marked as Building No. 2 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC,
dated August 21, :1982, (3) The Machine Shop marked as Building No.3 on map
of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21,1982, (4) the Northerly Boat Storage
Building marked as Building No. 4 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated
August 21, -1982, (5) The Southerly Boat Storage Building marked as Building No.
5 on a map of' Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21, ,1982, and (6) T.he property
Is' not adequately fenced and secured; debris 'has been allowed to accumulate on the
premises; the remains of the abovementioned buildings have been left exposed allowing
the public to enter the property at will which Is'dangerous to their health and safety,
and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector promptly thereafter served a notice on the owner
or other persons having an Interest in said property, pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 90 of the Southold Town Code, and
WHEREAS, said notice required that the owner of said premises secure or remove
the five (5) buildings or structures, and fence and secure the property and remove
the debris which has been allowed to accumulate on the premises, securing or removal
to commence within ten days from the date of the service of said notice and that the
same be completed within thirty (30) days thereafter, and
WHEREAS, the owners of said premises has neglected or refused to comply with the
provisions of said notice within the time specified therein, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on said matter was held by this Board on the 20th day
of November, :1984-.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED AND ORDERED AS FOllOWS:
A. That based upon the written report prepared by the Building inspector
and flied In his office and upon the. evidence given by the Building Inspector and
Licensed Professional Engineer Steve G. Tsontakis at the hearing held on November
20, 1984, this Board does here~y determIne that the following buildings or structures
on saJd premises are unsafe or dangerous to the public: .
1. The shed marked as Building No. 1 on map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC,
dated August 21, 1982.
~
,.
. .
-'. Page 2 - Deter'minatl~n" Order
Southold Tow~ard
Re: Marine Assoelatel, Inc.
~.
2. The Paint Shop marked al Building No.2 on map of Roderick Van Tuyl,
PC, dated August 21,1982.
. 3. The Machine Shop marked as Building No. 3 on map of Roderick Van Tuyl,
PC, dated August 21, 1982.
4. The Northerly Boat Storage Building marked as Building No. 4 on map of
Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21, -1982.
5. The Southerly Boat Storage Building marked as Building No. 5 on map of
Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21,1982.
. 6. The property is not adequately fenced and secured; debris has been allowed
to accumulate on the premises; the remains of the abovementioned buildings have been
left exposed allowing the public to enter the property at will which is'dangerous to
their health and safety.
B. That this Board does hereby order that the following buildings or structures
located on'saidpremlses described as (1), (2), (3). (4). (5), (6) in the preceeding
paragrilph A of this resolution, are in such dilapidated condition that the same shail
be taken down and removed, or be made structurally safe to the satisfaction of the
Building Inspector, on or before the 28th day of January, 1985.
C. In the event that the owners shall neglect or refuse to take down and
remove the said structures or buildings from said premises, or make structurally
safe to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector within the time provided by the
preceeding paragraphs, then and in that event the Supervisor be and he hereby is
authorized and directed to procure estimates for the removal of the buildings or
structures on said' premises and submit the same to this Board for its consideration
as soon thereafter as possible.
D. That thereafter this Board shall, based upon such estimate, provide for
the letting of a contract for the taking down and removal of the buildings or
structures on said premises.
E. That the cost and expenses of the taking down and removal of the buildings
or structures on said' premises shall be collected by the Town of Southold in' the
manner provided for In Section 90-9 of the Code of the Town of Southold.
F. It is further ordered that a certified copy of this resolution be sent by the
Town Clerk to the owner of said premises by registered mail, return receipt requested,
within three days of the date hereof. ,
) STATE OF NEW YORK I
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK a:
OffiCe of the Town Clerk
of the TOWN Of SQUTHOLD
.1
'. ... _ "-l-\;:;i:ij:~.'-
) \. ~ - ~J -,. '\
'/. ,.,.....,. '-.
.. C-~. {'\cI :~ -\ ~,'
, ::.... 1".'--. -'.'- " "
., I \ ::"::1
. . ."
\. '(., .' . C~# ~;' :
"~~4-;'~" ~;';': .
~"I~'t:.'l,,:.:~...: "
" .
'i
,
This is to certify that I, Judith T, Terry. Town Clerk of the Town of South.
old, in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy of
resolution with the original resolution now on file in this office, and which
was paaed by the Town Board of the Town of Southold in said County of
Suffolk, on the . ~ ~!~~, . , ,day of ... .~~~~~~ . . , . .. 19~~.......,
and that the same is a correct and true transcript of such original resolution
and the whole thereof,
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
'd T h' 25th d f Januarv 1..l15
III I,own t IS ....... ay 0 ......... I. . . .. tr:' . . . . . . .
. 4.Ll/:./~
Town Clerk of the TO~~ld.~~~iy ~f ~ff~, N: V:
~ ". . ..
~ \ ~:.. JJ
SUPREM!': COURT.
STATB OF NEW YORK fEB ,
COtJN'l'Y OJ' SUFFOLK
9 05 .~ '85
sELLA
J. .E.
SUffOLl<' c HTY
TOWN OF SOU'l'BOLD,
Plaintiff,
.
against
E ASSOCXATES. INC.,
Defendan~
ttO'1'ICE 01' PJ!:NDENCY
.
. .
.
RICHARD F. LARK, BSQ.
Atto~y for Plaintiff,
TOWN OF SOO'l'ROLD
Main Road - P. O. Box 973
Cutch~.. Kew York 11935
(516) 734-6807
.
.
,.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD - STATE ROAD 2S
SDUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765.1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.
SERGE DOYEN. JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Victor Lessard, Administrator (Building Department)
Southold Town Board of Appeals
January 28, 1985
Interpretation Request of Sections 100-119(E & F)
This letter is to confirm that this Board, at its Regular Meeting
of January 24, 1985 and Speci al Meeti ng hel d January 26, 1985,
has researched and discussed at great length the term, "nonconforming
building" as used in Sections 100-118(f) and (F) of the Zoning Code.
After having consulted with both our town counsels, it is the
interpretation of this board that "nonconforming building" as used
in Sections 100-118(E) and (F) include not only "uses" which may
not conform under current zoning regulations but also "a building
I
or structure(s)" which offend the zoning regulations and which have
existed as such since prior to the enactment of zoning (1957), (for
example, insufficient sideyard setbacks, etc.).
~~r/J7~
.
.
TEL. 765-1802
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDII'JG INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
January 28, 1985
TO:
FRaN:
SUBJECT:
Francis Nurphy, Supervisor
Victor Lessard, Exec. Admin.
Narine Associates, Inc.
Was notified by Nr. Raynor that releases were
issued by Mr. Tasker's office, in behalf of Mr.
Kenniff at 9:15 A.M. this morning 1/28/85. So Nr.
Carr would legally have the requirements to enter
and physically remove the unsafe buildings on prop-
erty of Marine Associates Inc. Lawyer coming from
Mr. Tooker's office with necessary papers and
checks for Building Permit~. Ray Nine to start
removal and demolition immediately.
Will keep advised for next 24 hours as cond-
itions develop or change.
P.S. Permits picked up at 11 :30 a.m. today.
v
/-----
. __.~///rv
! ,: ,~;
.
.
AUTHORIZATION
(1) MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC. hereby authorizes RICHARD
T. CARR, his agents, and his representatives to obtain any
permits, consents and approvals deemed necessary for the use
and development of the premises owned by MARINE ASSOCIATES,
INC. described on Suffolk County Tax Map as: District 1000,
Section 117.00, Block 08.00, Lot 018.000'.
(2) MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC. agrees to cooperate with
RICHARD T. CARR in regard to these permits, consents and
approvals and, if necessary, to sign any papers in connection
therewith.
(3) MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC. hereby authorizes RICHARD
T. CARR, his agents, and his representatives to enter the
premises to use, renovate, repair and/or demolish structures
on the premises.
Dated:
January ~/ , 1985
MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC.
Keniff,
f.( J, cQ
~ f '\5t "r.
"L,~
9k~ '/
cl' , ....'\>j
.I~ ~..
'9.".,
~Z7'-;;
---
/prt7
--...- ------------
C'''l
'l.V____-n
"
.
.
TOOKER AN D SMITH
'" 2 I
ATTORNEVS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
ROBERT L. TOOKER
ALLEN M. SMITH
1380 ROANOKE AVENUE, POST OFFICE Box 839
RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901-0602
516727 -3277
KEITH E. KAMMERER
OF' COUNSEL
,JONATHAN D. BROWN
January 21, 1985
Supervisor Frank Murphy
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11765
Dear Supervisor Murphy:
We represent Richard T. Carr who hopes to implement his
plan to build a new marina and boat storage facility together
with a restaurant and retail stores on the grounds of the
North Fork Shipyard. At this time Mr. Carr holds an option
to purchase the property which is presently owned by Marine
Associates, Inc.
The preliminary plans developed by Mr. Carr have been
designed to continue the very same uses for which the prop-
erty has been used. The proposed restaurant, for example,
would occupy the general area of the existing Galley-Ho rest-
aurant. Similarly, new boat storage facilities would replace
the existing building which has been used for boat storage.
For the project to operate smoothly and efficiently, the
preliminary plans depend upon the setback lines of the exist-
ing boat storage and machine shop buildings. These are
buildings which are the subject of the Town Board's resolu-
tion of November 27, 1984, in which the Board ordered Marine
Associates, Inc. to demolish them or to make them structur-
ally safe by January 28, 1985.
Mr. Carr did not receive authorization by the owners of
the premises to appear before the various boards of the Town
and to enter the premises to use, repair, renovate and/or de-
molish the structures on the property until January 21, 1985.
Mr. Carr is in full agreement with the Town that the build-
ings in their present condition are unsafe and a danger to
the public. At the same time, he is interested in maintain-
ing his future rights to continue the existing setback lines
and uses of the property - rights which may be lost if the
buildings are demolished without agreement by the Town Board,
Board of Appeals and the Planning Board to continue to recog-
nize the existing uses and setback lines after the demolition
of the buildings. We have discussed these apparently con-
flicting interests with various officials of the Town, and
.
.
Page Two
January 21, 1985
have sought their guidance and suggestions for a solution
that will eliminate the public hazard created by the build-
ings and, at the same time, recognize Mr.Carr's interest in
the existing setback lines.
The existing setback lines can be retained, of course,
by making the buildings structurally safe - the alternative
to demolition of the buildings set forth in Town Board's
resolution of November 27, 1984. It is estimated that the
cost of making these building structurally safe is $30,000.00
to $40,000.00. This money would be spent solely to retain
the existing setback lines since, as soon as the necessary
site plan approval and buildings permits were obtained, the
existing structures would be replaced by the new buildings.
Rather than spend the amount of money on the repair of
buildings which subsequently will be replaced, we propose a
resolution, a copy of which is enclosed as a way in which to
satisfy both the Town's interest in eliminating dangerous and
unsightly structures from the property and, at the same time,
retaining Mr. Carr's interest in the existing uses and set-
back lines.
The resolution would, if adopted recognize the exist-
ing setback lines and building locations after demolition of
the buildings on the premises. In addition, the resolution
of the Town Board would recognize the existing setback lines
and uses only if similar resolutions were passed by the Plan-
ning Board and the Board of Appeals.
The schedule of the Board of Appeals is such that we
cannot appear before them until March. The resolution we
purpose, therefore, would require Mr. Carr to seal the build-
ings from the public. Then, upon adoption of resolutions by
the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals recognizing the
existing setback lines and uses, the buildings would promptly
be demolished. Until these resolutions were adopted, the ac-
tions necessary to prevent public access to the premises
would be undertaken immediately. In this way, the premises
would no longer pose a danger to the public and Mr. Carr's
interest in retaining the setback lines and uses would be
preserved at cost less than the estimated $30,000.00 to
$40,000.00 required to make the buildings structurally
sound. The savings could then be used for additional im-
provements to the premises rather than having spent such
.
.
Page Three
January 21, 1985
large sums for the restoration of buildings only to replace
them with new ones.
We approach you with this proposed resolution in the
spirit of cooperation and with what we believe is a mutual
goal - the revitalization and redevelopment of property per-
fectfuly suited to a marina and its accompanying uses.
Thank you for your cooperation and your time.
7ii~~~
Paralegal
WDM:gs
enc.
.
.
WHEREAS, on the 27th day of November, 1984, a resolution was
adopted at a special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of
Southold, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Appendix A and made
a part hereof, with respect to certain premises owned by Marine
Associates, Inc., which premises are described in a deed recorded
in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office in Liber 9101, Page 505, and
referred to as Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section
117.00, Block 08.00, Lot 018.000, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board ordered by said resolution that
buildings Numbers 1 - 5 on a certain map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC,
dated August 21, 1982, a copy of which is annexed hereto as
Appendix B, are in such a delapidated condition that the same
shall be taken down and removed, or be made structurally safe to
the satisfaction of the Building Inspector, on or before the 28th
day of January, 1985, and
WHEREAS, demolition of such structures would result in a de-
struction of the present use and dimensional status, and
WHEREAS, the cost of immediate compliance with the Southold
Town Board resolution dated November 27, 1984, is estimated at
$30,000.00 to $40,000.00, and
WHEREAS, upon approval of a site plan for the reconstruction
of the facilities by the Southold Town Board, the buildings in
question will be demolished.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED AND ORDERED AS
FOLLOWS:
.
.
(1) That, upon adoption of resolutions by both the Southold
Town Planning Board and the Southold Town Board of Appeals that
each will recognize the existing uses, the existing setback lines
and building locations after the demolition of said buildings, the
Town Board of the Town of Southold will recognize the existing
uses, setback lines and building locations on the premises and the
same will continue to be recognized by this Town Board after the
demolition of said buildings.
(2) That, upon passage of the resolutions referred to in
Paragraph (1) above, the owner of the premises shall have two (2)
.nontlhsin which to demolish the buildings and remove the debris
from the site.
(3) ~hat, prior to the adoption of the resolutions referred
to in Paragraph (1) above, the owner of the premises shall take
those measures deemed necessary by the Building Inspector to pre-
vent entry by the public into the buildings. Such measures may
include the boarding up of the buildings where entry into them by
the public is possible.
(4) That, should the resolut ions referred to in Paragraph
(1) above be rejected by either the Planning Board or the Board of
Appeals, the requirements of the resolution adopted by this Town
Board on the 27th day of November, 1984, requiring demolition of
said structures shall be reinstated with the provision that the
owner of the premises shall have thirty (30) days from the date on
which the resolutions referred to in Paragraph (1) above are re-
-2-
.'
.
.
jected by either the Planning Board or the Board Appeals in which
to implement the terms of the Town Board's resolution of the 27th
day of November, 1984.
(5) It is further ordered that a certified copy of this re-
solution be sent by the Town Clerk to the owner of said premises
by reg istered mai 1, return receipt requested, wi thin three (3)
days from the date hereof.
-3-
.'
.
.
'.
..
- . ~
\._~:," ~
f. " '
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR 01 VITAL SIXIIST1CS
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765.1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOlITHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27, 1984:
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold has made a formal
inspection of the premises owned by Marine Associates, Inc., premises described
in a deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's..Office in Liber 9101, page 505,
also referred to as: Suffolk County Tax Map Designation: District 1000, Section
117. DO, Block 08.00, Lot 018.000, and .thereafter prepared a written report thereof
and filed the same in' his office, and
WHEREAS, it was determined by the Building Inspector that the following buildings
or structures on said' premises are dangerous or unsafe to the public; said buildings
or structures are described in his' Notice as follows: (1) the Shed marked as
Building No.. 1 on map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21,1982, (2)
The Paint Shop marked as Building No. 2 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC,
dated August 21,1982, (3) The Machine Shop marked as Building No. 3 on map
of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21, :1982, (4) the Northerly Boat Storage
Building marked as Building No. 4 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated
August 21, .1982, (5) The Southerly Boat Storage Building marked as Building No.
5 on a map of Roderick Van TuyJ, PC, dated August 21, :1982, and (6) The property
is 'not adequately fenced and secured; debris 'has been allowed to accumulate on the
premises; the remains of the abovementioned buildings have been left exposed allowing
the public to enter the property at will which is'dangerous to their health and safety,
and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector promptly thereafter served a notice on the owner
or other persons having an interest in said property, pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 90 of the Southold Town Code, and
WHEREAS, said notice required that the owner of said premises secure or remove
the five (5) buildings or structures, and fence and secure the property and remove
the debris. which has been allowed to accumulate on the premises, securing or removal
to commence within ten days from the date of the service of said notice and that the
same be completed within thirty (30) days thereafter, and
WHEREAS, the owners of said pl'emises has neglected or refused to comply with the
provisions of said notice within the time specified therein, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on said matter was held by this Board on the 20th day
of November ,1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
A. That based upon the written report prepared by the Building Inspector
and filed in his office and upon the evidence given by the Building Inspector and
Licensed Professional Engineer Steve G. Tsontakis at the hearing held on November
20, 1984, this Board does hereby determine that the following buildings or structures
on said premises are unsafe or dangerous to the public:
1. The shed marked as Building No. 1 on map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC,
dated August 21, 1982.
, . Page 2 -
Determination at Order
Southold Town Board
Re: Marine Associates, Inc.
.
.
2. The Paint Shop marked as Building No. 2 on map of Roderick Van Tuyl.
PC, dated August 21,1982.
3. The Machine Shop marked as Building No. 3 on map of Roderick Van Tuyl,
PC, dated August 21, 1982.
4. The Northerly Boat Storage Building marked as Building No. 4 on map of
Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21, .1982.
5. The Southerly Boat Storage Building marked as Building No. 5 on map of
Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21, 1982.
. 6. The property is not adequately fenced and secured; debris has been allowed
to accumulate on the premises; the remains of the abovementioned buildings have been
left exposed allowing the public to enter the property at will which is 'dangerous to
their health and safety.
B. That this Board does hereby order that the following buildings or structures
located on said premises described as (1), (2), C3), (4), (5), (6) in' the preceeding
paragraph A of this resolution, are in such dilapidated condition that the same shall
be taken down and removed, or be made structurally safe to the satisfaction of the
Building Inspector, on or before the 28th day of January, 1985.
C. In the event that the owners shall neglect or refuse to take down and
remove the said structures or buildings from said premises, or make structurally
safe to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector within the time provided by the
preceeding paragraphs. then and in that event the Supervisor be and he hereby is
authorized and directed to procure estimates for the removal of the buildings or
structures on said premises and submit the same to this Board for its consideration
as soon thereafter as possible.
D. That thereafter this Board shall, based upon such estimate, provide .for
the letting of a contract for the taking down and removal of the buildings or
structures on said premises.
E. That the cost and expenses of the taking down and removal of the buildings
or structures on said' premises shall be collected by the Town of Southold in the '
manner provided for in' Section 90-9 of the Code of the Town of Southold.
F. It'is further ordered that a certified copy of this resolution be sent by the
Town Clerk to the owner of said premises by registered mail, return receipt requested,
within three days of the date hereof.
I
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
Office of the Town Clerk
of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ss:
This is to certify that I, Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk of the Town of South.
old, in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy of
resolution with the original resolution now on file in this office, and which
was passed by the Town Board of the Town of Southold in said County of
Suffolk, on the. . .2.7.t!1. . . . day of ..... Nql{~l)1.qe.r. . . .. 198.4. . . . . . . . .
and that the same is a correct and true transcript of such original resolution
and the whole thereof.
In Witness Whereof. I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said Town this . .2.~t.h.. day of ... ."!l?Y~'!'.~~r:.. 19.8.4......
/
: 'I
'(Seal)
\ ,
\
f
~~(d?d~?1!.~
Town Clerk of the Town of Southold. County of SuffolkYN.Y.
,
.
.
JUDITH T. TERRY
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1801
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOllOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
SOUTHOlD TOWN BOARD AT A SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27, 1984:
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold has made a formal
inspection of the premises owned by Marine Associates, Inc., premises described
in a deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office in Liber 9101, page 505,
also referred to as: Suffolk County Tax Map Designation: District 1000, Section
117.00, Block 08.00, lot 0 la. 000, and thereafter prepared a written report thereof
and filed the same in his office, and
WHEREAS, it was determined by the Building Inspector that the following buildings
or structures on said premises are dangerous or unsafe to the public, said buildings
or structures are described in his Notice as follows: (1) the Shed marked as
Building No. 1 on map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21,1982, (2)
The Paint Shop marked as Building No. 2 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC,
dated August 21,1982, (3) The Machine Shop marked as Building No. 3 on map
of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21, 1982, (4) the Northerly Boat Storage
Building marked as Building No. 4 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyf, PC, dated
August 21,1982, (5) The Southerly Boat Storage Building marked as Building No.
5 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21,1982, and (6) The property
is not adequately fenced and secured; debris has been allowed to accumulate on the
premises; the remains of the abovementioned buildings have been left exposed allowing
the public to enter the property at will which is dangerous to their health and safety,
and
WHEREAS, the Building Inspector promptly thereafter served a notice on the owner
or other persons having an interest in said property, pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 90 of the Southold Town Code, and
WHEREAS, said notice required that the owner of said premises secure or remove
the five (5) buildings or structures, and fence and secure the property and remove
the debris which has been allowed to accumulate on the premises, securing or removal
to commence within ten days from the date of the service of said notice and that the
same be completed within thirty (30) days thereafter, and
WHEREAS, the owners of said premises has neglected or refused to comply with the
provisions of said notice within the time specified therein, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on said matter was held by this Board on the 20th day
of November, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED AND ORDERED AS FOllOWS:
A. That based upon the written report prepared by the Building Inspector
and filed in his office and upon the evidence given by the Building Inspector and
Licensed Professional Engineer Steve G. Tsontakis at the hearing held on November
20, 1984, this Board does hereby determine that the following buildings or structures
on said premises are unsafe or dangerous to the public:
1. The shed marked as Building No.1 on map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC,
dated August 21, 1982.
"
Page 2 -
Determination. Order
Southold Town Board
Re: Marine Associates, Inc.
.
2. The Paint Shop marked as Building No. 2 on map of Roderick Van Tuyl,
PC, dated August 21,1982.
3. The Machine Shop marked as Building No. 3 on map of Roderick Van Tuyl,
PC, dated August 21, 1982.
4. The Northerly Boat Storage Building marked as Building No. 4 on map of
Roderick Van Tuyl, PC, dated August 21,1982.
5. The Southerly Boat Storage Building marked as Building No. 5 on map of
Roderick Van Tuyf, PC, dated August 21, 1982.
6. The property is not adequately fenced and secured; debris has been allowed
to accumulate on the premises; the remains of the abovementioned buildings have been
left exposed allowing the public to enter the property at will which is dangerous to
their health and safety.
B. That this Board does hereby order that the following buildings or structures
located on said premises described as (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) in the preceeding
paragraph A of this resolution, are in such dilapidated condition that the same shall
be taken down and removed, or be made structurally safe to the satisfaction of the
Building Inspector, on or before the 28th day of January, 1985.
C. In the event that the owners shall neglect or refuse to take down and
remove the said structures or buildings from said premises, or make structurally
safe to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector within the time provided by the
preceeding paragraphs, then and in that event the Supervisor be and he hereby is
authorized and directed to procure estimates for the removal of the buildings or
structures on said premises and submit the same to this Board for its consideration
as soon thereafter as possible.
D. That thereafter this Board shall, based upon such estimate, provide for
the letting of a contract for the taking down and removal of the buildings or
structures on said premises.
E. That the cost and expenses of the taking down and removal of the buildings
or structures on said. premises shall be collected by the Town of Southold in the
manner provided for in Section 90-9 of the Code of the Town of Southold.
F. It is further ordered that a certified copy of this resolution be sent by the
Town Clerk to the owner of said premises by registered mail, return receipt requested,
within three days of the date hereof.
I
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
Office of the Town Clerk
of the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
55:
This is to certify that I, Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk of the Town of South-
old, in the said County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy of
resolution with the original resolution now on file in this office, and which
was passed by the Town Board of the Town of Southold in said County of
Suffolk, on the. . .2.7.11'1. . . ,day of ,..., .N.c?I(~I!l.q~r. , . ., 198.4........,
and that the same is a correct and true transcript of such original resolution
and the whole thereof.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said Town this . .2.~t.h., day of ... .t-.!<?Y!!I?~E;r:,. 19.8.4,.....
(Seal)
i
[
;;l jf'f ~~~
o ?(t:'e'-{a~~;./:.'-,-.c?'~!. ~~
Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk~.Y.
,..
.
.
.
RECONVENED HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
November 20,1984
9:30 A.M.
RECONVENED HEARING IN THE MATTER OF A VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 90 ("UNSAFE
BUILDING AND COLLAPSED STRUCTURES LAW OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD") OF THE
CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BY MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC.
Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy
Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr.
Justice Raymond W. Edwards
Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh
Councilman James A. Schondebare
Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran
* * *
Town Clerk Judith T. Terry
Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I'd like to open this hearing. It's in the matter of a
violation of Chapter 90, Unsafe Buildings and Collapsed Structures Law of the
Town of Southold, of the Code of the Town of Southold, by Marine Associates.
At this time I'd like to turn it over to the Special Attorney Richard Lark.
SPECIAL ATTORNEY RICHARD LARK: Mr. Murphy, Mr. Supervisor, members of
the Board, the last time--this. is a recessed hearing. We met here on October 23rd,
9: 30 A.M. and we recessed the hearing so that the respondent, in this case Marine
Associates, could have time to prepare, consult with their counsel, one thing or
another, and it was scheduled for today at 9: 30 A.M. By way so the Board knows
what happened, by way of introduction. After our recess on October 23rd, I met
with the principals, along with the Building Inspector Curtis Horton, and then there
were some subsequent inspections of the property with Mr. Horton and the principals
at various times, also there were meetings which he held with their attorney. The
result of which I assume, since I have not spoken specifically to the attorney, who
is William Esseks, of Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy and Angel of Riverhead, New York, but
the Town Board, Town Clerk received a letter dated November 16, 1984 which I
received from Mr. Kenniff this morning, he gave it to me, and I wonder if you,
Mr. Supervisor, have that letter in your possession?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Yes, I have it.
MR. LARK: I think you may read it before we decide what we're going to do here.
Since this is an administrative hearing, I think the Board has to make certain
decisions here.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY; This is a letter addressed to the Town Board, Town of
Southold, Main Road, Southold, concerning a complaint against Marine Associates,
I nc. "Dear Town Board Members: Considering the alternatives available to Marine
Associats relative to the complaint made against it by the Town, it has decided to
take down the buildings in the manner designated to salvage trusses and beams and
the exterior siding for the purpose of resale in order to minimize the economic loss.
<
.
Page 2 - Marine Associates, .c.
.
I believe that a reasonable period of time in which is effectuate the orderly
demolition of the buildings commencing on November 21st, :1984 is required.
Accordingly, I ask that the proceeding either be withdrawn, with leave to
reasert, or adjourned for a period of time so that there can be 45 working
days available to the contractors to effectuate the orderly demoliti90n of the
improvements. I await your advice. Very truly yours, William W. Esseks."
MR. LARK: Okay, now on behalf of the Building I nspector I have consulted with
both Mr. Lessard and Mr. Horton, as well as the engineer that they've hired on
this matter, Mr. Tsontakis, and if they need sufficient time to remove these build-
ings, certainly at their expense, of course, certainly the Building Inspectors have
no objections to that providing some perameters of safety factors are involved which
we'll get into later, but since we scheduled the hearing, as you know, the original
notices on this matter go back to August 30 this summer when the complaints came
in to the Building Department to investigate this matter and it's the Building Depart-
ment's position that we go ahead with the hearing and the Board will have the
evidence before it and the Board can then either make a decision or delay its
decision or could tailor it's decision depending on the substantial evidence that
you receive before you to either conform or not to conform. The only problem
with the 45 days, I'll tell the Town Board up front, is that from the Building
Department's point of view is what safety factors will be employed to make sure
that strangers--trespassers, if you will, although it's hard to classify kids today
that way under the law, but young people using the property, unauthorizedly so,
admittedly. How are they going to be kept out and as the demolition takes place,
what safety precautions will be done by the owners--I think they have some kind
of an obligation so that if something goes wrong and somebody gets hurt, that we
the Town--you the Town--are riot held liable as if you would be held liable if you
hired your own contractor to go in there if that's how the evidence comes out. So
I think that has to be in your thinking of some kind of safety procedures that
would be utilized to minimize the risk to "trespassers", unauthorized people, as
well as ultimate liability that the Town might have in this matter, since we--the
Building Department, on behalf of the Town, has taken affirmative action on this
and taken a position, as you know from the record so far, of wanting these
buildings down, and of course, you have to make that determination as to whether
they should come down and the time frame and everything else. So I just say that
by way of background. It's the Building Department's position that we go ahead
with the hearing so that you have the evidence before you and that way you can
make an intelligent determination as what to be done and not to be done. It's not
like this has been a haphazard, put-together proceeding. The Building Department
has hired an engineer to find out if the preliminary inspection report of the Build-
ing Inspector was correct. They, meaning the respondent Marine Associates, have
hired, I understand architects and engineers also to look at it, so what kind of
evidence they will present, I don't know. All I can assume is if this letter is the
culmination of it that they intend to do something with their property and certainly
the Building Department has no objection to them salvaging whatever valuable material
that they can down there, and utilize for whatever purpose, but, you know, with
that caveat that we've got a problem and how it's going to be done, because it's the
Building Inspector's position that the place is wide open and it's just ripe for a real
problem--disaster in the sense of trespassers, somebody getting hurt. So with that
unless somebody has something else to say, I'd like to go ahead and proceed with
the hearing, so at least you can get the evidence before you to know what we're
talking about. Right now you have nothing before you other than copies of notices
and other public. records that you have in your possession.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, is the Town Board in agreement to go ahead.
COUNCILWOMAN COCHRAN: Yes.
<.
Page 3 - Marine Associates, e.
.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: I don't know. If somebody is going to make an
application to put it over---
MR. LARK: I take it that's what that letter is.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Are you going to make an application to put it over?
MR. DARBY KENNIFF: I thought, again, I thought that this was basically an
agreement that was made between the Town and us prior to this hearing.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: What agreement?
MR. KENNIFF: We agreed to take our buildings down within a period of time in a
certain manner. We had a long discussion with Mr. Horton with Mr. Esseks.
MR. LARK: You want to identify yourself for the record.
MR. DARBY KENNIFF. Riverhead, New York, for Marine Associates.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: What I'm saying is, are you going to oppose the
hearing today?
MR. KENNIFF: I'll do the best I can. I told the Town Board we'd answer this
thing today, so that's what I'll do. I'll do what I can.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Okay, you're here to oppose the hearing and you're
not here to ask for an adjournment of the hearing?
MR. KENNIFF: I'm here to ask exactly what I'm saying in this letter.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: What are you saying in your letter?
MR. KENNIFF: I'm saying in my letter that we are asking you to preclude from
knocking the buildings down yourself and giving us the opportunity at the time
frame that was suggested to us as reasonable by the Town, which is LIS working
days, to remove our buildings in the manner that allows salvage.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: So you're here to ask for an adjournment of the
hearing.
MR. KENNIFF: I guess so, I guess I am, I guess.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Okay.
MR. KENNIFF: If that's what that amounts to, yes, f am.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: I don't know what it amounts to. You're the person.
How would I know what it amounts to to you?
MR. KENNIFF: Okay.
MR. LARK: I think I understand what he's saying. Certainly, depending on how
the Town Board rules on the matter, after the hearing, the Building Department
would have no objection instead of what you've done historically--well, you have no
precedent in this, because in some cases where you found that the buildings have
been structurally unsafe you've given the owner much longer than 30 days, some-
times you given him 30 days. We would, on the Building Department, not oppose if
<.
Page
4 - Marine Associates, !c.
.
you find the buildings structurally unsafe, to a 45 day requirement as long as
there's some safety precautions, as you did in the Orient Point Inn and other
structures where they're accessible to the public and they have a track record
of being accessible to the public, we certainly have no objection to a 45 day
requirement to do it, but the advantage to the Town Board, or to the Building
Department rather, of going ahead with the hearing, if something doesn't happen
at the end of that stipulated period of time, then the other sanctions of the section,
Chapter 90, can then be imposed. We don't have to start from day one and go on
over. So that's the point.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: That makes sense. exactly.
MR. LARK: I'm not trying to hurt them.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Joe, do you have a question?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Yes, I do have a question. This is just a legal question.
If we get an agreement from them that they will, for instance, do what they say in
the letter, a legal agreement with them, with the proviso that if they have not started
and completed the demolition within 45 days, the Town Board will--they agree the
Town Board will have the right to demolish the buildings with their resources,
contractor, or whatever, and at their expense, can they come to an agreement--can
we come to some sort of a legal agreement or understanding to that effect? Is that
what eliminates the need for this hearing, if we can have a legal agreement to that
effect?
MR. LARK: Yes. That could possibly be done, but it would take time to negotiate
the agreement. Then you get into the problem that if the agreement wasn't honored,
did they validly waive their statutory rights. They have certain statutory rights
under Chapter 90, which is the chapter we're proceeding. By having the hearing
and having the Town Board reserve decision, or make a decision, taking the letter
into consideration, they have not waived--you haven't hurt them in any way and
there's been--if something w(])t1ld go wrong in the interim, then you could then move
according to the law, which is Chapter 90. I don't think you could--you'd have to
go into court and get permission to enforce that contract. That would be my problem
with that, especially if you had to go in and remove the buildings and try to make a
lawful charge on their real property, because then you would be doing it contractually
and not under the section of the law which we have available to you to do so. That's
the only problem with that agreement business. That might invite a court action,
whereas this one, if they want to pursue it, the law's pretty clear that you have to
act in a responsible manner based on substantial evidence held before you today.
And if the evidence is not there then it's clear. You know, whereas the other way
it's a contract and did everybody understand. Besides it would take several weeks,
maybe, to negotiate such a contr.act.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: I would suggest we have our public hearing. If we
so decide it's an unsafe building, we can structure the time period, as Mr. Lark says,
to coincide with the time period they're asking for.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: But I think we should proceed with the hearing.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Let's get the show on the road.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, Richard, go ahead.
<
Page 5 - Marine Associates, ..
.
MR. LARK: I'll have two witnesses here. I won't have a opening statement
because of the volume of exhibits. I'm going to, after Mr. Horton is sworn in,
I going to have them marked and then I will have them subject to connection
with his testimony. And the reason for that is that I think in order for you to
following his testimony in any meaningful--I'II mark them for identification, if you
would--to have any meaningful m,ilmner of following his testimony you should have
a copy--expecially things like the maps and the photographs, so that when we get
to that portion of the hearing where you, as members of the Town Board, might
want to question, I think it can be done on a more expeditious and intelligent
fashion, rather than just trying to grasp from his words of it, because he has
photographs. It involves property down--which was formerly the New Suffolk
Shipyard. It involves five buildings and the way I want to proceed with Mr.
Horton is take it one building at a time, because in effect you will be called
upon to make five independent decisions. I don't think the way the notice and
everything is written that what you decide for Building 1 would necessarily involve
Building 2. It could, but I think you have to make five independent decisions.
It's not like an attached garage and a house, something like that. These are
independent commercial structures, okay? So if I could--the first thing I think
we should mark would be the letter of November 16th which was received by the
Town Clerk on November 19th, and that's the letter that you just read, Mr.
Murphy, and I think we could put that in as Exhibit I.
(Town's Exhibit I - Letter dated November 16, 1984 to the TowlT. Board, Town of
Southold, Re: Complaint against Marine Associates Inc., from William W. Esseks
of Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel, received November 19,1984,1:15 P.M. by
the Southold Town Clerk. )
MR. LARK: Exhibit Number II, which--I'II do it that way and then I'll put your
Notice in--which is the Notice pursuant to Chapter 90, that was sent to the
respondent, Marine Associates, it's dated August 30, and this was in the Town
Clerk's records, since they were filed with her, along with the Affidavit of
Service of Mailing and Posting, sworn to by Curtis Horton, that affidavit, on
September 20th, indicating that he mailed by Registered Mail, pursuant to the
statute on September 14th and on September 13th posted the property pursuant
to statute. Now, with this Exhibit, which will be Town's Exhibit Number II is
also a map so that I think then you'll be able to follow the testimony of Mr. Horton
when he puts in his report and then subsequent pictures, and I'll mark that as
Exhibit II. Oh, by the way, all of these Exhibits that you have, the respondent
also has, because after the recess of the last hearing I furnished the respondent
to make sure that they did have a copy of everything I had, which will also be
an engineering report that you'll receive later. So, if I'm not handing Mr. Kenniff
copies of everything, it's because he already has copies and there's been no change
in it because I've got this file from the Town Clerk this morning on this matter.
(Town's Exhibit II - Notice Pursuant to Chapter 90 of the Code of the Town of
Southold, Date: August 30, 1984, To: Marine Associates, Inc., Main Street, New
Suffolk, New York 11956, signed by Curtis W. Horton, Building Inspector, AND
attached thereto: map by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C., Lie. Land Surveyors, Greenport,
N.Y., dated August 21, 1982, designating property from Suffolk Co. Tax Map Data:
1000-117-8-18, and, in red, referencing Building 1, Building 2, Building 3, Building
4, Building 5, AND Affidavit of Service By Mailing & Posting, In the Matter of a
Violation of Chapter 90 of the Code of the Town of Southold by Marine Associates,
Inc., sworn to before a Notary Public on September 20,1984.)
<-
<
Page 6 - Marine Associates, ..
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
MR. LARK: Okay, the first witness on behalf of the Town will be Curtis Horton.
If you~1I call him and swear him in.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Curt, will you raise your right: hand. Do you swear that
the testimony that you're about to give is the whole truth and nothing else but the
truth, so help you God?
CURTIS W. HORTON: I do.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Please sit down.
DIRECT QUESTIONING OF MR. CURTIS HORTON BY SPECIAL ATTORNEY LARK:
Q Okay, Mr. Horton, try to talk loud into the microphone so she can pick it up
on the tape, since these proceedings are being taped and made available. Could you
tell us your address, Mr. Horton?
A 1365 Mason Drive, Cutchogue.
Q Are you employed by the Town of Southold?
A Yes.
Q And in what capacity are you so employed?
A As Building and Ordinance Inspector.
Q And how long have you been so employed?
A Approximately seven years.
Q And in your capacity as a Building Inspector, did you have occasion to
inspect the premises owned by Marine Associates in New Suffolk, New York?
A Yes, I did.
Q Could you tell us when you inspected it and the purpose for which you inspected
it?
A I inspected the premises on August 22nd, 1984, approximately 2:30 P.M. The
reason, we had a complaint from the Cutchogue Fire Department, Chief Everett
Glover, the letter I received July 9th, 1984.
Q Just generally, by way of backgroul!ld, could you say what the Cutchogue
Fire Department's complaint was? Don't read anything, just generally.
A They were referring to the vacant buildings in the area of the North Fork
Shipyard on the east side, and the buildings they claim have been the drinking
site for local teenagers and been the scene of numerious fires.
Q Okay, now could you just generally--after you received that complaint, what
did you do?
A Well, I went down and visually inspected back in---
L
Page 7 - Marine Associates, .c.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
Q Okay, could you just tell the Town Board, before we get into any specifics,
the type of property that Marine Associates owns, where it is and just generally
if you could just give them an overview of what it's about.
A Well, all these buildings are located on the waterfront and we all know where
New Suffolk Post Office is, it's just to the south of the New Suffolk Post Office.
I t stretches the enti re block.
Q And how many buildings are on the premises?
A On this there is five for Marine Associates on this side of the block.
Q When you said, on what side of the block?
A The south side.
Q And do they own more buildings and more property?
A Yes, they do.
Q All right, and is your testimony today just going to concentrate on the
buildings south of the Post Office?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now, do you have a copy of the letter written to you by the Chief
of the Cutchogue Fire Department?
A Yes, I do.
Q Okay, could I have that? Is that the copy of the letter--or is that the letter
that you in fact received from Everett Glover? .
A Yes.
Q Okay. I'd like to offer that as Town's Exhibit Number III.
(Town's Exhibit III - Letter dated July 9,1984 to: Southold Building Department,
Main Rd., Southold, New York, from E. Glover, Chief of Department, Cutchogue
Fi re Department.)
Q Now, Mr. Horton, you did state that you went to the property on August
22nd, okay? Is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now, let's get specific. If you could tell the Board what you did when
you went to the property on that day.
A Well, I went through his-'-went up and down each to the big buildings--there's
two great big buildings and there's a carpenter shop and what they call a machine
shop, another building located near the road, right across from the Post Office, and
a small one just to the east of that one.
Q All right. So the Town Board can follow this along, eventuaIly--in evidence
is Town's Exhibit II, the original Notice which you sent to the owners.
,
Page 8 - Marine Associates, .c.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
A Correct.
Q Do you understand that? All right, and attached to that is a survey, is that
correct?
A Correct.
Q All right. Where did you obtain that survey and what is it so you can identify
it for the Board and they can follow along?
A I obtained the survey from Mr. Van Tuyl from Greenport.
Q And does that cover the entire property owned by Marine---
A This covers the entire property of the map of the North Fork Shipyard.
Q Okay. Which was referred to as North Fork--then the North Fork Shipyard is
the property that's presently owned by Marine Associates, is that correct?
A Correct.
Q And how did you determine that, just so the Board knows.
A From the tax records.
Q Okay, fine. And you've been doing all your contacts, correspondence, and
telephone calls or any other correspondence you've had with Marine Associates--
representatives of Marine Associates, is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now, so attached to that Notice is a copy of that map, is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Okay. So now the Board can follow along. In your Notice, which is Exhibit II,
you specified certain buildings, starting with Number 1, is that right?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now, I'm going to ask you questions then specifically, and I'll start
with Building Number 1 and you'll move right through 5 so the Town Board and
Mr. Kenniff, everybody here today can follow along, all right? Is that okay?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now, tell us about what you've denoted Building 1, as a result of
your inspection on August 22nd.
A Building Number 1 is a small wooden shed. There's no foundation---
Q Let me interrupt you right here. Did. you take pictures of Building Number 1?
A Yes, I did.
Q And when did you take those pictures?
.
Page 9 - Marine Associates, Ic.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
A Well, several different times and I did date it.
Q I'll ask you another preliminary question. When's the last time you've been
to this property?
A The 15th of November---
Q The 15th of what? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
A November 15th at 11:30.
Q Okay. Now, did you take photographs of Building Number 17
A What date?
Q Any date.
A Yes.
Q All right, then the next question is, how many photographs did you take and
when did you take them?
A I have two photos I took on August 29th, 1984. I have another photo what was
taken at a different date.
Q Was it before or after?
A After.
Q After?
A Yes.
Q But before this hearing date?
A Yes.
Q Now, you have those photos in front of you, is that right? The three photos?
A Right.
Q Do they fairly and accurately depict the building that we're going to talk about
as Building Number 1 as of this date?
A Yes, they do.
Q Do they fairly and accurately depict the building as of August 22nd, 1984?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Now, could I have those?
MR. LARK: Okay, I've shown them to Mr. Kenniff and I'd like to put those in as
Town's Exhibit Number IV. I'll put them in as one Exhibit A, Band C, IV A, B,
and C.
.
Page 10 - Marine Associates'c.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
(Town's Exhibit IV A, B, C - Three photographs of Building ! - (A) Aug 29-84,
north side #1; (B) East side, Bldg. #1; (C) Aug. 29"-84, south side #1.)
MR. LARK: The reason for introducing them at this time is so that the Board can
follow along with his testimony of what he's talking about.
Q Okay. Now, could you tell us what you found on August 22nd concerning
Building Number 1?
A There's no foundation underneath this building. The side wall, east side, has
large holes in it. The door was broken. Holes in interiors. Exposed to weather.
Q Could you tell us from your inspection where the building came from? I know
you've located it on the Exhibit Number II.
A According to the survey, that this building was further out on this piece of
property. It moved there by storm.
Q Is that what your investigation revealed?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Now, you've told us what you found out about the building. Did you
come to any conclusions concerning its structural capabilities?
A Yes, I came to the conclusion this building was structurally unsafe, dangerous
and a hazard.
Q All right. Could you tell us, on August 22nd, if you know, what the building
was sued for?
A No, I do not.
Q Was it vacant, was it occupied?
A It was vacant, it was vacant.
Q It was vacant? Okay. And could you tell the Board specifically, since we're
going to do this one at a time, how you determined that it was structurally unsafe?
What could you do to make that determination?
A By seeing no foundatin and holes in the side walls and everything else and
the interior, the conditions.
Q Now, you said also in your tesimony, I believe, that you found that it was
dangerous. Could you tell the Town Board how you found this Building Number 1
dangerous?
A Well, anybody can get access. Children could go inside, they could fall and
hurt themselves. It could move by another storm anywhere around the property.
Q Was the building at all secured? By that I mean either fenced or some way--
A No.
Q ---some way kept?
.
Page 11 - Marine Associates~nc.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
A No.
Q It was not? Is it open to the public?
A It is not right now, no.
Q No, at the time on August 22nd?
A Yes.
Q I'm going to ask you a bit later about that, but on August--everything I'm
talking about is Ausut 22nd. On August 22nd was it secured in the sense of having
a fence or some type of protective device around it?
A No, it was not secured by a fence.
Q And it's your opinion, based on your inspection and looking at--physically
looking at the building that it was structurally unsafe and dangerous, is that
correct?
A Correct.
Q And in your opinion did it constitute any type of hazard to safety?
A Yes.
Q And how did it constitute a hazardous---
A By having holes in it, doors being open and attracting children and like that.
Q And what was the cause of all this? Was this because of inadequate maintance
or could you tell us just what the cause of this was after you inspected it?
A I would say probably the storm and years of wear.
Q Okay. And it was vacant at the time you inspected it?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now moving on to Building Number 2 which you note in your Notice
to the respondent, you refer to that a Paint Shop, do you not?
A They do on this plan, yes.
Q All right, is that what you refer to it in your conversations?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Now, did you take pictures of the Paint Shop?
A Yes, I did.
Q And do you have them with you?
A Yes, I do.
Q How many pictures did you take?
,
Page 12 - Marine Associates'c.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
A I think I have six here.
Q All right, and when did you take those pictures?
A On August 29th and a later date and I don't know what the other date on the
others.
Q Was it before this hearing date?
A Yes.
Q Before this hearing date?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And do those pictures that you have fairly and accurately depict
Building Number 2 which you've referred to as the Paint Shop?
A Correct.
MR. LARK: I'll show those to Mr. Kenniff. This will be Town's Exhibit Number V
and you can mark them A through--I guess there's a total of6--F, I guess. Okay?
(Town's Exhibit V A, B, C, D, E, F - Six photographs of Building 2 - (A) Aug.29-84,
east side #2; (B) north end, Bldg. #2; (C) west side, Bld-2; (0) S + E walls, B 2#;
(E) south wall, interior, B.#2; (F) Aug. 29,84, west side #2.)
Q Okay. Now, Mr. Horton, referring now to the Paint Shop, Building Number 2,
is that accurately denoted on the map which is attached to Town's Exhibit Number II?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And that's almost directly across from the Post Office, isn't it?
A Correct.
Q Just for the Board's reference. All right, could you tell us about this building,
specifically directing you to your inspection on August 22nd?
A Well, there was two sliding glass doors on the front of the building. They were
wide open and the glass was broke out of the doors. On the interior of this part the _,. ,
sheetrock, or what finish they had there, was all broken and holes throughout. To
the rear of this building was like a shed on the back part, a vehicle shed, and it was
split right down the middle, ready to fall right off the building. The inside of that
was all smashed up. The foundation was shot, the doors was rotted away. I declared
this building structurally unsafe.
Q Okay. At the time you inspected it, what was the building used for, if anything?
A At the time I inspected, nothing.
Q Was it vacant?
A Vacant.
Q Okay. All right. Now, you said that you determined it to be structurally unsafe.
From a builders or an engineers or a building point of view, could you tell the Town
<
Page 13 - Marine Associates'c.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
Board how you made that determination.?
A Because the foundation was rotten, the floors rotted away, the back section was
ready to collapse or break from the main section.
Q What was supporting the building that you saw on August 22nd?
A What was left of the foundation, I imagine.
Q Okay. And were the interior portions exposed to the elements?
A Yes.
Q Did you make a determination whether or not it was dangerous at all?
A Yes, it was.
Q And what did you use as the basis of that determination?
A By it being left wide open, people could enter.
Q Is that because it's right next to Main Street?
A That's correct.
Q In New Suffolk-- At that time it was not fenced or secured?
A No.
Q Okay. All right. And did you make a determination as to the reason for
its being structurally unsafe and dangerour?,
A Because the foundation, like 1 said, was partially rotted away, large sections,
there are holes in the roof, back section leaning and split right down the middle.
Q All right. Do you know what is the cause of that? Is that because it was
left vacant or abandoned or what?
A I imagine it was the cause of the storm we had and being left vacant and not
closed up, open to the weather.
Q What I'm getting at by that question, so you can tell the Board, you've been
to New Suffolk many times over the last ten years of your life, have you not?
A Correct.
Q All right, I'm trying to be objective about this. Has this been a gradual
deterioration, or is this all the result of the storms we had last---
A Gradual deterioration.
Q Okay. And it's gotten to the point where it's structurally unsafe, in your
opinion?
A Correct.
Page 14 - Marine Associates,_c.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
Q All righb. This isn't something that just happened from the storms that we
had last March, was it?
A No.
Q Oh, okay. I just wanted to get that clear. Now, moving along to Building
Number 3 which you denoted on the Exhibit II as the Machine Shop. I direct your
attention that building. Is that snown on an accurate position on the surveyor Van
Tuyl, which is Exhibit II?
A Correct.
Q It is?
A Yes.
Q Did you make pictures of that building?
A Yes, I did.
Q How many did you take?
A I think I have five here.
Q All right, and when did you take those pictures, if you know?
A On August 29th.
Q Okay. Now, do they fairly and accurately represent what was there at the
date of your inspection on August 22nd, 1984?
A Yes.
Q Okay. If you could hand me those, please. Those are the various exposures
of the Machine Shop, is that correct?
A Correct.
MR. LARK: Those we'll put in then as the Town's Exhibit VI A through E, I guess.
(Town's Exhibit VI A, B, C, D, E - 5 photographs:
(B) Aug. 29-84, east side #3; (q Aug. 29-84, N.W.
side #3; (El east & north side, B-#3.)
(AI N.E. corner, Bldg. #3;
side #3; (D) Aug. 29, 84, north
Q Okay, now, directing your attention to the Machine Shop. Could you tell us
what you found as a result of your inspection on August 22nd?
A Floors and the sills rotted away. Northerly support wall removed causing the
northerly portion of the building to sag. Roof in this area collapsed.
Q Okay, now, tell us about these floors and sills.
A Well, the main part of the building is not the worst of shape. The northerly
part is gone, floors, everything's gone.
.
Page 15 - Marine Associates_nc.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
Q All right. Now, when you say rotted away, was theFe any flooring in the
building?
A No, none there.
Q Okay. Now, you said something about a support wall?
A Yes.
Q All right, what support wall are you---
A Northerly part of the main tool shed that's attached to this building.
Q All right, what if anything was wrong with that?
A It's leaning and it's collapsed and the side end, it's falling, gone.
Q It's not just there?
A No, it's there, but it's--the support's gone.
Q Okay, well what's holding the building up in this area?
A Act of God.
Q All right. Something's got to be holding it up of a worldly nature here.
I'm sure the Almighty is not there all the time doing it, so I know you might think
it humerous, but this is serious to the owner. What, from your opinion, what is
holding it up?
A Just a question of time before it falls. Have a storm and it will fall.
Q Okay, and as a result of this you found it to be structurally unsafe?
A Correct.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Okay. What was the building used for on August 22nd, 1984, if you know?
A It was vacant, unoccupied.
Q Okay. And is this building fenced or anything like that?
A No.
Q Is it accessible to the public?
A It was then, yes.
Q All right. As a result of what you told us about it, is the interior portions
exposed to the elements?
A Correct.
,
Page 16 - Marine Associates.nc.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
Q All right. And in your opinion is it unsafe or constitute a danger?
A Yes, it does.
Q And in what fashion does it constitute a danger, in your opinion?
A Being that the northerly section can collapse at any time.
Q And as a result someone might get hurt?
A Correct.
Q Now, is this deterioration that you talked about, as a result of over a period
of time, or did it all happen all at once from your inspection, your opinion, or could
you tell us about that?
A Period of time.
Q Okay.
your Notice
cor rect ?
Now, the next building that you inspected is what you referred to on
to the respondent as the northerly Boat Storage building. Is that
A Right, this is correct.
Q Okay. And is that northerly Boat Storage building denoted Number II on the
Exhibit I I accurately and reflect its location?
A Yes.
Q All right. What is this Boat Storage building used for, could you determine
as a result of your inspection on August 22nd?
A Right now, nothing.
Q No, on August 22nd?
A Nothing.
Q Was it vacant, or was it--
A Vacant.
Q ---occupied?
A Vacant.
Q All right. And could you generally describe the size of this building? I s it
large or is small?
A Very large building. It stretches from First Street right almost to 20 foot from
the water's edge.
Q Okay. About how long would you say it is?
A I would say about 200 feet.
Q And how wide?
.
Page 17 - Marine Associates~nc.
Lark-Q
Horton-A
.
A I think better than 50 feet.
Q All right. So we're dealing with a rather large structure here, aren't we?
A Yes.
Q All right. And did you take pictures of this structure?
A Yes, I did.
Q And how many did you take and when did you take them?
A T he same day, August 29th.
Q And that's 1984?
A I got approximately 10 pictures.
Q No, no, no, not approximately. How many do you have in your possession?
A I have 10 pictures.
Q Okay, and do they fairly and accurately depict this building as it existed on
August 22nd, 1984, the date of your inspection?
A Yes.
Q And if you could hand me those? These are all taken of Building Number 4
of the northerly---
A Correct.
Q ---storage building.
MR. LARK: We'll mark these Town's Exhibit VII A through J.
(Town's Exhibit VI A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J - Building Number 4 - (A) north
side, Debris so. of 5th st.; (B) south wall, #4, leaning to s; (Cl Bld-t!, south wall;
(D) east side, Bldg. #4; (E) west side, #4 First St.; (F) west side Bldg. 4; (G) In.
west center W., Bid. 4; (H) east wall, #4; (I) Bid. 4, south + middle wall; (J) east
wall, Bld-4.)
Q Now, how did you go about your inspection of this rather large building that
you just testified to? Did you start at any particular end, or just what did you do?
A I started from First Street and I worked to the Bay and I dug with--I had a
shovel with me and I dug---
Q Okay. You started on Fi rst Street and then you worked towards Peconic Bay,
is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now, so I assume that you entered the building on First Street?
A Correct.
Page 18 - Marine Associates,.c.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
Q All right. Could you tell us is the building open at that point, or is it fenced,
secured, or what?
A The building is wide open at this point.
Q How far is the building from First Street?
A About 10 foot.
Q Okay. And it was readily accessible?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now, so the Board can follow along both on the survey and on your
pictures they have, if you can recall, you can just tell the Board, as you walk
through the building going from First Street towards the Bay, what you found and
what you did.
A I found Olel supporting posts, the sills rotten---
Q Be specific in the areas you're talking about, because we're dealing with a
rather large building, not a shed like in Building Number 1.
A I am being specific.
Q
Okay.
Well, on the north side, the south side, east side?
A I covered both sides. I went right down the building. I dug approximately
six holes on any of these posts and they are rotted and I didn't find any posts
and went down over two foot.
Q Could you tell us the structure of the building?
A It's a pole construction it's called. It was at one time time and they
replaced telephone poles on the outside of this building trying to hold support it.
Q Okay. And is the poles that you referred to, that you dug around, of a
telephone pole?
A Yes.
Q Are they treated like with creosote or something like that?
A I don't think they treated them in those days.
Q Okay. A re they an old pole?
A Yes, they're an old telephone pole.
Q Okay. Now, you said that they were rotted, could you tell the Board where
they were rotted?
A On the base, on the ground. I see some of them were rotted right off at the
surface.
Page 19 - Marine Associates ~nc.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
Q Now, when you say the surface, the surface where the---
A Of the ground.
Q Of the ground? Okay. And how many did you find that were in this
deteriorated condition?
A Well, I dug approximately six holes and of the six I'd say four are bad.
Q Okay. What else did you do?
A I continued down through the building in the easterly---
Q What kind of floor does this building have, if any?
A Dirt floor.
Q Enti rely di rt floor?
A No, part of its got cement--I'm trying to think what part of it is mostly---I'm
trying to think of which one's got a cement floor--ithas part cement and dirt.
Q Okay. All right. Go ahead then. What did you do then after you---
A I n the front area---
Q Now when you say front, direct the Board's---
A On the water side there there are two steel columns I estimate would be about
30 inches deep, 50 foot long, two "I" beams---
Q Now wait a minute, you said steel columns.
A Steel beams.
Q Oh, steel beams. What do they support, if anythingl
A They support what used to be a sail loft area upstairs.
Q That would be a second story?
A Second story.
Q All right, now, what are these steel "I" beams--how long are these steel
11111 beams?
A I paced them off as 50 feet long.
Q And how high are they?
A What do you mean high?
Q Describe their sizes. 50 feet long---
A I would say they're 30 inches deep.
~age 20 c- Marine Associates~nc.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
Q Okay. So they're a rather large---
A They are large steel "I" beams.
Q All right, and what do they rest upon, if anything?
A Cement columns.
Q Okay. Could you tell us then about the cement columns.
A The cement columns are starting to deteriorate, especially on the Bay side.
Q Now when you say starting to deteriorate, could you tell us where?
A Erosion, erosion from where there used to be--if you look at the pictures you'd
see how the front used to be all boxed in, there was wood and everything else, the
wood is gone, exposing the cement columns and at the base they're starting to
deteriorate.
Q Okay. And did you do any excavation or any exploring around on the base of
these columns?
A Yes.
Q Could you tell us what you did, if anything?
A Well, I dug a hole around and one and it just seems to be--it doesn't seem to
be adequate in my opinion.
Q How deep is the footing, or don't you know?
A I didn't find really a footing, I just found a base. It was about two foot down.
Q In the sand?
A Yes. I think erosion has been around the property. I think this is what's
happened.
Q Oh, you mean eroded away what was---
A Correct.
Q Soil or sand that was there? Okay. All right. What else did you do in the
course of your inspection of this particular building, if anything?
A Well, I noticed some large holes in the roof--Iarge holes, especially the front
section. The whole gable---
Q Now when you say the front section---
A The Bay side.
Q Okay, fine.
A And the whole gable end is gone.
..
Page 21 - Marine Associates.nc.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
Q When you say gone, is---
A All the supports to the gable end, if you look in the pictures. It's kind of hard
to say, you have to look at the pictures and you'll see where it is. No supports in
the corners or nothing, gone.
Q All right, what is supporting what remains there then?
A Well, what it is is two steel" I" beams, I would say, and some of the outside
supporting, because there's a truss holding some of the supports underneath the
truss and the siding on the building.
Q And that's what's holding it up presently?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now, what about the exterior walls, did you inspect those?
A Yes, there's large holes in the exterior walls.
Q And you said there was large holes---what type of roof does it have, what type
of material, what's left of the roof?
A Wood shingles.
Q Wood shingles?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Now, have they--you said some of them were large holes, did you determine
the cause of those holes?
A Weather and like that one side there where it burnt.
Q Oh, there had been a fire in the building?
A A fire in Number 5--it started up the---
Q No, we're dealing just with Number 4 now.
A Well, that's connected with the roof #5. The fire was in #5 and went to
Building 4.
Q And caused damage to the roof area?
A Yes.
Q All right. Now, as a result of the interior of this Building Number 4, this
Northerly Boat Storage Building, exposed to the elements?
A Yes.
Q Is that causing, in your opinion, any special---
A Yes, continually continues to deteriorate.
.
~age 22 - Marine Associates,_c.
lark-Q Horton-A
.
Q And did you make a determination as to it's structural ability, this Building
Number 4?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what was that?
A I declared it unsafe.
Q Okay, and that was based on what you just told the last couple of minutes?
A Right. From this and other inspections I made, yes.
Q And is this building, at the time you inspected it on August 22nd, accessible
to the public?
A Yes, wide open.
Q Okay, and was the result of this, your finairig it structurally unsafe, is that
because it had deteriorated over a period of time, or as a result of this particular
fire, and just tell the Board?
A A period of time.
Q All right. at the time you inspected it was the building used for anything?
A No. There was some old scrap metal, some old cradles, maybe in there like
that, but it wasn'f used for anything, no.
Q Cradles---
A Boat cradles.
Q Okay. All right. And did you make a determination that the building was
dangerous.
A Yes, I did.
Q And what did you determine?
A That it was wide open to the public, the public could walk in there and, in
fact, one time caught a car in there, right inside. They had a beach party down
on the beach.
Q All right. If it is accessible to the public, how would it be dangerous to them?
A Because of the condition of the building.
Q Well, could you be more specific. What, if anything, could happen, in your
opinion?
A The building could collapse, or another storm, the wind, I don't know when,
but the building is dangerous. Piece could blow off or hit somebody or they could
go in there, the children play, a -fire and like that. It's dangerous then to the
firemen and the fire department would have to respond to this.
.
Page 23 - Marine Associates'c.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
Q All right. Now, I draw your attention to Building Number 5, and that you
refer to as the Southerly Boat Storage Building. Is that accurately depicted, it's
location, on Exhibit II which the Town Board has on the map?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And did you cause--could you just generally tell us the description
of that building, just so the Board can get a---
A Well, this building is a standing long building,
size. It's a little smaller than Building Number 4.
like Building Number 4.
approximately 200 feet, the same
It doesn't have a second story
Q All right. Did you inspect it on August 22nd?
A Correct.
Q And was it--what was it used for, if anything, at the time?
A It was vacant.
Q Okay. All right, and did you take pictures of this building?
A Yes, I did.
Q And how many pictures did you take and when did you take them?
A At the same time. I have eight photos here.
Q And they were taken on August 29th?
A Correct.
Q And do they fairly and accurately depict the building as it existed on August
22nd?
A Yes.
Q If you could give me those photographs, please. Thank you. These are the
Southerly Boat Storage Building which you call Number 5, is that right?
A Correct.
MR. LARK: All right, I will put these in then as Town's Exhibit VIII, A through H.
(Town's Exhibit VIII A, B, C, 0, E, F, G, H - 8 photographs - Building Number 5 -
(A) Bldg. 5 - fire, north side; (B) Bldg. #5 - east side; (C) west side, BI #5,
1st St. end; (D) north side interior, fire zone B #5; (E) B #5 - roof + side, S. side;
(F) south side roof, Bldg. 5; (G) east side, Bldg. 5; (H) east side Bldg. #5, Bldg.4.)
Q Okay. Could you tell us how you conducted the inspection on August 22nd with
this particular building, which is Number 5?
A Well, I came down through Building Number 4 to the Bay and I just reversed
the procedure and went from the Bay to First Street.
.
Page 24 - Marine Associates'c.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
Q Okay. And could you tell us what you found in the course of your inspection?
A I found the east side wall leaning considerably, with supports underneath the
trusses and partIcularly the third truss back in, the supports are completely gone
and the only thing that's holding this truss up is the siding that's buried in the
sand and throughout the whole building I found this condition like that.
Q What type of construction is this building?
A Wood; they're all wood frame.
Q Wood frame? Is it this a pole building also?
A Well, this correct, I would classify it as a pole building, yes.
Q Did the building have a floor in it?
A No.
Q And--all right, go on with your inspection, then. I didn't mean to interrupt
you, I just wanted to try to get the---
A On the front section, on the northerly side, there is large, large holes in the
roof where they had a fire---
Q What kind of roof did it have?
A Wood shingles. Large holes, large areas burnt, including some of the rafters
are burnt.
Q All right. What about the--did you make any determination of the structural"
capaoirily of the rafters?
A Well, it's gonna--they're still supporting, but with the elements coming in and
getting worse and worse, not being protected from the weather, they're just getting
and some day it will eventually collapse.
Q You said there was a fire. Do you have any records or did you find out
approximately when this fire had occurred?
A I--just taking off the top of my head, I think around five years ago.
Q Okay. And were you a fireman at the time?
A Yes, was.
Q Were you present during the fire?
A Yes, I was.
Q All right. Since that time of that fire a couple of years ago, five years ago,
whatever it was, has any repairs been made to the damaged area?
A Absolutely none.
Q All right. Go ahead with the rest of your inspection.
Page 25 - Marine Associates.nc.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
A Well, I did the same thing as I did with Building Number 4. I dug several
places. The conditions are bad underneath the supports. They have a support
under each truss and they're very bad.
Q When you say very bad, be a little more specific.
A Well, I dug underneath. They're rotted, they have not been fixed and everything
else. The sills are just settling.
Q Okay. Did you do anything else.n your inspection?
A No.
Q All right, as a result of your inspection did you make a determination of its
structural abilities, this building?
A Yes, like I say, there are sections right now could collapse today or it could
last two years.
Q Okay. Well, did you make a result---
A Yes, I declared it unsafe and dangerous.
Q All right, for the reasons you just stated?
A Correct.
Q All right. Is this building accessible to the public?
A Yes, both ends.
Q Okay. Now, in your notice to the landowner, Marine Associates, you made a
generalized statement about the fencing of the property and various, which )lou
classified as debris being on the property, is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now, the Board has Exhibit II in front of it which denotes where the
buildings are. At the time you inspected on August 22nd, was any part of the
property fenced?
A No.
Q Okay. Now, you stated and you told the owner that you wanted him to do
something about the debris. What type of debris were you talking about and where
in general was this debris?
A This is on the corner of First Street and Main and I have pictures here showing
you the type of debris. Cradles that are just left there---
Q What kind of cradles?
A Boat cradles.
Q Oh, okay.
.
Page 26 - Marine Associates,_c.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
A And like that. Just chocking that they used at one time and haven't used
and just left around.
Q Okay. And does this stuff that's on the property in this particular area,
the vacant portion of the property, constitute any kind of a safety hazard?
A Yes, it does.
Q And could you tell us it how it does that?
A Well, it invites children in there to play or anything else. They can step on
stuff, something can fall on them, they could trip in there or anything else.
Q Okay, and was this area of the property vacant or was it occupied when you
made your inspection on August 22nd?
A It was vacant.
Q Generally was the entire property vacant on---
A Yes, the entire--this side of the Post Office, yes.
Q You mean south of Main Street where you directed your inspections?
A Yes.
Q That was all vacant?
A Correct.
Q Okay. And by that I assume the northerly portions of the property were
used by the owner.
A Yes.
MR. LARK: There are two photographs and they can be numbered Town's Exhibit
IX A & B.
(Town's Exhibit IX, A & B-2 photographs - (A) no description; (B) debris next
to B.#1.)
Q Okay. Now, as a result of your inspection, did you cause a report to be made
and filed in the office of the Building Inspector?
A Yes, I did.
Q All right. Do you have the copy of that report with you?
A Yes, I do.
Q All right, may I have it please? Okay. This report bears your signature?
A Yes, it does.
.
Page 27 - Marine Associates'c.
Lark-O Horton-A
.
o Okay. And this was the report that you made out as a result of the
inspection on August 22nd?
A Yes.
MR. LARK: We'll put this in as Town's Exhibit X.
(Town's Exhibit X - 2 page report Re: Marine Associates, Inc. (North Fork Shipyard)
District 1000, Section 117, Block 8, Lot 18, signed on page 2 by Curtis W, Horton.)
o Now, as a result of that inspection, was that what "led to your sending out the
notice to the landowner which was dated August 30,1984, which is Exhibit II?
A Correct.
o Okay. Now, I know the notice speaks for itself, but so the Board can get a
feel for this, what specifically did you direct the owner to do as a result of that
notice? You don't have to read from it, just tell us what your---
A directed him to fence it in, secure it---
o Now, when you say fence it in, be specific if you can.
A Fence it in, secure it, put a piece of fence around it so it will be---
o Around' what?
A The entire area.
o Oh, the area that you just testifed to?
A Correct.
o Okay, go ahead.
A Or remove the buildings.
Q All right.
A Or go before a hearing with the Town Board.
o All right, did you give them any kind of a time frame to do these type of
things?
A Yes, I did.
0 And what was that time frame?
A Ten "days to start and thirty days---
0 Ten days to do what?
A To start.
0 Start what?
Page 28 - Marine Associates_nc.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
A This above order.
Q All right, and that's referred to in paragraph C, which is Exhibit /I in
evidence?
A Correct.
Q And paragraph D then refers to the time frame that you gave him?
A Yes.
Q Okay. From the time that you sent out the letter and the notice and posted--
Did you post the property then too?
A Yes, I did.
Q Okay. From the time that you did that, did. you have any contact with the
owner?
A No.
Q Well, you've obviously talked to the owner, since we told the Board you did--
in that time frame, did you talk to the owner?
A No.
Q Did you cause any further inspections to be made after August 22nd?
A Yes, I made various inspections at different times.
Q And could you---
A To check and see if they were doing anything.
Q Was this during the month of September?
A Yes.
Q Was anything done in September?
A No.
Q How about in the month of October?
A No.
Q Okay.
A Just till the last---
Q What are you referencing now?
A 11m looking for a letter that Marine Associates sent me on-"'I said October--yes,
after the last Town Board hearing that was postponed---
Q That would have been October 21st, the recessed hearing?
.
.
Page 29 - Marine Associates.c.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
A Correct.
Q Okay.
A They did--we did have our little conference, did go down and they tried to
board up some of the windows---
Q Did you discuss this with the owners---
A Yes, I did, they did try--they boarded up Building Number-3. -Building Number
2 they closed the door--Builtling Number 1 and they put some snow fence across the
back end on both 2 and 3 and I have some pictures that they took and sent to me
which I verified myself. When I went back again the fences had all been smashed
in and like that. It's almost impossible--they just went in there, whoever did it,
and smashed most of the fence right out.
Q All right. The efforts that the owner made, did that, in your OpiniOn, adequately
secure the buildings from trespassers obtaining entrance? The efforts that they made?
A The efforts on the three small buildings, yes.
Q They did. They did nothing on the two large buildings?
A Absolutely nothing.
Q All right, but on the three small buildings, 1 through 3, they did?
A Correct.
Q But now--after they had taken the effort to do this you're saying some
unauthorized people came in and smashed whatever---
A I would say so, yes, because they sure---
Q Today are those buildings, as we sit here today before the Town Board, are
those buildings adequately secured, 1 through 3?
A No, they're not now.
Q Okay. They are not?
A No.
Q Okay. Now, you testified here at length about the conditions of the various
buildings and the reasons for your making your determination, which was in your
report in the notice. What specifically are you asking that the Town Board do here?
As a result of this hearing?
A I'm asking the Town Board to declare these buildings unsafe and to remove
them, and the area cleaned up.
Q For the reasons that you've just testified to?
A Correct.
Page 30 - Marine Associates~nc.
Kenniff-Q
Horton-A .
MR. LARK: I have no further questions myself of Mr. Horton at this time. If
Mr. Kenniff wants to ask him, Mr. Murphy, I think that would be property since
he representing Marine Associates.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Sure.
MR. LARK: Could you tell the Board, just for the record, what your relationship
is with Marine Associates?
MR. DARBY KENNIFF, Riverhead, New York: My name is Darby Kenniff. I live
in Riverhead, New York.
MR. LARK: What is your relationship, just so the Board has it for the record,
with Marine Associates. Is Marine Associates--is that a corporation?
MR. KENNIFF: Yes, it is.
MR. LARK: Okay. What is your relationship with the corporation?
MR. KENNIFF: I own minor stock in the corporation.
MR. LARK: Are you an officer?
MR. KENNIFF: No, I am not.
MR. LARK: Okay.
MR. KENNIFF: I'm here representing, in place of my father, who is AFt" K-enniff,
who is the President of Marine Associates.
MR. LARK: Fine. Go ahead, anything you want to ask Mr. Horton. It's informal,
it's an administrative hearing.
MR. KENNIFF: First of all I'd like to make a short comment again. I'm here without
attorney because our attorney has been to the Town, discussed this matter with Mr.
Horton and Mr. Lessard and in my opinion come to an agreement to remove these
buildings basically, because our attempts to board them up have been futile. We do
disagree and we did hire a architect to prove these points. On certain points of the
structural integrity of certain buildings mentioned here. Number 1 we. do -not .
contest, it's a small little garden type shed which could be disposed of quickly.
Number 2---
MR. LARK: Well, wait.
questions of Mr. Horton?
I don't mean to interrupt you, but do you have any
You'll have your chance to go.
MR. KENNIFF: All right, let me try it.
MR. LARK: Okay. You'll make your statements and put your proof in when your
turn comes, but just---
MR. KENNIFF'S QUESTIONS OF CURTIS HORTON:
Q First of all, Mr. Horton, were you aware of the condition of these buildings
prior to the storm of 1984 in the spri ng?
A Yes, I was aware they were getting--yes, I was aware of the certain conditions.
..
Page 31 - Marine Associates~nc.
Kenniff-Q
.
Horton-A
Q We're all aware, Mr. Horton, that these buildings are very old. This yard's
been there since 1840. However, I submit to you and I request from you an answer
whether or not you are absolutely certain, for instance, that the after portion of
Building Number 2, which has always been open to the weather, since it's construction,
is actually separated from the main part of the building prior to the storm?
A cannot recall that. I don't know.
Q submit to you that it was not. That it was and after the storm is now starting
to separate. On Building Number 3 I ask you if you are aware of the fact df the
condition of the lean-to on the north side Building Number 3, if that was in fact"
starting to lose its foundation prior to the storm in the spring of 1984?
A Yes. I would say, yes.
Q You say that it was?
A It was starting, yes.
Q I submit to you that after the storm of 1984 this is when the real damage
occurred to that sill and the flooring that was holding that building together,
the lean-to section of that building. I ask you, Mr. Horton, if you are aware of
how long those buildings have been open to the streets and to the Bay, specifically
Buildings Number 4 and Number 5? Would you say they've been open ten years,
twelve years, fifteen years?
A Well, I recall when you used to have doors on them. I don't know right now
how long they haven't been without doors.
Q Would you say ten years would be the way they are?
A I don't know that. I'll say five years.
Q I'm really not sure what I'm doing hOelle, but I'll ask you one other question,
Mr. Horton. I'm not trying to cross examine you, I know I sound like Perry Mason.
In our meeting with Mr. Esseks, yourself, Mr. Lessard---
MR. LAR K: Could you refer to a time and date for the Board? Roughly.
Q I think it was on November---
A November 15th.
MR. LARK: Fine, thank you.
Q We did discuss with you that we wanted to eliminate this problem in the town
of New Suffolk as much as the Town and in efforts of being fair rather than get
into giving and take between our architect, which we had come in, making suggestions
to remove certain parts of certain buildings that we agreed were, at this point after
the storm of 1984, probably unsafe. Rather than doing that your comments to us
were, and correct me if I'm wrong, were to remove the buildings was the best, in
your opinion, answer to the problem.
A Correct.
..
.
Page 32 - Marine Associates,ec.
Kenniff-Q
Lark-Q
Horton-A
Horton-A
.
Q And in so doing that we said, "Well, we'd set a reasonable time frame,"ahd
at that point the 45 working days was suggested, is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Was there any discussion about the points that are being brought up now by
the Building Department of conditions to make the property safe while this demolition
is going on?
A Well, we didn't di,scuss that that day, but I'm sure any--you'd have to secure
means, you just couldn't just go in there and start tearing down and leave everything,
there has to be--Mr. Esseks dii:l say he would give us weekly reports and everything
else, and "as far as the insurance end of it or something like that, there should be
something. I mean, there's got to be something, you just can't go in there and start
tearing down and not have somebody responsible.
Q 1 submit to you, sir, that Marine Associates certainly does have the property
secured for liability.
A Well then I think there's no problem if you've got that.
Q There always has been. At this point I don't really know if I have anything
else.
MR. LARK: Okay, you'll have a chance to go ahead. All right, I just want a few
points to clarify with Mr. Horton.
MR. LARK'S QUESTIONS OF MR. HORTON:
Q You obviously had a meeting with the respondents and their principals, is
that right?
A Correct.
Q On November 15th. And do you feel that 45 days would be a reasonable amount
of time for them to properly tear down these structures that you've testifed to and
cart off, sell off or cart off the parts and ultimately the debris?
A There should be plenty Of lime.
Q
Okay.
Will they have to obtain any permits from anybody to do this?
A Yes, they'll have to obtain a permit from the Building Department for removal
and demolition of any building.
Q All right, so the Board now--will any type of controls--if they do apply for such
a permit, will any type of controls or reporting mechanisms or procedures have to be
employed as a result of the permit? Or do they just have carte blanche to do what'
they want?
A Well, as far as the way our Code is written right now, they can practically
do what they wanted once--but this would be up to the Board to say when the final
determination---
Page 33 - Marine Associatesac.
Lark-Q Horton-A
.
Q Well, that's on the time frame, but I'm talking ilbollt---
A They also would have the stipulations to what they wanted done.
Q Wait a minute now, are there any conditions to any type of demolition perniii?
A No.
Q You just come, tell you what they want to do and you issue a permit, is that
right?
A Everything--well, there is if you read Chapter 45, there is--it has to be in a
safe manner. Anything has to be done in a safe manner.
Q That's what I'm asking you. If they applied for a Building Permit, are there
any standards that they must follow in---
A Yes, they would have to go by the State Construction Code.
Q Okay. Now, are those standards, then, would be administered by the Building
Department?
A Correct.
Q Okay. So any type of fears that things would be left open or a dangerous
situation would ensue from a liability point of view, could be covered in the issuance
of a demolition permit, is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Okay. All 'right. I just wanted to get that clarified. Okay, I have nothing
further of Mr. Horton at this time, unless the Town Board does, I'm sorry.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone on the Town Board have anything? Jay? Joe?
Nothing. Go ahead.
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Are we referring to just Mr. Horton?
MR. LARK: Yes, just Mr. Horton now. I have another witness and then I'll be
done. Do you have any questions of him?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: No, go ahead.
MR. LARK: Okay. I excuse you, Mr. Horton, and call Mr. Steve G. Tsontakis
to the witness chair. If you would swear him in then, Mr. Murphy.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Steve, would you raise your right hand. Do you, Steve
Tsontakis, the testimony you are about to give is the whole trutn and' nothing else
but the trut h, so help you God.
MR. STEVE G. TSONTAKIS: do.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you.
Page 34 - Marine Associates,.c.
Lark-Q
Tsontakis-A .
DIRECT QUESTIONING OF MR. STEVE G. TSONTAKIS BY SPECIAL ATTORNEY LARK:
Q Okay, Mr. Tsontakis, could you tell us your occupation?
A Yes, I'm a Professional Engineer.
Q Okay.
A And I have a consulting practice.
Q All right. And how long have you been a Professional Engineer?
A More than 25 years.
Q And are you licensed by any state or any jurisdiction?
A Yes, I'm licensed to practice engineering in the State of New York and the
State of Florida.
Q As a Professional Engineer?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Did you have to go to any type of formal schooling to become a
Professional Engineer?
A Yes, my education background is a I'm a graduate of Polytechnic Institute of
Brooklyn with both a Bachelors and Masters Degree in Engineering.
Q What kind of engineering? I understand there's different branches of that
subject.
A Well, my degree is in Mechanical Engineering and my specialty was structures.
Q Now, when you say structures, could you---
A Structures and stress analysis.
Q Of what? Buildings?
A Of anything.
Q Now, when you say of anything, could you be specific. Would it include
buildings and things of that nature?
A It most certainly would include buildings, yes.
Q What do you do in your consulting practice as a Professional Engineer? Primarily.
A I do structural design of buildings, in fact complete systems designs of
buildings. I do many many structural inspections and pre-purchase inspections
on various structures and sites. That's my primary forte at the present time.
Q All right, fine. Did there come a time when you were retained by the Building
Department of the Town of SouthoJd to inspect premises owned down at the corner
of Main and First Street in New Suffolk?
Page 35 - Marine Associates.c.
Lark-Q
Tsontakis-A .
A I was requested by the Building Department, Town of Southold, to make an
inspection of a facility at the corner of Main Street and First Street.
Q So the answer to the question is, yes?
A Yes.
Q When did that occur?
A The inspection took place on October 19th, 1984.
Q And were you told by the--who retained you on behalf of the Building
Department?
A Well, I was called in by Mr. Curtis Horton.
Q Okay. And did he tell you the purpose of having you do an inspection?
A My understanding was that the Building Department had declared these buildings
unsafe and a nuisance and they wanted a professional opinion regarding conditions of
the buildings.
Q Any particular type of condition---
A Primarily the structural aspects.
Q Okay, the structural. So you were primarily there to do an inspection as to
structural integrity of these buildings?
A Yes, sir.
Q And were you furnished a map' of the buildings?
A I was furnished a survey of the property.
Q All right. And you did your report on what'dclyn-your inspection, I'm sorry,
on what day?
A On October the 19th, 1984.
Q Did you do it by yourself, or did somebody accompany with you?
A Well, I met Mr. Horton there to verify that this in fact was the location in
question and then he left me and I did the inspection. It was during the day.
Q Now, as a result of that inspection, did you prepare a report?
A Yes, did, sir.
Q Okay.
over. Now,
prepared?
I'm going to show you the inspection report and have you look that
what I just handed you, is that a copy of the inspection report you
A This is the original which I submitted to the Town.
Q Right. That is the original inspection report you prepared?
A Yes, sir.
Page 36 - Marine Associates.c.
Lark-Q
Tsontakis-A .
Q And does your signature appear at the end of that?
A Yes, it does.
Q Okay. This was done as a result of your inspection on October 19th of the
buildings question'?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. I'd like to put that in. I guess it's the Town's Number XI.
(Town's Exhibit X I - Inspection Report (10/ 19/8li), North Fork Shipyard Buildings,
Corner of Main Street & Fi rst Street, New Suffolk, N. Y " on the letterhead 'of
Steve G. Tsontakis Associates, Consulting Engineers, 6 pages, and signed on the
6th page by Steve G. Tsontakis, P.E., with his Licensed Professional Engineer
seal affixed thereto.)
Q Now, there were five buildings in question on which you had to do an inspection--
you were requested by Mr. Horton of the Building Department, to do an inspection, is
that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Now, you were present when Mr. Horton testifed here a little bit
earlier today?
A Yes.
Q Okay. You're familiar, then, the way he
buildings--it's sort of like five mini-hearings.
Are you familiar with that?
testified, because there were five
We talked about each building, okay?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Now, in your t'eport, which you have in front of you, I furnished it
back, Town's XI in evidence, did you use the same nomenclature, Buildings 1 through
5?
A I did so.
Q Okay, and is Building 1 in your report the same as Mr. Horton testifed as
Building 1 here today?
A Yes.
Q Okay, fine. Now, to save some time, from your point as a Professional Engineer
and the structural integrity--or structural ability of these buildings as to whether or'
not they're safe or unsafe where I'm going to be asking my questions concerning, not
any of the aesthetics or any of the other things that one might be concerned with, just
as to its structural--the purpose you were retained for. Building Number 1, as a
result of your inspection, did you come to some kind of a conclusion as to the structural
integrity of that building?
A Yes, I did.
Q All right, and could you tell the Board what that opinion was?
Page 37 - Marine Associates.c.
Lark-Q
Tsontakis-A
.
A Well, this is a small shed.
Q Right, that's the building I'm referring to.
A With a shed roof. It's in extreme disrepair and has no foundation. Apparently
and from the survey which was furnished to me, this building has shifted location.
Probably carried away by a storm at one time or another. The New York State Code
requires that any building or structure be adequately founded and tied to that
foundation.
Q That's presently. You said this was an older building. Was that building
constructed or erected prior to the enactment of any Building Code adopted by the
Town?
A Yes, it most certainly wa's.
Q All right. And then would the Code require--in fairness, would the Code then
require it to be secured to a foundation? Or a pre-existing building?
A Yes, that's true, but I think that the New York STate Building Code also
provides for the power of the Building Inspector to make a determination regarding
the unsafe condition of buildings.
Q All right. Even prior to any building codes, would good building or engineering
practice require that a building be at:lhered or secured to a foundation of some sort?
A Certainly good practice--good construction practice requires a building be founded.
Q All right. And this building was not secured to any type of foundation, is that
your testimony?
A That's correct.
Q Okay. Now, as a result of that inspection and the other things you're going
to tell us about, did you render an opinion as to its structural integrity?
A This building is exposed to the elements and the rafters are now bowed rendering
the roof unsafe and with the exposure that this building is experiencing at the present
time it will be a short period of time when it will deteriorate to the point of collapse.
My big concern here is that that building is mobile.
Q What do you mean by mobile?
A I mean that it's not tied down to anything and that it can be moved by either
a storm or even a strong wind.
Q That is an unsafe condition?
A I consider it unsafe, yes.
Q All right, fine. In your opinion it's unsafe. And in your opinion is it also
structurally unsafe at the present time?
A At the present time it's structurally marginal.
Q Okay, fine. But it's a danger because it's not adequately secured to a
foundation of some sort?
Page 38 - Marine Associates,ec.
lark-Q
Tsontakis-A .
A Well, that's my concern, that it can move and it's so close to the road that it
can end up either on the road damaging other properties or a danger to people.
Q That would be subject to movement either by water or by wind?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is the building light enough to be moved a wind storm?
A I would say that a 90 mile an hour wind could move that building.
Q So it would take a catastrophic---
A A good storm.
Q ---or -hurricane storm conditions to do it?
A Yes.
Q The normal winds that we experience in the area wouldn't necessarily move
the building?
A Up to 50 miles an hour winds, it's no problem.
Q No problem up to 50? Okay. All right, Building Number 2, could you tell
us about the results of your inspection on that building and your opinion.
A This building is of ordinary wood construction and it's on a brick foundation.
One portion of the building was an addition to the original found building. That
portion of the building, which was added, was on a very very shallow foundation,
primarily brick piers, and it appears that it was undermined and this caused this
portion of the building to droop, to drop and causing it to separate from the original
building. At the present time the roof is in extremely pOOI1 condition, exposing the
interior of the structure to the elements. There are no doors. The sidewall is
completely missing and the rafters arll bowed. I would say that this building is in
danger of collapse, at least the lefthand portion of it, that's the additional portion.
Q When you say lefthana, could you equate that to the compass, the roads---
A Yes, that would be the southerly portion which was an addition, and I think it
should be made safe or torn down at the present time.
Q Well, did you come to a conclusion as "to it's structural integrity, this building?
A It's not structurally safe at the present time.
Q Okay. For the reasons that you just illustrated?
A Yes.
Q Does this building constitute a tJanger in its present condition? Or a hazard,
maybe that's a better word, a hazard?
A It is a hazard in that number one, roof shingles can blow off during a wind
storm and---
Q They're not adequately secured?
Page 39 - Marine Associates,ec.
Lark-Q
Tsontakis-A .
A Well, they're in very poor condition and loose and, also of course, if the
building is occupied by during a storm' ba'd weather, there's a possibility that
people can get hurt in there.
Q Okay, so you're saying it does constitute a hazard in its present condition?
A' I believe so.
Q Okay. So we don't have to come back to it, what,' if anything, could be done
to this building to render it structurally safe or make it not a hazard, in your opinion?
A Well, a foundation would have to be placed under the southerly portion and the
deck system tied down. The openings in the building would have to be closed and
certainly the roof would have to be repaired to prevent any further water intrusion.
Q Considering the size and shape and use of the building, would this, in your
opinion as a Professional Engineer, be economically feasible?
A Not really.
Q Okay. Building Number 3. Could you tell us if you have an opinion as to the
structural integrity of that building?
A This building is of wood frame construction and it's founded on wood posts.
Many of these posts are rotted out and particularly on'the easterly portion of the
building which faces the Water . The posts are rotted out which has caused the
floor system, which supports the remaining structure, to droop because it's not
supported. There's severe settling of the floor in this section. The box beam,
which forms the floor, is in the sand diry rotted out, therefore forming no support
at all for the wall on this side, which is the easterly portion. The roof is in
fairly good condition, however, there was a lean-to addition on the northerly side
which was set on posts and these posts are completely dry rotted out causing the
wall to deflect downward. There is no floor in this section. This deflection downward
has caused the roof to deflect-downward. That section of the building is a state of
imminent collapse.
Q Okay. In your opinion the overall condition of Building Number 3 is it
structurally safe or unsafe?
A The easterly portion and the lean-to section are unsafe. The remaining part
of the building can be salvaged.
Q All right. Does the building as it presently exists, does it constitute any type
of a hazard.
A I believe it does.
Q In what respect?
A With regard to loose roofing, loose siding and if it should be occupied, the
floor system certainly can't support any extensive loading at all.
Q So the Board has a feel for this building, what could be done in your professional
opinion, if anything, to make this building structurally safe? Considering in mind that
anything that would have to be done according to the Code as it exists nowadays,
the Building Code that is.
Page 40 - Marine Associates,.c.
Lark-Q
Tsontakis-A .
A Well, the Building Code, the way it exists today, states that if 50% of the
building is to be worked on, the entire building has to be brought up to the Code.
Q That's what I was getting at, yes.
A And so in this case putting aside the fact that we're in a B Zone here and we'd
have to comply with the Flood Plain requirements, which is a big question in itselfu-
Q B, you mean, under the Flood Plain Law"
A Under the Flood Plain Law this is in a B Zone of the Flood Plain Map, which
requires certain foundation and elevation requirements, Aside from that practically
speaking, the easterly end of the building would need a foundation. The lean-to
section is hardly worth salvagable. It's not worth salvage.
Q Well, the point of it is, would it be economically feasible at today's standards
to rehabilitate this building so it would conform?
A From the standpoint of a building itself, no. I don't know if there are other
ramifications in terms of permit requirements and Flood Plain requirements and an
existing building being able to use an existing ---
Q Now, in your opinion, is 50% or more of this building structurally deteriorated
to a degree of structural unsafeness?
A I'm afraid it is, yes.
Q Okay. That was Building Number 3 we just talked about, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right, Building Number 4.
A There's another point here--
Q On what?
A On Building 3.
Q Which is what?
A This building is still connected to L1LCO power lines on First Street,overhead
cable. I eyed this as a potential danger in the event that Weatherhe.ad .,fppltClhe
building we'd have a powerline in the street. That street IsdeadendErd.oat the water.
Q So what's your corrective action?
A I think that L1LCO should immeOiately be contacted the lateral completely, hot
just disconnect it from the transformer. Remove the lateral from the pole.
Q Oh.
A The lateral lines.
at the building.
The feeder from the L1LCO pole fine to that weather head
Page 1I1 - Marine Associates.nc.
Lark-Q
Tsontakis A .
Q And that would eliminate any potential of having a live line?
A Well, of course it would remove the potential of the building causing a problem
to the L1LCO lines.
Q Okay. Building Number 1I. You inspected that building?
A Yes, I did.
Q All right. Did you come to any conclusion or opinion as to the structural
integrity of that building?
A This building is a--what is commonly known as a pole-type building, in that
the supporting framework is a series of pilings or poles on the perimeter of the
building. The pilings support an eave beam, on which are placed trusses to carry
the roof. There is a loft in the building supported--which was added later--on top
of-the lower part of the truss and additional supports were added by way of two
"I" beams running under the trusses. These "I" beams are supported on masonry
piers on either end, so we have two "I" beams and four masonry columns. The
original---
Q Do you know the weight of those "I" beams at all from estimation from your
experience?
A I'm afraid I really didn't look at that, Mr. Lark, but I would have to say, just
from recollection, that those "I" beams weigh upward!! of three tons each.
Q Okay, fine.
A The original frame poles have dry rotted at grade, which is normally what
happens. Usually this is where the moisture is and the lack of ventilation causes
dry rot right at grade for these structures. Many of the poles have been sistered
by the addition of poles--
Q What do you mean by the term sistered?
A Sistered means that additional poles have been added to the outside of the
existing poles and bolted through the original poles to form new support. However,
these poles are 20 foot on center, there abouts, not every pole is sistered. So we
have here a condition of unsistered poles which are rotted inbetween sistered poles,
which are structurally safe at the present time, but the rotted poles have dropped
down and causl!d the eave beam, which is the beam at the edge of the roof, on top
of the poles, to deflect. This deflection is quite sever in several of the bay of this
building. This is caused--the trusses, of course, which are sitting on these eave
beams, to drop down, placing an inordinately high strain on the roof system. I
would say these trusses are not--are overstrained at the present time and with a
good storm and certain. climacteric condition combinations, such as ice and snow,
there would definitely be overstress and collapse.
Q The building as it sits there now, is it, in your opinion, structurally safe or
unsafe?
A I have a little more to say about the building. The columns--the masonry
columns that support the "I" beams I mentioned before are eroded at the base and
this erosion is probably caused by flooding and continually being exposed to the
Page 42 - Marine Associates.c.
Lark-Q
Tsontakis_A.
water. They've eroded to the point where the aggregate in the concrete is exposed.
This has reduced the cross section of the column. I did a little digging at this point
and found that the columns go down about 18 inches and I found some footing, bLt the
size of the footing is really inadequate to carry the loft and the normal loads that
might be placed on a loft such as this.
Q Is that because of the weight that's resting upon the footing?
A Well, of course, it's adequate unloaded, but certainly it would be inadequate to
carry any live load, any storage or people or whatever. The condition of the columns
is deteriorated now. It's under constant state of deterioration and it will just be a
matter of time before one of these columns lets go and the the "I" beam will come down
and the loft will come down and probably pull the roof trusses along with it.
Q That would be a dangerous condition?
A I would say it is a dangerous condition. I think building is unsafe at the
present time.
Q Okay. Building Number 5?
of view?
---Unsafe---you mean from an structural point
A Yes.
Q Okay, thank you. Building Number 5?
A My recommendation in the report is that since it really isn't economically
feasible to salvage this building, I think it should be torn down.
Q Okay.
A It's so stated in the report.
Q Okay. In your opinion now---
A I was talking about Building Number 4, sir.
Q Right. In your opinion Building Number 4, is that over 50% unsafe or-damaged
to the point where if it was rehabed, the entire building would have to be brought
up to Code standards today?
A Yes.
Q 0 kay, thank you..
A Building Number 5?
Q Yes, sir.
A This building is also a wood frame building of pole type construction and roof
trusses. The building has experienced a fire in the easterly portion. The roof is
in extreme disrepai r, many holes in it, and of course the building is taki ng water.
That in itself---
Page 43 - Marine Associates,ec.
Lark-Q
Tsontakis-A
.
Q When you say taking water---
A Well, it's not water tight.
Q Oh, okay.
A That in itself is not so bad because there's really no floor in the building--
there is a portion of a concrete slab in part of the building. The siding is in
extremely poor condition. Again, this building has been--has had some of the
poles sistered as mentioned in Building Number 4, in the same way , in that the
poles were--the sistered poles were added externally and bolted through to the
old poles inside the building. However, not all the poles were sistered. Again
we have the droop eave beam condition which has caused the roof trusses to drop
and again putting an excessive strain on the roof system. These roof systems
are in a state of eminent collapse. I have photographs in the report, of course---
Q Do you have an opinion as to the structural stability of Building Number 5?
A I think that the building needs to be--is structurally unsound at the present
time and it needs to be either rendered safe or torn down.
Q Is more than 50% of the building unsafe in your opinion at this time?
A Yes, it is, sir.
Q So if anything was to be done to the building it would have to be brought up
to Code standards of today--Building Code standards of today, is that not correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q In your opinion, is that economically feasible?
A I'm not representing the owner, but in my opinion, no, it wouldn't pay to
repair these buildings.
Q Okay, fine. And all that you've testified to is contained in more detail in
your report which is an exhibit in evidence, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And attached to that report are various photographs taken by you on the date
of your inspection?
A Yes, they are.
Q And they fairly and accurately depict what you're trying to show in the photograph
on the day in question, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay.
Tsontakis?
I have no further questions. Do you have any, Mr. Kenniff, of Mr.
You have a copy of his report there.
A Oh, I have one more comment to make if I may. If this work is to proceed--
Q What work?
Page 44 - Marine Associates, .c.
Lark-Q Tsontakis-A .
Kenniff-Q Tsontakis-A
A The work of either demolition or repair.
Q Oh, okay.
A Then the work has to be done in accordance with Osha requirements.
Q That's the concern of the owner, isn't it?
A No, it's a concern of the Town too, since they're now sharing the responsibility
with the owner. If any contract be drawn, that the requirements of Osha be so
stipulated.
Q What does Osha stand for, just so the Board knows.
A Occupational Safety and Health. That's a federal regulation.
Q All right, is there any other comments you have?
A No, that's it.
MR. LARK: All right. Do you have any questions of him, Mr. Kenniff?
MR. KENNIFF'S QUESTIONS OF MR, TSONTAKIS:
Q Mr. Tsontakis, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right, you mentioned here on Building Number 1. This building, would
you say it's a garden utensil type shed? Is it a very small shed?
A It's a shed, yes.
Q Similar to the type that people put in their back yards to handle---
A Utility shed, right.
Q You say that a wind could blow this over. I just want to qualify the fact
that you're talking about a 90 mile an hour wind here, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q You say that there could be a hazard to other people's properties from this
shed. Would you say the 90 mile an hour wind would blow that shed the enti re
distance of Marine Associates' property on to samebody elses property?
A Well, I'd say that a 90 mile an hour wind would be accompanied with inordinately
high tides and the location of this building being in the proximity of the beach would
certainly experience high water and wind at the same time and certainly would---
Q Would you say that a 90 mile an hour---
A Could be. Since it was, since it was moved---
Q Excuse me. Would you say that a 90 mile an hour wind is a normal thing in
the city of New Suffolk?
Page 45 - Marine Associates,ec.
Kenniff-Q
Tsontakis-_
A You're not letting me answer the question.
Q Well you changed--you didn't answer specifically what I asked you.
A No, it happens statistically about every five or six years in this part of the
country.
Q 90 mile an hour winds?
A Sure.
Q In New Suffolk?
A On Long Island.
Q In New Suffolk?
A Yes, sir.
Q Building Number 2, you go on to say that this entire building is structurally
unsafe, however, it seems to me that most of the comments you made referred to
the back lean-to part of that building. In other words, the part that was obviously
built to be open to the elements---
A Is that what everybody's referring to as the Paint Shop?
Q That is correct. Your comments, it seems me--I
specifically address to the back part of that building.
end of that building, is that correct?
just want to clarify or
In other words, the south
A Yes.
Q Building Number 3. Again your comments are addressed specifically to the
north lean-to addition to that building and the easterly corner of that building,
is that correct?
A No, the addition is on the south side.
Q 1'm talking about Building Number 3. That would be, I think they call it the
Machine Shop. I just want to get the point across---
A Not according to this survey.
Q I'm going by your report, sir, and your comments refer to Building Number 3,
lean-to is on the north side of that shed, is that correct?
A Oh, yes, Building Number 3, yes.
Q In addition we were made aware of on this shed as to the electricity problems
by the Building I nspector and one of our people has contacted LI LeO to rectify that
problem.
A Good.
Q That problem was due, incidentally, to a tenant that we had who was supposed
to remove the electricity. Building Number 4, sir, I don't consider myself qualified
Page 1I6 - Marine Associates,.c.
Kenniff-Q
Tsontakis-_
to argue your points about the sister poles and pole construction in the beach
building. I would just like to make this comment. These buildings were built
for the purpose of storing boats. They are not built to specifically exclude
weather or be weather tight, I think that's obvious. I also go on to say, sir,
that--and if necessary we'll have our architect answer this--I thought this was
already done--that the pillars that you mentioned, the erosion of the wood,
basically what was done with this was there was a wood form made around the
poles that were sunk to support those beams, filled with concrete. They didn't
remove the form, they left it there. Now pieces of that form have been knocked
aside--you say now that those pillars are structurally unsound. I can't buy that,
with all due respect, sir. You say that this building is in a situation where these
beams can collapse. Would you give an estimate of how much time?
A What beams are you referring to?
Q The concrete--the concrete beams that hold the "I" beams to the sail loft.
A Well, that's hard to say because a lot of it--a lot would be the effect of
weather and their exposure.
Q Could you give us an estimate aBout when you think they were built? Installed?
A That's tough too, but I'd say--I'd say they're about 20 years old.
MR. KENNIFF: That's about it.
MR. LARK: Does the Town Board have any questions of Mr. Tsontakis?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone? Jay? Joe?
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: One quick question. You said it's in the "B"--the
property is in the "B" Flood Zone. What's the elevation, approximately there,
do you know?
MR. TSONTAKIS: The elevation of the buildings or the required elevation for---
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: The building--actually the elevation of ground level
there. The buildings are right on ground level I understand.
MR. TSONTAKIS: Well, I really don't know--it's probably in the order of three
to fi ve feet.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: That's surpnsmg that it would be in the "B" Zone
then. I would think that it would be in the "A" Zone. Did you check that on
a Flood Map, it is in a "B" Zone as opposed to the" A" Zone?
MR. TSONTAKIS: I believe a portion of the property is "A" and a portion of the
property is "B".
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: I would be very surprised if any of that property---
MR. TSONTAKIS: Well, it might be--it might very well be.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: I think it's probably in the "A" Zone.
MR. TSONTAKIS: I was using a terminology of "B" Zone to be conservative.
.
Page 47 - Marine Associates,.c.
.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Because a "B" Zone would have to be above, I think
the area there is 12 feet, the elevation is 12 feet and I think it's below that.
Most places--unless it's behind an area that's 12 feet and that is not behind an
area that's 12 feet.
MR. TSONTAKIS: I think what you're r,eferring to is when the structure is built,
the first floor level has to be at about 11 or 12 feet. That's what you're referring
to.
COUNCI LMAN STOUTENBURGH:
buildings, that's the last two, 4
safe?
Mr. Tsontakis, do you believe that these two large
and 5, could be repaired so they could be made
MR. TSONTAKIS: Yes, they can be repaired. The economic feasibility of doing
so is another question.
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: That's not my point. They can be done.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Jean? Judge?
JUSTICE EDWARDS: No questions.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Any other? Nothing further, Richard.
MR. LARK: No, I have nothing further. It's your turn now.
MR. KENNIFF: If it pleases the Board, I again apologize for not being here with
an attorney. Our attorney did meet with the Building Inspector -and Mr. Lessard
here to work this problem out prior to this hearing and it was his opinion that the
letter be respectfully submitted to the Board and if there was a negative response
that he would be here. I would like to review just a few things with the Board
on a personal basis as a reflection of my father. Upon the receipt of the violations
from the Board, shortly thereafter he became ill.
MR. LARK: He's obviously going to testify, do you want to swear him in?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: You going to testify?
MR. KENNIFF: I guess. I don't know what I'm doing here.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Why don't we swear you in.
MR. KENNIFF: All right, fine.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Raise your right hand. The testimony you're about to give
is the whole trut h and nothing else but the truth, so help you God?
MR. KENNIFF: Yes, it is.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you.
MR. KENNI FF: He became ill shortly thereafter and went to the hospital and the
reason for no response of the Building Inspector is basically that. We did talk
to the Building Inspector. We do appreciate his cooperation with us and we did
take his comments and suggestions and attempt to board these building up. With
the exception of the two large buildings, we were awaiting comments from our
architect and we also felt that we didn't want to put up a haphazard boarding of
,
Page 48 - Marine Associates,.c.
.
these buildings, it could create more of a safety problem than was already there.
As I'm sure Mr. Horton has already stated, what we put up has already been
knocked down in the short period time that we put it up. Reviewing that, we
came to the Town Building Inspector, with our architect, to argue what we thought
were structurally sound portions of the buildings and portions that we agreed were
structurally unsound. Basically the portions of the buildings that w~'re talking about
here, these lean-tos and additions to them. We basically came out of that meeting
rather than an argument on technical rules, if you will, was that we would agree to
remove the buildings if we were allowed to remove them in such a manner that we
could afford to remove them. That would allow us--that being that we would be
allowed to salvage the buildings rather than demolish the buildings. On that basis
we made the decision to take the buildings down, and we stand by that decision.
We are actively looking for a contractor to do that. That's our overview of how
the situation has been handled and the reasons we have made to remove the build-
ings. We do not concur, and I emphasize that, with all of the technical items that
have been mentioned here and I apologize for us not having our architect here to
argue that point. We just felt that we by making the agreement to remove
the buildings.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Let me as a question, Frank. You agree then that
you are going to remove the buildings?
MR. KENNIFF: Yes.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Then what you're asking us is 45 days in which to
do so.
MR. KENNIFF: Yes. The agreement that was made--correct me if I'm wrong, is that
the most expedient thing for us to do and to satisfy the Town, would be to remove
the buildings. At that time we pleaded for the ability to get a contractor, not just
to demolish the buildings but to disassemble the buildings.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Okay, but you are in agreement to remove the
buildings and what you're asking us to do is to give you 45 days, is that correct?
MR. KENNIFF: Forty-five working days was suggested and we accepted that.
COUNCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: Fine, thank you.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: J have a question also. May I ask a question also?
MR. KENNIFF: Yes.
COUNCI LMAN TOWNSEND: Your attorney was present at this meeting with the
Building Inspector?
MR. KENNIFF: Yes, he was.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: And he was aware of the--that you had made this
agreement at the time?
MR. KENNIFF: We made that agreement with our attorney--you know, it was a
proposal that we would accept and they would--yes. A meeting of the minds I
would say.
.
Page 49 - Marine Associates,.c.
.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Your attorney was also aware that this hearing was going
on today?
MR. KENN I FF: Ah---yes, I don't remember the specifics. I think he had made the
comment that if I sent a letter to this effect that would be sufficient to answer the
Board and I think he was under the impression there would be.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: I see. We received this letter dated November 16th,
yesterday.
MR. KENNIFF: Yes, it was hand delivered.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: So the Town Board had no chance to consider or
reschedule this hearing at---
MR. KENNIFF: I understand, sir. The meeting was the 15th of November, so---
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: I see. And your architect, was he at this meeting with
the Building Inspector?
MR. KENNIFF: Yes, he was.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: And he also knew about the hearing that was to take
place today?
MR. KENNIFF: I'm not sure if he knew about that or not. He was there specifically
to talk about the technical ramifications of these notices. I don't know if he was or
not.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Did you ask your architect to attend?
MR. KENNIFF: No, I did not.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: That's all I have.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Any other questions?
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: In reference to the future of the area--I was reading
in the paper that there seems to be a program being set forth that you will have a
marina-type restaurant-type thing--the future owners of this area, and they mention
the historic value of the buildings and I'm just wondering if we demolish everything,
we have nothing but a cleared lot there, what kind of historic buildings are we talking
about, and I realize that we've asked you to take this building, but it has tremendous
historic significance, and I'm wondering is it the Post Office they're speaking about
as being historic, or are they talking about these buildings as being the areas that
these submarines were made in--or weren't those buildings there at the time? Do you
know anything of the back history of that area?
MR. KENNIFF: To the best of my knowledge, Councilman Stoutenburgh, the buildings
were there. There were never, to the best of my knowledge, submarines built there.
Submarines--there were plans drawn in buildings that have long since burned down
and been demolished. From that the decision was made not to build in New Suffolk,
but to build in Connecticut, which is the start of the shipyards there. The submarines
were brought back to New Suffolk and there was a Navy base established there for
testing because of the shallowness of the Bays. So to our knowledge, to the best
that we, could find out when we purchased this yard, and through many conversations
with Mr. Houston, who was the previous owner, and so forth, it is really at most a
,
.
Page 50 - Marine Associates,_c.
.
submarine testing base. It was not the site of construction.
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH:
by the new owners. Have they
these buildings?
MR. KENNIFF: Sir, to clarify many--I don't know whether I should--we have at this
point---New Suffolk Development Corporation has contracted with Marine Associates to
buy the present land. That contract we have not been able to meet the terms due to
the fact that the Town of Southold rejected the zoning changes--I should qualify that.
We withdrew because it was evident that our appeals for the site plans would be
rejected. Their contract still hasn't come to term. There is another party who has
a first option after that contract who's talking about a boatyard. What his plans
specifically are, sir, I do not know.
Was there any thought of utilizing the buildings
spoken that they would have any need for any of
COUNCILMAN STOUT EN BURGH : I just want to know if there is any connection so
that something might hinge on these buildings--some of them being saved for that
boatyard.
MR. KENNIFF: I would believe that--and I don't want to speak for--I would believe
that, yes, the buildings do have value as they stand now.
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: But would it be to your advantage to repair them
and, at considerable cost, for someone else who might move in? That's the problem.
See, we have a time problem.
MR. KENNIFF: I see what you're getting at. I'm sorry--we are financially not able
to repair the buildings to bring them to the standards of which are being alluded to
here.
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: That's what I wanted to find out. And you have no
intention of doing that?
MR. KENNIFF: We wouldn't be unless one of the people who are in negotiations with
us to buy the property would be interested in---
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: That was my point. It seems we rip down the old
mansion and then we found we had a buyer for it later on. I want to make sure that
we don't miss this opportunity to utilize these buildings if they could be utilized.
MR. KENNIFF: The only way I can answer that, sir, is that the sale of this land
is certainly going to be performed prior to the start of 1985. By then I'm certain
the transfer will happen, and then, yes, as we mentioned to Mr. Lark, then there's
people that have money to inject into that property.
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: It looks like we're on the horns of dilemma---
MR. KENNIFF: I can't answer for them.
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: --that we have somewhat given an ultimatum of time
to---
MR. KENNIFF: Yes, it's unfortunate timing, yes.
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: Right.
MR. KENNIFF: Very unfortunate.
~ . L oil>
Page 51 - Marine Associates,"c.
.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Any other comments? Richard, do you have
anything further to say?
MR. LARK: Yes, I'd just like to clarify one point and recall Curt Horton for just
one minute to the stand.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Curt.
MR. LARK: Mr. Horton, I remind you you're still under oath. When you met with
Mr. Kenniff and his representatives, attorneys and architects and what not on
November 15th--is that correct?
MR. HORTON: Yes.
MR. LARK: Did you make any agreement on behalf of the Town of Soutllold, agreeing
to a 45 day time frame to---
MR. HORTON: No, not on the Town of Southold. What was said, they asked for
45 days, if they could have a 45 day period to agree to remove these buildings.
MR. LARK:
understand that.
MR. HORTON: And we said we would try--we would see what could be made out--Mr.
Esseks promised that Tuesday morning he would show up with a letter stating to this
effect that they would remove this and all we can do--we could not say what the Town
Board does--at that stage of the game all we can do is recommend to the Town Board.
We did not say that we would go. He promised us a letter on top of that. Mr. Lark,
you will remember you told me to get in touch with Mr. Esseks, which I tried last
Friday, twice, each time his secretary said he'll call you right back, he's on the phone.
He never did call back, because you wanted that letter on Monday.
MR. LARK: All right. But the point is you made no agreement on behalf of the
Town of Southold?
MR. HORTON: No.
MR. LARK: All right. Would you oppose if the Board found that the buildings
were structurally unsafe, that a 45 day period would be a reasonable or an unreasonable
time frame?
MR. HORTON: No, I think it would be a very reasonable thing and I think they
should go along with it.
MR. LARK: Fine. So you would recommend that?
MR. HORTON: Yes, I would.
MR. LARK: Okay, thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Richard, do you have anything else?
MR. LARK: Yes. You've heard enough here. They've had like five hearings in
one here and I apologize for some of the time delay, but as you can see from the
question from Mr. Stoutenburgh, it is of some significance to the owners of the
property. Be that as it may I think that the Building Department has given you
4' ( - .
Page 52 - Marine Associates ,.c.
.
substantial evidence that the five buildings in question here--where unsafe and
dangerous to the public to warrant a finding by the Board to make such a
determination of their structural unsafeness due to--because of the inadequate
maintenance and dilapidation and abandonment, as they are vacant at the present
time. There doesn't seem to be any issues on that, their status, and that as I
read the Article 90, that you can then if you make such a finding, which I think
you have substantial evidence to do, to order that these buildings, and I think
you'll have to treat them individually so we have clarity in it, in the order that
you might issue, that they be either repaired, secured or taken down and removed.
That's your decision to make. As in past practice we've done with buildings, and
particularly with this one since they're so many involved, I would recommend that
the Town Board, at their convenience, with the Clerk, go down and view the
buildings in question. You have a map. You have photographs of the conditions
of this summer and what they are today and you've heard testimony of the attempts
to board them up and what's become of that. You will be able to see that, and I
think once you actually physically walk in the buildings and see them and see what's
there, I think then you'll be able to render a determination as to what should be
done, and as you heard Mr. Horton, if you so to decide to declare them unsafe,
after going down, that the 45 day time frame which they talked about with the
land owners, architect and representatives, would be a reasonable time frame due
to the complexity of--especially Buildings 4 and 5. Apparently Buildings 1, 2 and
3 are just not a big problem as far as that's concerned, but 4 and 5 would take
some care, especially when you see the "I" beams in question which they'd want to
salvage, some of the trusses, and some of the other material that could be used in
other projects and would have to be taken down with a little care rather than just
a ball on a crane knocking them down, okay?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir.
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH: I've been through those and just in the last three
days, so I know exactly. That's why I was concerned about the historic value of
them.
MR. LARK: Right.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Mr. Lark, we paid Mr. Tsontakis for his time here
today, didn't we?
MR. LARK: That's correct. That comes out of the Building Department's budget as
I understand it, yes.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: We can't recoop that from him? Nothing in the Code
that says we can go after the guy who costs us money?
MR. LARK: No, I don't believe so. Even before the hiring of him is the--the Building
I nspector with his background could talk about Buildings 1 through 3 without any
problem, but when he got involved with Buildings 4 and 5 he felt that he ought to
get a professional engineer's opinion as to--especially with those "I" beams as you'll
see, and some of the other--you heard testimony as to sistering and all of that--as
to whether what was remaining there would structurally carry the building, and
that's what he was concerned about and that's why he retained the engineer, to get
a professional opinion, because he felt that he doesn't deal with that kind of building.
It's not like your house structure which he deals with every day, to get a professional
opinion. That's why he sought the advice that he did.
"' ," ! .
Page 53 - Marine Associates,.c.
.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anything further? Mr. Lark?
MR. LARK: No, nothing.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, at this time I would like to close the hearing. Thank
you.
* * *
A '?!'/ ,/
/ ~//'"
, , /a . _>. _ C//+Z[ ..
. Judith T. Terry :;f
Southold Town Clerk
"
-1
.
.
HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
October 23, 198L1
9: 30 A.M.
IN THE MATTER OF A VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 90 ("UNSAFE BUILDING AND
COLLAPSED STRUCTURES LAW OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD") OF THE CODE
OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BY MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC.
Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy
Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr.
Justice Raymond W. Edwards
Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh
Councilman James A. Schondebare
Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran
* * *
Town Clerk Judith T. Terry
Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: This hearing is officially opened as scheduled for 9:30
A.M. on October 23rd, Southold Town Hall. It's a hearing on a notice under the
Unsafe Building and Collapsed Structures Law of the Town of Southold concerning
Marine Associates, Inc. Property on First Street, New Suffolk. At this time I'd
like to turn it over to the Town's Special Attorney Richard Lark.
SPECIAL ATTORNEY LARK: On this hearing I'll have several witnesses, Mr.
Murphy and since Marine Associates, which is the one scheduled for 9: 30 o'clock
involves 'five different structures and the property in general, so what I propose
to do with the witnesses is to go through it building by building so it will make
some sense to the Board. At the end of the hearing I'm also going to request,
as you've done in past practice, because I think it's quite helpful for the Board
that at a time that's convenient to the Board, that you recess and go view the
properties in question yourself because you're the ones and the only ones that
have to make the determination as to what the final result will be with these
buildings, and since there are numerous structures on there what I've done by
way of the hearing, there is a attached map or survey if you would, of the
property and the survey has been labled with numbers that will match the numbers
that are in the notice, which will be an exhibit in evidence. With that introduction
then I'd; like to call the Town's first witness which will be Curtis Horton the Build-
ing Inspector.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Excuse me, Mr. Lark, is there anyone in opposition
to your--anyone here opposed to this public hearing?
MR. DARBY KENNIFF: I am.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: You will be? On which one?
MR. KENNIFF: I'm here to represent Marine Associates the best I can, Art
Kenniff is in the hospital.
.,J Page 2 - Unsafe BUildi_ - Marine Associates, Inc. .
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Okay, so in that public hearing you'll be here.
Is there anyone here on the other public hearing?
SPECIAL ATTORNEY LARK: That's Southold Development Corporation?
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Anyone here on that one? (No response.) Thank
you.
MR. LARK: I call Curtis Horton.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Curt, if you will come up I'll swear you in. Raise your
right hand. Do you swear that the information you are about to give the whole
truth and nothing else but the truth so help you God?
BUILDING INSPECTOR CURTIS HORTON: I do.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Sit down. Dick, do you have a copy of that
map that you talked about?
MR. LARK: That will be as an exhibit.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Could you put it in early so that the Board could follow
it through?
MR. LARK: Yes.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you.
MR. DARBY KENNIFF, Riverhead, New York: I'm here in place of my father who
is in the hospital. I'm not familiar with these proceedings. I'm curious if it
wouldn't be better to his benefit if I was able to have an attorney present at this.
I didn't realize this was going to be a situation with witness and documentation,
etcetera.. I'm appealing to you what's the best advice here.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Bob, would you like to comment on that?
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: Well, he's asked for an attorney. I think he's
entitled to it. I f he doesn't have one I should think he's entitled to adjournment.
MR. KENNIFF: I'm sorry for the delay, but my father has just had surgery in
the hospital and I frankly just picked up the ball this morning here.
COUNCILJI,IAN SCHONDEBARE: Who owns the property, you or your father?
MR. KENNIFF: Well, it's a corporation, sir.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Who's the principal of the corporation, you or your
father?
MR. KENNIFF: My father.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: You have no affiliation with the corporation?
MR. KENNIFF: I own some shares of stock, yes, sir.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Are you an officer of the corporation?
.J
Page 3 - Unsafe BUildits - Marine Associates, Inc.
.
MR. KENNIFF: No, I'm not.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Have they been notified?
MR. LARK: Oh, sure. As will be exhibits in evidence, the notice of the hearing,
today's hearing, which was scheduled at 9: 30 A.M. on October 23rd, was mailed
to Marine Associates on September 14th, 1984 and the property was also posted on
the 13th of September, 1984, and posting on the property contained the notice,
along with the map--the complete notice stating the position of the Building Inspector
in this matter, and instructing them that if they did not contact the Building
Inspector and start to remove the structures within 30 days, have them removed
within 30 days, the hearing would take place. So they've known and the affidavit
of service, the return receipt was received back by the Building Department on--
received by them on the 15th. So they've known since the 15th of September that
there was going to be a hearing on this date. So I would strenuously object to
any adjournment. This is the first time we've heard of anything. I have not heard
any notice at all. I checked with the Building Department yesterday and this morning
and asked if they had heard anything--been contacted by anybody in. the world on
behalf of Marine Associates, and I was instructed by Mr. Horton and Mr. Lessard
both that they had not.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I think we'll proceed then with the hearing and it will be,
as Mr. Lark requested, it will be recessed. It's not going to be closed.
TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: Don't you think you ought to put that to a vote?
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Can I further inquire, Frank? You have witnesses
on this one outside of Mr. Horton, do you not?
MR. LARK: Yes, I have two other witnesses.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: Who else do you have?
MR. LARK: Mr. Fisher, who's left his employment this morning to come down and
testify, and also the Building Department has retained the services of a professional
engineer Stephen Tsontakis, who is also here to testify this morning.
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: So we're paying for an expert to be here today and
Mr. Fisher has taken time off from his employment, which is not Town employment,
to be here today?
MR. LARK: No, that's correct.
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: May I ask a question also on this particular issue. We're
dealing with an unsafe structure which is theoretically, if it's deemed to be unsafe,
a hazardous condition, is that not correct? In other words, delay would just continue
what---
MR. LARK: That's correct also. Now, I would have no objection if at the end of
the hearing, after we've presented our evidence, if he wants to--if you wanted to
give him a reasonable time if he wants to present an expert to the Board in con-
junction with your viewing of the premises, I certainly have no objection to that.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: That's what I thought of, Dick, yes.
MR. KENNIFF: This is my exact point. I'm not attorney or anything else, but it
seems to me we've already made a decision here before we've even had the hearing.
,c
Page 4 - Unsafe BUildit - Marine Assaciates, Inc.
.
COUNCilMAN SCHONDEBARE: Decisian an what?
MR. KENNIFF: Well, whether ar nat these buildings are unsafe. These buildings
have been there since 1840.
COUNCI LMAN SCHONDEBARE: We haven't reached any decisian.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: The Tawn Baard has made no. decisian.
MR. KENNIFF: I'm nat qualified to. stand up and argue ar caunterpaint whatever
paints may be braught here and I appeal to. the Baard to. recagnize that.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: The Tawn Baard has nat made any decisian. Naw, wauld
the Tawn Baard like to. have this recessed ar wauld yau like to. hear it and then
recess?
Maved by Cauncilwaman Cachran, secanded by Cauncilman Schandebare, it was
RESOLVED that a brief recess be called at this time 9:57 A.M.
Vate af the Tawn Baard: Ayes: Cauncilwaman Cachran, Cauncilman Schandebare,
Cauncilman Stautenburgh, Justice Edwards, Cauncilman Tawnsend, Supervisar Murphy.
This resalutian was declared duly ADOPTED.
Hearing recanvened at 10:00 A.M.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I wauld like to. ask far a resalutian, we are gaing to. give
two. weeks--ar we'll reschedule this hearing far Navember 8th at 9: 30 A.M.
MR. HORTON: I will nat be available that day.
MR. lARK: Whatever day we agree an I wauld like to. pre-emptarily because---
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: We're gaing to. go. ahead an that day.
MR. lARK: Because the meter is running here. Naw, the Building Inspectar can't
be here an that day. What are yau, away in school ar samething?
MR. HORTON: I'll be in lake Placid.
(Discussian cancerning mutually canvenient date far the witnesses and Tawn Baard
to. recanvene this hearing.)
MR. KENNIFF: If I may speak, Mr. Supervisar? My paint is I'm here to. appeal to.
yau, I'm nat here to. play games. It is my intent that if we were delayed here to.
go. see Mr. Hartan and see if I can't rectify what same af the prablems may be with
the buildings. I knaw there are two. buildings that have cantinually been reopened
and windaws braken and "No. Trespassing" signs have been repeatedly remaved.
Sa with thase kind af things I can help, the prablem is that I was nat invalved
with this, my father is and we're not a large carparatian here, he's a man wha's
trying to. sell his praperty, which is taking a lang time.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: We realize that and nabody is aut to. harrass.
MR. KENNIFF: No., I understand that, sir, I understand and I'm just trying--
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: There's quite an invalved thing to. schedule these hearings
and really, in all fairness to. the Tawn Baard, yau were notified just about a manth
aga---
_f
Page 5 - Unsafe BUildit - Marine Associates, Inc.
.
MR. LARK: Well, we have another hearing. If I can suggest that he could
contact his attorney, maybe he could come back---
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Why don't we have another recess to see if you could
get Mr. Esseks to come down here immediately. We'll have the other hearing
and if he's coming, fine. If not, we'll make the decision.
MR. KENNIFF: You're asking if yo~u want him to come this afternoon or when his
earliest available time would be.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: If he could come right now.
MR. KENNIFF: But if he can't, what do I ask then?
MR. LARK: On the 20th. All right, if the 20th is satisfactory then. If he can't
do it today, then the 20th.
COUNCI LMAN TOWNSEND: See if he can schedule his time for the 20th.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I'm not concerned about scheduling his time for the
20th. I want to see if he could come here immediately.
MR. KENNIFF: I understand.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, we'll have the other hearing and if in this period
of time Mr. Esseks can come here and represent you fine, we'll continue with this
hearing, otherwise we're going to put it off to the 20th, I believe, and at that time
if Mr. Esseks can make it or can't make it we really.don't care. Okay?
Moved by Councilwoman Cochran, seconded by Justice Edwards, it was
RESOLVED that this hearing be recessed at 10: 09 A.M., to reconvene later this
morning.
Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilwoman Cochran, Councilman Schondebare,
Councilman Stoutenburgh, Justice Edwards, Councilman Townsend, Supervisor Murphy.
This resolution was declared duly ADOPTED.
Hearing reconvened at 10: 35 A.M.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I reopen the hearing on Marine Associates and I would
like to have a motion to recess this, at this time, to November 20, 1984 at 9: 30
A.M., Southold Town Hall.
Moved by Councilwoman Cochran, seconded by Justice Edwards, it was
RESOLVED that the hearing in the matter of a violation of Chapter 90 (" Unsafe
Building and Collapsed Structures Law of the Town of Southold") of the Code of
the Town of Southold, by Marine Associates, Inc. be and hereby is recessed at
this time until 9:30 A.M., Tuesday, November 20, 1984, Southold Town Hall, Main
Road, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Town Board: Ayes:
Councilman Stoutenburgh, Justice
This resolution was declared duly
Councilwoman Cochran, Councilman Schondebare,
Edwards, Councilman Townsend, Supervisor Murphy.
ADOPTED.
* * *
r.-),r , -/' ~-- .:-~-_
/;~ctdifg:+<~'e~::i)Y. .
Southold Town Clerk'
./
.
.
STEVE G. TSONT AKIS ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers
BOX 1180, 632 ROANOKE A VENUE
RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901
(516) 7277411
1781 KING EDWARD DRIVE
KISSIMMEE. FL. 32741
(305) 846.0455
INSPECTION REPORT (10/19/84)
NORTH FORK SHIPYARD BUILDINGS
Corner of Main Street & First Street
New Suffolk, N.Y.
INTRODUCTION
This inspection as requested by the Southold Town
Building Department was to determine the structural integrity
of five utility buildings located on the south side of Main
Street, New Suffolk, N.Y..
The 5 buildings are of wood construction that were at
one time used as part of a shipyard operation. At the present,
they are vacant and in disrepair.
BUILDING # 1
This shed building is of ordinary wood frame construction
placed on sleepers. One side of the building is open (no siding).
The rafters are undersized and the roof is bellied rendering the
roof weak (see photo #1). The building is located closed to
the water's edge, and with high tides can be flooded.
Since the building is not on a foundation nor tied to the
ground, it can be displaced by a severe storm.
__;t7 ',/ ;~ I :.:;/~~L~I ~
/ !j ::. (! :(Z ~
'-- '-I
["I /'
/.>//?>(,,, ' ,/
L _" ", ".... C:.- L,'(""}<<,,,'
-1- /.~ Il
(.'}- e { ;.<[-'L~-Q- J~-J!--A- c- .
.
.
The open side of this building is allowing exposure of
the interior to the weather. This condition will in a short
time render this building unsafe.
BUILDING #2
This building is of ordinary wood frame construction with
an extension. The original building was built on a brick found-
ation which is quite shallow and in disrepair. The extension
which has no foundation has settled to the point that it is
separating from the main building (see photo #2). The lack of
foundation under the extension has caused severe settling and
this portion of building is separated and in the state of imm-
inent collapse. It is structurally unsound. The condition of
the foundation is with much of the brick loose or missing has
caused a settling of the floor, and the structure is now
canted. The roof is cedar shingles in extreme disrepair with many
shingles missing. There are door openings with no doors.
The main building is not weatherproofed because of the
roof and the water intrusion is causing damage to the floor and
the interior.
It is questionable as to whether this building can survive
a severe storm. It should therefore be repaired immediately
or torn down.
-2-
."
.
.
BUILDING #3
This building is wood framed of post and beam construction.
The building is supported on log wood posts many of which are
rotted out, In particular, the southerly end of the building
is no longer supported by the foundation which has caused severe
settling and deflection of the floor.
The box beam which forms the floor is badly dryrotted
and structurally unsound. This condition has also caused the
rotting of the lower portion of the wall framing and siding
on the westerly side of the building (see photo #3). The east-
erly end of the building is also settled due to the rotted out
foundation posts.
The roof on this building is in fairly good condition.
The lean to which was added to the building has no found-
ation and most of its wall is rotted out or missing causing the
structure to droop making it structurally unsound and in the state
of imminent collapse.
The electrical service to the building is a patchwork of
panels fed by a very old service. None of this system is in
compliance with the Board of Fire Underwriter's Code, therefore,
service would only be connected by LILCO after extensive up-
grading of this service.
-3-
.
.
BUILDING #4
This is a wood frameC! pole building with roof trusses
and a loft. The loft is supported on two steel "I" beams and
masonry piers.
The original frame poles have rotted out and have been
"sistered" by the addition of new poles on the outside of the
building and bolted to the old poles. The new poles are about
20' on center. Since not all the poles were sistered, the rot-
ted intermidate poles have caused the eave beam to bend due
to the excessive, unsupported, span (see photo #4). The ex-
cessive wall high with supports 20' on center and no lateral
bracing has caused the building to lean and walls to deflect
laterally. This leaning condition has resulted in a dangerous
metacentric condition. A severe storm can collapse this building.
The loft is supported on two "I" beams which break the
span of the roof trusses thus forming the floor frame. This
loft floor framing system is in fair condition, but the masonry
columns which support the "I" beams have been erroded at grade
by the sea, leaving large voids in the concrete with the aggregate
being exposed. This in effect has reduced the crossection of the
columns and they are now marginally safe. It also appears that the
footings are shallow with a small ground projection, again
making them very marginal in terms of good bearing capacity.
-4-
."
.
.
The roof is of wood shingles many of which are missing and
loose resulting in water intrusion. The loose shingles can
also blow off during a storm posing a potential hazzard to
people and the surrounding property.
The wall siding is in extreme disrepair with many holes
and there are missing doors (see photo #5).
The westerly side of the building (street) has a concrete
slab which is in fair condition but settled at one corner since
it has no footing or foundation. This condition is placing a
severe strain on the structure which makes this portion of the
building marginal in terms of structural soundness. It is recom-
mended that this building be repaired or torn down.
BUILDING #5
This wood frame building is of pole construction with roof
trusses similar to building #4. The building has fire damage
at the North east portion.
All the poles are rotted at grade and many have failed
allowing the eave beam to drop. The frame is now severely dis-
torted rendering the building structurally unsafe.
Much of the wood shingle roof is missing leaving large
holes in the roof with many loose shingles. A heavy storm would
result in flying shingles. This condition poses a potential
hazzard to the adjoining properties and any people.
-5-
,'"
.
.
The siding is in poor condition with much of it missing
(see photo #6). There are many door and window openings without
doors and windows. This building should be either made safe
immediately or torn down.
SGT/bp
~'-- ~~
Steve G. Tsontakis, P.E.
-6-
NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD
- -..~ >
T.-l'=--
','" '11:'t':~~: I
! \'....l ^ ,
, .
I. I I
,~ . '
. Ii
''''. .--f,:. ,
' .'Y. ~",,:..:' .~~/ ~.!,~~. ."."';,/1'-
--- "~V or- '_.~ _~.
r-.- ., ..:.~ _~;>~,
,. ,> .'.....
.. - ~ .. . ~
, . .t~ '~ . . .. .
. .
,.,
-
II
.
G-
.
.,
,>
#, 1'4, ~ t"'tf~. ~Rflf)
'8vtl-O li'lt, +' ~ ~~/JqI8 If
...-'
~l :
.'
[~.
~~3 H -r- ~t\ \P 'fA~\,)
. . ~ ..., 101
-~t:., _~/()fb.,6"
~Ff N.F, J';JIP'fAe.~
"13L(),, ~ 't. - 1~191g V
NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD
.~ i'/.F, SHIPyf;fl..O
"iltx ~ 5" IO/,q/~~
~& "'"F, Sl-tIPYArt..&.\
13L\)\4 ~I S- lob9/tV.
.
A"..- .~
.
RE: MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC. (NORTH FORK SHIPYARD)
District 1000, Section 117, Block 8, Lot 18
Date of Inspection: August 22, 1984 - 2:30 P.M.
Complaint: Cutchogue Fire Department, Chief Everett Glover
Letter of July 9, 1984
RESULTS OF INSPECTION:
(1) Small Wooden Shed:
No foundation - side wall (east side) large holes
door shot, holes - interior exposed to weather.
Building has been moved by storm
Building structurally unsafe, dangerous, is a
hazard - 90-3.
(2) Paint Shop:
Holes throughout roof
Back - south side - split in two
Foundation rotted; deteriorated - unsafe
Floor rotted away
Rear section ready to collapse
Building structurally unsafe, dangerous 90-3
(3) Machine Shop:
Floor and sills rotted
Northerly support wall
portion of building
area collapsed.
Building structurally unsafe, dangerous
away
removed
to sag;
causing northerly
roof in this
90-3.
(4) Northerly Boat Storage Buildinq:
Support posts and sills are rotted - not supporting
building adequately.
Concrete columns deteriorated, eroded, not properly
supporting 2nd floor steel "I" beam which supports
2nd floor of building. "I" Beam 30" x 50'
Holes in roof and exterior walls exposing interior
to elements.
Building structurally unsafe, dangerous 90-3
/"'- ,:';j// Jy
lJ'",(---71}/j/<-Q (---~){("i,,{-/? ~
Ij,;;;c !/// .
7/c7~:( ;~II:'V'~{7{ ~'!;a/ ~7'<~ <
.
+.,
.
MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page 2
(5) Southerly Boat Storage Building:
East wall not supported
Support posts rotted not supporting building
Large holes in roof (prior fire damage)
Holes in exterior walls all exposing interior to weather
Building unsafe and dangerous 90-3.
General:
Property not fenced
Debris has accumulated
Open to public - needs to be fenced.
All buildings should be demolished and removed
Property to be fenced and secured to keep out public.
~~~d1~
/
r
1
,
,..~ _NIlt: 1b ... I
J~~ IX /J f'f3
/1jC:;o/?Y ,
~~ ~t1l-dUZ'~-> ~~,
If
13
(tv
N fI ;. ( 11 ~. ..~ ..t
If
~;~, uI ~s1' s ",f..(
[
'1--_ S , IJ- s.,- ~4_
~
.
..
.ei7
,
,
.....
- <
- - .
~.c.. S - t,z,jr s.,f- ~
-- -.6
It
I
,. ?"I ~j -t ;-., ri~
~.. Xt*~ --a~ L -.
~~ ~ -'
.b
J~ 7f/~ V/j~
/7/ ~ c!/ j).
/l/c5:?o / c?y ,
~d~/~~. ~
? .
,.... -- ;j'
. .~,
.~')""'~
~.. ~.
-.. - '. .: ..:,;;. \
;~' .
, .
~~ e - ~+s.lt
f
s. ,~"A.
c~,rs ..,1-1
I
/J~e1, r
~-
G
~
-::::>
"
lOll n. J ,')// /?" G-
13t..~1 J'
F
I.
.3 .
/~s
...- II
If' ,J" :,;'
'.
.., 1-..; ",I
.
~~C4~Y//L'
E/~~//
/ (:/~()/# '
7J;~~ t:2d..A/'~~~ v1~.
G)
;. rJa 5./ih
[
~.gT~ 1II;..,'l
qi1llat\L~OI1 ~_!.'1! w~ _.4
..'''''';-- ~.::-=-
~,"" ~ oS
b
11~4 - r- J#.,;;~ I#~ / I
c:----
0~Z~VI/
/1/<05/ %1' .
V1~'
J
I I
~ I
'I''"
e:J~T J:/-I
-/..;1".... - - _
~ - -.-
- "
oG-
&L1)C....~
J:>"
~ -
-,_._"~..
/ ~4'<~
~CY,
/
Q
.
~" - ---
.. 4- "~J ST. ~_
- f
~
,
,.
I I~
. . ~
I
I IlIlt " :'
., I, _,l,r,l 'J,I, .
. filA . - " I '~. -
.l.wt,; II~ ;.~.1\1' I ;,f~,I,i
. ~ I' . Ir~
1 ,,,-' __II
.
I}.t.-' ~ -
(J-
~.
,
WI .L~ r J.. '/../
. -
---"~
~.... 13~& ~
F
~ ~J-r W:zI!
, '1f1
. ~
,
I
't
ff
~~c~ VI/ I L:))~ G) /-/
///~o/fc/,
~/U-d. ~~JV~.
G
1J t-. vi -z:r
"
- ,>,.
t
'.
Jtif'7.1a ..f-/'1I.it"/L ~ IV"..' (
-
J-
,
e;J.S r IV#-II
'"
.- ----~
sui-if - ~
;T
~~~YiL)I~J
ye2oj?F .
'-/J!t2/vV-~ ~?C.~~'
;\I;E c, r-7rJ;"
\
: ~-
. .' (
::--...... -
."' . \
,,_i..,. _ - _~
_'- . ":r__ 4,
~~I
f7--
~ :;'1"~
-*
"
1
- -
- ~--. ..
- --
,- _' - ~_:'[~-'_'.a~
~ - .;. .......;....... ':)ir ., ....--" :-~--.. ~
t3:J.s T ~ ," .L :;;::.3
L3
~ ~9-t:i
C--
::t=r3
~~~~VLJ /I) ~ C
// /610/# .
--:/J(~ ~~~~~,
~
'? ~f11
,~'",=;r" ''fo..r
iA.'{...J --f l ,
~ "
-
})
(',!1"'.}"f'!t ,..'~ .e., ~.;A-t
- --
- .-
" .
~::;- .J.":.. : . .~ .... _... ": -'. ..' .
_ -' .......:-..c.".;;,..._ '";;w_ '.'..
13 .., -= ')
.
E
f~c;L/~ V) / J) E
.!/62CJ / 5~ .
'7?(~;CL-- ~~.;L.-/ / ~.
(!i
~,1.f- yy
9
1\' "." -r J, E -n "
~j
~I
. - .- "-.-==.~~:~",'~ :'-~; :{:-"-:~..\--!.::~~~..:...~--,~~i.~~'"
~..- -,-. -- . '.' '. .'~'. .,c
. -.""'-~ ... .. ~ . . ..,~..~ ftd
): :; ':-~~i.- ....... . !;-;:- '!"_ ",. _.. ~,,~ _.. .._~~"-:.~
'--". - ...;,.. .~~.. .. _"'.t_~
€. "'-.$ r r J-' p( "'C ,/ ... 2...
1_'lLQI.
11
. _.... ." ~ r
--~
8
~ W~$r.J, i~
t1w1-~~
]L
~~~~1)~~c.
~~o/fP .
~~ )V~.
(~
-5 -r6 w/tt II..J
)
-
J",~~
~ ...
[
. ..... - /' ---~ Ot
./!4Ii.~.J.-.- . ..-: "'a~..:
.... .~ '^' - -.......... ....., ;;; -'
. ,13-~~
})
IHTtR~ ~...l.
~ E
~ ~ ~ Eff
[
.... ,.-.........--
..- . ;. ~~. - --~~ = ,....-
#- :o-,-~~~-t~~j.;-;c~~~__-"i~ Z' .'~,
IF
J
~
~~~~~/~/~ r.
/~620 / j/y
'-/J;~
. ~~
/~A /
@
# ( ~LK .. I
- b
~ ).'1 -11
r
~ ).7Jtlr
1
Iil rna /b.JA
fJ
f t1Jr J,'/..(
~
'~~
f
1
C-
t;rf
J~~7VHgC
/ J )
:/jdo/c?~ .
Y{tV~~~/~X-C/'
G
516-734-6907
.
.
UNITED FIB E CO:~1P r'\.N ""')7 NO. 1
CUTCHOGUE FIRE DEPT.
CI.1TClJOG\1}'-:. L. I.. ~. '".11B:i5
July 9, 1924
Southold Building Department
Hain Rd.
Southold, J~e,{ York
Dear Sir;
It has repeatedly come to my attention that a dangerous sit-
uation exists concerning certain structures vithin the Cutchogue
Fire District. I an referring to the vacant buildings in the
area of the North Fork Shipyard on the east side of lstSt
bet"l:leen 1.Iarie and Jackson Streets in Fe" Suffolk. These buildings
are being used as a drinking site by local teenagers and have
been the scene of nunerous fires.
3ecause of these occurrences I DUst identify these structures
as a hazard to the young people \IDO use then to the men of our
department ,mo must provide fire protection in tbe area and to
tbe general public.
For these reasons I hereby request that the Southold Build-
ing Department tcl~e the steps necessary to achieve a permanent
correction of the problen.
Your prompt attention to this matter ,nIl be appreciated.
Please advise me by August 15, 1984 concerning your specific
plans.
~~
E. Glover
Chief of Department
Cutchogue Fire Department
/~jJ7'V 1"'7' 0' X(/",//7'"'
L //f.-",,-__P~,;c '-------
. .
/;/.2 :)/,(:;1
-' . 7-.L-- J
, " / A.., ,-'.'_ ,,'
A;(Y::-:/I(..f.. _</'.AJ~"'.:.-! J,.e;a_,~ ,.-<2-
.
, .'~
. .
.
.
TEL. 765-1802
.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
NOTICE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 90 OF THE CODE
OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Date: August 30, 1984
TO: Marine Associates, Inc.
Main Street
New Suffolk, New York 11956
A. The last Assessment Roll of the Town of Southold shows
that you are the owner of the following described
premises:
ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with
the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate,
lying and being at New Suffolk, Town of Southold, County
of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described
as follows: .
BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of First
Street at the southwest corner of the premises herein
described where the division line between said premises
and land now or formerly of the Radel Oyster Company
adjoining on the south intersects the said easterly side
of First Street1 running thence North 60 54' 30" East
along the easterly side of First Street, 211.02 feet to
the corner formed by the intersection of the easterly side
of First Street with the southerly side of Main Street1
thence South 830 45' East along the southerly side of Main
Street 193.50 feet to the southeast corner of said Main
Street1 thence North 60 IS' East along the easterly end of
Main Street, 49.50 feet to the northeast corner of Main
Street1 thence North 830 45' West along the northerly side
of Main Street, 192.94 feet to the corner formed by the
intersection of the northerly side of Main Street with the
easterly side of First Street; thence along the easterly
side of First Street, North 60 54' 30" East 272.45 feet to
the land formerly of David H. King; thence South 830 47'
30" East along said last mentioned land to peconic Bay;
thence in a general southerly direction along peconic Bay
to the northerly line of land of Radel Oyster Company;
thence along said land of Radel Oyster Company, North 830
OS' 03" West to the easterly side of First Street at the
point or place of BEGINNING.
The above described premises are the same premises
described in a deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's
Office in Liber 9101 page 505.
7//.( ;;;:/ ___
/r:/ - - ,
"" 'dl/
/. '/ // //"/1 .; -7L C'
! .....1. C ,.., _ ,_/::, __ l.. __-'
r--
( ~lr':i,.~~ /~.i.1
'-.. :/-"
,,/ ~~. L
~1i.'J
//'///' ~."c
,. .'
. .
. .
.
.
Also referred to as: Suffolk County Tax Map Designa-
tion: District 1000, Section 117.00, Block 08.00, Lot 018.000
B. (1) The shed marked as Building No.1 on a map of
Roderick Van Tuyl, PC dated August 21, 1982,
(attached hereto as Exhibit 1) is structurally
unsafe and dangerous and as such constitutes a
hazard to safety by reason of inadequate main-
tenance, dilapidation, obsolescence and abandon-
ment. In particular the shed has no foundation
and there are holes in the easterly exterior wall
and doors exposing the interior to the weather.
(2) The Paint Shop marked as Building No.2 on a map
of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC dated August 21, 1982,
(attached hereto as Exhibit 1) is structurally
unsafe and dangerous and as such constitutes a
hazard to safety by reason of inadequate main-
tenance, dilapidation, obsolescence and abandon-
ment. In particular there are holes in the roof
exposing the interior to the weather; the southerly
portion of the building has split away from the
main structure; the foundation has rotted and de-
teriorated.
(3) The Machine Shop marked as Building No.3 on a map
of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC dated August 21, 1982,
(attached hereto as Exhibit 1) is structurally un-
safe and dangerous and as such constitutes a hazard
to safety by reason of inadequate maintenance,
dilapidation, obsolescence and abandonment. In
particular, the floor and sills are rotted; the
northerly side of the building has been removed
causing the northerly portion of the roof to
collapse.
(4) The Northerly Boat Storage Building marked as
Building No. 4 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC
dated August 21, 1982, (attached hereto as Exhibit
1) is structurally unsafe and dangerous and as such
constitutes a hazard to safety by reason of inade-
quate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence and
abandonment. In particular the building support posts
and sills have rotted and deteriorated so they are
not properly supporting the building; the columns
holding the steel girder which supports the second
floor have deteriorated to the point they are not
adequately supporting the second floor; there are
numerous holes in the roof and exterior walls ex-
posing the interior of the structure to the weather.
,
" .
'."
.
.
(5) The Southerly Boat Storage Building marked as
Building No. 5 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC
dated August 21, 1982, (attached hereto as Exhibit
1) is structurally unsafe and dangerous and as such
constitutes a hazard to safety by reason of inade-
quate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence and
abandonment. In particular the support posts and
sills have rotted and deteriorated so they are not
supporting the building: there are large holes in
the roof and exterior walls exposing the interior
to the weather.
(6) The property is not adequately fenced and secured:
debris has been allowed to accumulate on the
premises: the remains of the above-mentioned
buildings have been left exposed allowing the public
to enter the property at will which is dangerous to
their health and safety.
C. You are hereby order to either: demolish and remove the
remains of the shed marked as Building No.1, the paint
shop marked as Building No.2, the machine shop marked as
Building No.3, the northerly boat storage building marked
as Building No. 4 and the southerly boat storage building
marked as Building No. 5 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl
PC, dated August 21, 1982, (attached hereto as Exhibit 1)
or immediately board up these structures in order to pre-
vent any further deterioration, and properly fence and
secure the perimeter of the property to prevent
unauthorized people from entering upon the property.
After this is accomplished if you choose to rebuild and
refurbish these structures, you will have to obtain a
Building Permit from the Southold Town Building
Department.
D. The above work shall commence within ten (10) days from
the date of service of this notice and shall be completed
within thirty (30) days thereafter.
E. In the event you fail to comply with the above, a hearing
will be held before the Southold Town Board concerning
same at 9:30 A.M. on October 23, 1984.
F. If the Southold Town Board after the aforementioned
hearing shall determine that the remains of the structures
are unsafe or dangerous to the public, the Southold Town
Board may order the remains of the structures taken down
and removed.
G. In the event the remains of the structures shall be deter-
mined by the Southold Town Board to be unsafe or dangerous
and in the event of your neglect or refusal to remove or
correct same within the time provided, the Southold Town
,
. .. ,.~
, .
. .
.
.
.
Board may remove such structures by whatever means it
deems appropriate and assess all costs and expenses in-
curred by the Town of Southold in connection with the
proceedings to remove and secure same, including the cost
of actually removing the structures from the premises,
against the land on which the said structures are located.
C,wL11J?lt/ 7tf~
Curt1s W. Horton
Building Inspector
,
i
01
_I
a-il
~!
,
I
,
1
I
i"
I
I
,
I.
i .
I
I
I
I
!
,
"
t\
.
,!
,
I
~
,
I
I
I
I
I
1-U-
1:
J>
n
'"
~
""
'Y
"
b
N. S.(.J8'OO"E.
r.
.~
I:A
2
i!
~
('
'<
tn
N.)
8,
('I
p
~
J
>-.
tn~
,-1
o
iO
~
"
m
(i)
(.
.~
-;
I
I
I
!
N
tn
,--..
." /;If..) '----
''';'''iO'",
(II
l
TI
! .,.~
(;
lr-'
rr:
I
it'l
ie..'
....j
;;>
X
I:!
!:>-
'\J
IQ
'J>
1_,
1 '
!~
~
, .
,-
i...J
.
(J)
.-
OJ
~
," ,
"
, ,
I~
\..
"
.
r
I;ri
, .
: ~'
i'\:
I (c,
I I
i
I
,
!
i
I
I
I.'
i ::
,...
i '.,
I,.')
'.,-
I--'~
~?':
\ ,
I f,"\"J I~'
1.-.
': ') \'
'"
r\
f (~ ~
1 ..
1,""-
i- -.
\
1\
.
r
\
r
r
'\
.
,
, A,--
.
/
1
I,
i "
,
\'
,
I
.
-
FIf25T
~-
<::l
""
~
~~I
~ ~
~fl
~I
~@
o
ilj
;;-
(,"i
i11
~
,.:.
..
~
.:'\;.
~2tI~ .
PAL"'-'
.~
~
"- ':-0,,-,
-...
~~
I
r
~.
I
I
IL'I
I~
"
X.
,Ill
:It.
f-
III
"
k\
~
>'
Z.
-l
Z
fTI
lJI -
r
~
ISO'
I ~':
\ ~~ r
...
..
, .-
.~ ,i...
. "~-
tI\N
.'
~t'~ ~
g ~
R1"
.- r",- "'
'.
.
, .
~
~
fJl
'f11'
Y
I
.
. .
. .
, ot--l
t-.r-~
b' ..("~
N.S-OIl.00.~:::"-'-
.. - .'..
i'
~
i..
',1,
. !lI
....v.....rt,.; .'.'
__.;.Jtt.I..u~_.
,,> - ~
fr,. .--
. .
,
\
~
\~
GJ
H<..:> r fll06..
..... r
"-'41~~-l,.-.-t----- "
~ I' -.
! S ~~ I. "~E'~
'<
""'....
.........~
-~
___ ^'1..
___ I!i:.IiC _ .
.......'"
C'
,..-
It.::
,I
F-
tt
-r::-- \-
T \
t '
. \.
. 11
350 ~_...:..
\
~
C
III
rr'!
,
J
~
9.
1
i
,
I
,
.~
....
dl.
...
fi
-;:
t,
.
.
.~-
'"l
?1
9
\50' -
.
4
. I
/
. 06
"
.--.. .-~A
tf"
C .
F:
l1\
l.
()~
0/;
'"
.~
I
~
~
~
1--~--._-
'"
"
"
'.
.p
#.. ..~
.
/
~
,./'/
/' .
(...--~
(~~_.
....... '- .. ...----
~~-----
~ ...
.~
.
.
STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
TOWN OF SOUTH OLD
x
In the Matter of a Violation of
Chapter 90 of the Code of the
Town of Southold by
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
BY MAILING & POSTING
MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
STATE OF NEW YORK:
ss. :
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK:
CURTIS W. HORTON, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. Deponent is a Building Inspector of the Town of Southold,
is over the age of 18 years, and resides at Mason Drive,
Cutchogue, New York.
2. On the 14th day of September, 1984, deponent served a
copy of Notice Pursuant to Chapter 90 of the Code of the Town of
Southold (The Unsafe Building and Collapsed Structure Law of the
Town of Southold) upon Marine Associates, Inc., Main Street, New
Suffolk, New York 11956, that being the address designated by said
corporation for that purpose, by depositing a true copy of the
same enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper in an
official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the
United States Postal Service at Southold, New York. Said Notice
Pursuant to Chapter 90 of the Code of the Town of Southold was
mailed to Marine Associates, Inc. by Registered Mail, Return
Receipt Requested (Copy of said Receipt is attached hereto).
2. On the 13th day of September, 1984, at 3:34 P.M. de-
ponent posted a true copy of the Notice Pursuant to Chapter 90 of
the Code of the Town of Southold (The Unsafe Building and Collapse
.~8~<07{J c~~;t; II
. /1.2() /~s/ .
/J;'::Z/~(d (2&"lL'l*{,{A',~<.!//c;Lc
"'...
... .
.
.
Structure Law of the Town of Southold) in a conspicuous place on
the premises owned by Marine Associates, Inc. on the easterly
side of First Street, New Suffolk, New York (Suffolk County Tax
Map Designation: District 1000, Section 117.00, Block 08.00,
Lot 018.000).
~/lP ~ 7/~-')
Curtls W. Horton
Sworn to before me this
20th day of September, 1984.
~~
Notary Public
f'P'-' - BABETTE COIlNINE
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York
Suffolk County Ne. 52-5792800 ,f(,.
Commission Expires Ma;\~h 30, 19_
..
.'
,
,.
.
- ~-
- -
--- --
- - .-
"
~ 0 SENDER: Complete nems 1, 2, 3, and 4.
~ AcId your address In the" RETURN TO"
space on reverse.
~. (CDHSULTPDSTMASlER FOR FEES)
t 1. The loUOWlngservk:e 1$ requested (chtCk one).
~ IXl shCWto~manddatedollvered ...........~... -'
N 0 ShOWlO"""'m. dale, andaddresso1dallvel'/.. -'
2.0 RESTRICTEDIlEUVERV........................... -'
(ThemtrltleddeflW'1reelscharg6d/lladd/fiOO
10 Uleteruitl reteiptl8ll.)
TOTAL $
3. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO:
Marine AssOC. Inc.
Main st.
6. ADDRESSEE'S ADDRESS rOnIy.......
~
c
"
z
"
III
I!!
~
7. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE:
." GPO: 1982-3>>593
~
-
/1' 13 ! All Entries MUST be in 8all Point or Typed
~iX CUltomer Completion
<...
-0 PII'Q~'" Prill I
!I TO FROM
. "" .
(1)
:;:
:II ({.l 1
PI " ~
.. ..., ~
!;;'
I ~
... f-' ~ ~ .
0:><'
:II
:II ""
:!l "" p F
~= ~ I
~.. . f' 'to;:! I 0_
i'~ r (1) i:j-:!'O
IO I "--
<T .t.1'1 C ;. -
.~ I~ ~ ~
:::t,~ I
5_ n Ii " ~
H' ~N N
~~ ~:U :u ::r: I
",,, n
~ ~ v,o " 0 l> .
, " 0 .., -; :II
~ < 0.0 0 " "
-=, m m <T
~ 0 0:
::> ...'
"
.
.
.
WI LLIAM W. ESSEKS
MARCIA Z. HEFTER
CHARLES R. CUDDY
STEPHEN R. ANGEL
ESSEKS, HEFTER, CUDDY &. ANGEL
COUNSELORS AT LAW
108 EAST MAIN STREET
P. O. Box 279
RIVERHEAD, N. Y. 11901
(516) 369-1700
WATER MILL OFFICE
MONTAUK HIGHWAY
TElEX-EHCA 6852318 UW
P. O. Box 570
WATER MilL, N. Y. 11976
(516) 726-6633
JAMES HEF"FRON
RECEIVED
//~-;p, Il{
NOV 1 9 tl84 .
Y'1/L-1~'>0"'C'~
T OlYn Clerk Southold
November 16, 1984
Town Board
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Complaint against Marine Associates Inc.
Dear Town Board Members:
Considering the alternatives available to Marine Associates
relative to the complaint made against it by the Town, it has
decided to take down the buildings in a manner designed to salvage
trusses and beams and the exterior siding for the purpose of
resale in order to minimize the economic loss.
I believe that a reasonable period of time in which is effectuate
the orderly demolition of the buildings commencing on November 21,
1984 is required. Accordingly, I ask that the proceeding either
be withdrawn, with leave to reassert, or adjourned for a period of
time so that there can be 45 working days available to the
contractors to effectuate the orderly demolition of the improve-
ments.
I await your advice.
Very truly yours,
J.(:v...:. \1', ~l
william W. Esseks
WWE:cf
Copy: Marine Associates Inc.
, _;{;;:~'(' ('- /~ ~i
V. / / '
/'. /. /,"'" ,
: / /~~. /<:'(" / -~-
.//
/ -/
'/) /1V
/
C ,/1>{'~~'/-JL'{
, .
u~ ~tj<,,"
-/-
//,..2--
",tJ A C.
, ~
'"
. (,
\
.
.
TEL. 765-1802
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
NOTICE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 90 OF THE CODE
OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Date: August 30, 1984
TO: Marine Associates, Inc.
Main Street
New Suffolk, New York 11956
A. The last Assessment Roll of the Town of Southold shows
that you are the owner of the following described
premises:
ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with
the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate,
lying and being at New Suffolk, Town of Southold, County
of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described
as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of First
Street at the southwest corner of the premises herein
described where the division line between said premises
and land now or formerly of the Radel Oyster Company
adjoining on the south intersects the said easterly side
of First Street; running thence North 60 54' 30" Ea.st
along the easterly side of First Street, 211.02 feet to
the corner formed by the intersection of the easterly side
of First Street with the southerly side of Main Street;
thence South 830 45' East along the southerly side of Main
Street 193.50 feet to the southeast corner of said Main
Street; thence North 60 15' East along the easterly end of
Main Street, 49.50 feet to the northeast corner of Main
Street; thence North 830 45' West along the northerly side
of Main Street, 192.94 feet to the corner formed by the
intersection of the northerly side of Main Street with the
easterly side of First Street; thence along the easterly
side of First Street, North 60 54' 30" East 272.45 feet to
the land formerly of David H. King; thence South 830 47'
30" East along said last mentioned land to peconic Bay;
thence in a general southerly direction along peconic Bay
to the northerly line of land of Radel Oyster Company;
thence along said land of Radel Oyster Company, North 830
05' 03" West to the easterly side of First Street at the
point or place of BEGINNING.
The above described premises are the same premises
described in, a deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's
Office in Liber 9101 page 505.
....-..:.. ~>
"
~,
.
.
.
Also referred to as: Suffolk County Tax Map Designa-
tion: District 1000, Section 117.00, Block 08.00, Lot 018.000
B. (1) The shed marked as Building No. 1 on a map of
Roderick Van Tuyl, PC dated August 21, 1982,
(attached hereto as Exhibit 1) is structurally
unsafe and dangerous and as such constitutes a
hazard to safety by reason of inadequate main-
tenance, dilapidation, obsolescence and abandon-
ment. In particular the shed has no foundation
and there are holes in the easterly exterior wall
and doors exposing the interior to the weather.
(2) The Paint Shop marked as Building No.2 on a map
of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC dated August 21, 1982,
(attached hereto as Exhibit 1) is structurally
unsafe and dangerous and as such constitutes a
hazard to safety by reason of inadequate main-
tenance, dilapidation, obsolescence and abandon-
ment. In particular there are holes in the roof
exposing the interior to the weather; the southerly
portion of the building has split away from the
main structure; the foundation has rotted and de-
teriorated.
(3) The Machine Shop marked as Building No.3 on a map
of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC dated August 21, 1982,
(attached hereto as Exhibit 1) is structurally un-
safe and dangerous and as such constitutes a hazard
to safety by reason of inadequate maintenance,
dilapidation, obsolescence and abandonment. In
particular, the floor and sills are rotted; the
northerly side of the building has been removed
causing the northerly portion of the roof to
collapse.
(4) The Northerly Boat Storage Building marked as
Building No. 4 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC
dated August 21, 1982, (attached hereto as Exhibit
1) is structurally unsafe and dangerous and as such
constitutes a hazard to safety by reason of inade-
quate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence and
abandonment. In particular the building support posts
and sills have rotted and deteriorated so they are
not properly supporting the building; the columns
holding the steel girder which supports the second
floor have deteriorated to the point they are not
adequately supporting the second floor; there are
numerous holes in the roof and exterior walls ex-
posing the interior of the structure to the weather.
.,~'-;
...~' ...)
.
.
.
(5) The Southerly Boat Storage Building marked as
Building No. 5 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl, PC
dated August 21, 1982, (attached hereto as Exhibit
1) is structurally unsafe and dangerous and as such
constitutes a hazard to safety by reason of inade-
quate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence and
abandonment. In particular the support posts and
sills have rotted and deteriorated so they are not
supporting the building; there are large holes in
the roof and exterior walls exposing the interior
to the weather.
(6) The property is not adequately fenced and secured;
debris has been allowed to accumulate on the
premises; the remains of the above-mentioned
buildings have been left exposed allowing the public
to enter the property at will which is dangerous to
their health and safety.
C. You are hereby order to either: demolish and remove the
remains of the shed marked as Building No.1, the paint
shop marked as Building No.2, the machine shop marked as
Building No.3, the northerly boat storage building marked
as Building No. 4 and the southerly boat storage building
marked as Building No. 5 on a map of Roderick Van Tuyl
PC, dated August 21, 1982, (attached hereto as Exhibit 1)
or immediately board up these structures in order to pre-
vent any further deterioration, and properly fence and
secure the perimeter of the property to prevent
unauthorized people from entering upon the property.
After this is accomplished if you choose to rebuild and
refurbish these structures, you will have to obtain a
Building Permit from the Southold Town Building
Department.
D. The above work shall commence within ten (10) days from
the date of service of this notice and shall be completed
within thirty (30) days thereafter.
E. In the event you fail to comply with the above, a hearing
will be held before the Southold Town Board concerning
same at 9:30 A.M. on October 23, 1984.
F. If the Southold Town Board after the aforementioned
hearing shall determine that the remains of the structures
are unsafe or dangerous to the public, the Southold Town
Board may order the remains of the structures taken down
and removed.
G. In the event the remains of the structures shall be deter-
mined by the Southold Town Board to be unsafe or dangerous
and in the event of your neglect or refusal to remove or
correct same within the time provided, the Southold Town
.., III ~
.
.
.
Board may remove such structures by whatever means it
deems appropriate and assess all costs and expenses in-
curred by the Town of Southold in connection with the
proceedings to remove and secure same, including the cost
of actually removing the structures from the premises,
against the land on which the said structures are located.
~~~*~ozq;~
Building Inspector
,\ ,
\~
"\"\',
, .
"
. ,:':.~.?=;[~~-.:-
'I
..~~a~~....................
;;/d~&~4..~~
M6~' n(A~. solution-Offered by."
, If D l Seconded by
\0
Roll-Call For Adoption
4a'U~L a~cca<<<2
;&. cc .j -L-. 7.' .i,-7
Yes No :\bsuin Present Absent
COUNCILWOMAN COCHRAN ,/
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE V
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH V
JUSTICE EDWARDS V
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND V
SUPERVISOR MURPHY /
TOTAL
...b.Yes ..........No ..........Absent ..........Abstlin
___Resolution dec1are~- Lost "
Motion-Resolution-Offered by ..........~~.a.~t...<--......
L~~a/z-~~
Seconded by .. ........... ......................-.......-. .... ....
Roll-Call For Adoption
~ -;t; /l /
- - . c. _ ,:1::1 t !.L---
LJzC{/4.-.J/ /t/ /07
/ ' f(.
'J J ie: '),i '1-: Yes AbstaIn Present Absent
It O. (, ,:)(i/'_, , I, ,,,/) No
COUNCI LWOMAN COCHRAN \/
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE V
COUNCILMAN STDUTENBURGH ;/
JUSTiCE EDWARDS V
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND L/
SUPERVISOR MURPHY V
TOTAL
/
..(;2..Yes ..........No ..........Absent ....."... Abstain
_ Resolution declaredp - lost \1
MOt;On-~esolut;On-Offe'''' by "C~~U
6~ ~
Seconded by .....~~L:.(/~0:::J:4?~~:. .
Roll-Call For Adoption
1/ _1-- //~') / ,rt/
/Ct~J~ ~ ." /0) L:;
9; og () p77L
~ Yes ~o AbstaIn Present Absent
COUNCI LWOMAN COCHRAN ~/
COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE V
COUNCILMAN STOUTENBURGH ~
JUSTICE EDWARDS
t/
COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND 1./
SUPERVISOR MURPHY !.~
TOTAL
...IeYes ..........No ..........Absent ..........Abstain
Resolution declar~l- Lost___ ..J
.
.
f;~17.4(
/~3j5fL
RICHARD F. L.ARK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
MAIN ROAD - P. O. BOX 973
CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935
TELEPHONE !Ste 734.6807
September 20, 1984
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road - Town Hall
Southold, New York 11971
RE: Marine Associates, Inc.
ATT: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
Dear Mrs. Terry:
As you know, a Town Board hearing has been scheduled on
the above-captioned matter for Tuesday, October 23, 1984,
at 9:30 A.M., and accordingly, I am enclosing the following:
1. Notice Pursuant to Chapter 90 of the Code
of the Town of Southold dated August 30, 1984
signed by Curtis W. Horton.
2. Affidavit of Service by Mailing and Posting
sworn to by Curtis W. Horton on September 20,
1984.
If you require any further information or have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
RFL : bc
Enclosures
.
.
RICHARD F. LARK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
MAIN ROAD - P. O. BOX 973
CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935
TELEPHONE 516 734.6807
September 20, 1984
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road - Town Hall
Southold, New York 11971
RE: Marine Associates, Inc.
ATT: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk
Dear Mrs. Terry:
As you know, a Town Board hearing has been scheduled on
the above-captioned matter for Tuesday, October 23, 1984,
at 9:30 A.M., and accordingly, I am enclosing the following:
1. Notice Pursuant to Chapter 90 of the Code
of the Town of Southold dated August 30, 1984
signed by Curtis W. Horton.
2. Affidavit of Service by Mailing and Posting
sworn to by Curtis W. Horton on September 20,
1984.
If you require any further information or have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
ver#uou~:a
J5:rfF. ~/
RFL : bc
Enclosures