Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/18/1988 Hearing TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1988 Appl. No. 3702 Applicant(s): OLGA CORDES Location of PropeHty: S/s Sterling Road (Nassau Farms) Cutchogue County Tax Map ID No. 1000- Board Members present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: (None) Also present: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski~ Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the records CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of survey which was done in pen indicating some revisions on it. The ~house lot which is approximate- ly}~ in its proposed setting as it is the nature of this app±cation because we~re really .... The nature of th~ application is setting one lot off from the other~ Well, both lots are actually set off as proposed. The house lot as being proposed of 26,750 square feet plus or minus and the lot number 17 with its revisions go back from Old Farm Map No. 49 being 17,300 square feet as proposed. And we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and sur- rounding properties in the area. Who would like to speak on behalf of this? Mr. Peters. MR. PETERS: I'm here representing Mrs. Olga Cordes. We're here to answer any questions that anyone might have in this regard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Reading your letter Mr. Peters and dealing with the situation, I think you are aware of the fact that we presently have two acre zoning. Ok. Is there some other way other than sub- division that we could possibly avail this lady as being a resident in the Town of Southold and then running on the question~ possibly the situation of an accessory apartment as opposed to the situation that exists here? MR. PETER: You're talking about an addition of converting a one family house to a two family house? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER. No. The accessory apartment is not a tw~ family house. It's basically, what in effect it is, an apartment addition. It's not an addition but it's using the existing per~- meters of the house. Paqe 2 - February 18, 1988 Public Hearing - Mrs. Olga Cordes Southold Town Z.B.A. -5- MR. PETERS: There~is not enough room in that house. It's presently a one bedroom and one bunk house. You would have to have an addi- tion to it to convert it to an accessory apartment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So therefore, what you're saying to me is that this is the avenue that this woman has at this particular time. MR. PETERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything else you'd like to say con- cerning this application? Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. -6- TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1988 Appl. No.: 3709 Applicant(s): EDWARD AND ORTRUD HANUS Location of Property: 635 Lupton's Point Road~ Mattituck County Tax Map ID No.: 1000-115-11-3 Board Members Present: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent: (None) Also Present: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B. A., Secretary and approximately persons inthe audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey on this one dated February 11, 1969 from Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicating a two story framed dwelling. It's approximately in the center of the property. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard on this application? The Hanus' have asked for a postponement on this application and it's predicated on two things. The first thing is; we've received a couple letters from the surrounding property owners indicating that several people have been or are presently on vacation and threfore, unable to speak on this application. So that. is the first thing. And the second one is a letter from the Hanus' which. actually request it based upon the fact that the neighbors are not here. So I will recess this meeting until the April meeting. Ail in favor - AYE. -7- TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1988 Appl. No. 3699 Applicant(s): Edward and Barbara Betsch Location of Property: N/s Rabbit Lane, East Marion County Tax Map ID No. 1000-31-17-15 Board Members Present: Chairman iGe~ard p. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent: (None) Also present: Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a sketch of a survey, ~ost recent date is October 2, 1984 indicating a one story framed house sus- pended on cement blocks~ cement pilings, cement block pilings and a framed garage. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone who would like to be heard? MS. CAHALAN: Good evening. I'm the attorney for the Betsch~s. I recently broke my jaw and I can not speak at all. I prepared a written statement if I may hand it up. If you have any ques- tions, Mr. Betsch would like to respond. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Betsch, how are you? was out to your property twice looking at it and the only par- ticular problem that I have is that it would be relatively close to that property line. And the Board basically feels, and this is just a generalization, not specifically concerning your appli- cation, that we want property owners (almost in all cases) to be able to service their houses around the perifery without using their neighbor's property. Now, there is somewhat a unique set of circumstances in this particular house in the respect that it is on cement block pilings and it is a little bit higher than some of the houses in the area. So in measuring the 12 feet 8 inches, it makes it a little difficult to tell us in visualizing how far 12 feet we can measure it but we can not specifically tell you that if you were to walk on your side of the house if we ac- tually granted this application if the ladder would end up on your property or your neighbor's. Pa~ge 2 - February 18, 1988 -8- Public Hearing - Edward and Barbara Betsch Southold Z.B.A. MR. BETSCH: It will be three almost four feet on the side going through. Than's how much that will be left on that side. I think it's 3°9 or somthing like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it's been the nature of the Board and I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm speaking in just in the matter of philosphy, that five feet usually is the Closest that we grant in applications of that particular nature. And I'm just mentioning this to you at this particular time. And if you'd like tO illicit any response concerning that. MR. BETSCH: Well, the only thing I can say is that there were pic- tures submitted with this. The houses around there, some of those houses only have maybe a foot to two feet between. I'm mean, I don't think i'm asking for anything that nobody else has in that area. Some are right next to each other. So it's not effecting anybody around it. I'm not doing anything strange or asking anything like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, can i ask you a favor and I don't usually ask this of an applicant? Could you nail a two by four on the front Of that house going 12 foot 8 inches over to the west? So that we might be able to adjust where that 12 foot 8 inches is. And if we feel that you can get the proper maintenance on your house on that side. MR. BETSCH: Well, if you look at, I don't know if you have the plan there, actually-where the house is squared off. The original house now is only seven feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. I completely understand that. But you're asking to go very close to that property on that one side. And we're not talking about a relatively wide lot anyway. I think the lot is 40 something feet. 45. I think I~wouid get a better per- spective. You don't have to nail a two by four. You can put a stake in the ground if you can drive one in at this time. But I have 'trou- ble understanding if you're going to be able to service that house from that particular side. And if you do it in the next week or so and I'll take another run out there and takeda look at it. If wouldn't mind. Any way you can put that stake in so that we can adjust and see if we feel that 3.9 feet or 3 foot 9 inches is enough. MR. BETSCH: I'll put it right in front of the house there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's where the greatest impact visually is. Not from the rear of the house. I thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Ail in favor - AYE. 9 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1988 Appl. No. 3607 Applicant(s): JAMES O'NEILL AND PETER McSHERRY Location of Property: N/s Wiggins St. and W/s 8th St., Greenport County Tax Map ID No. 1000-48-1-22 Board members present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer and Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. Absent was: Executive Administrator Victor Lessard (Building Dept.) Also present was Linda Kowalski, ZoB.A~ Secretary, and approximately 35 persons in the audience at this time. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:52 o'clock p.m. and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey with a most recent date was mapped July 30, 1984 by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. which indi- cates lot number 1; 10,111 square feet and lot number 2; 2,343 square feet. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard Mr. Moore? MR. MOORE: I have a different survey. I don't know where those numbers are from. I'll show you the one I've got. A copy of which I sent to Linda which should have been sent with the better ones along with it. But in any event, sorry about this confusion. Mr. VanTuyl had originally drawn the one, I believe that you,'~e looking at, without having located the septics. We're still working from the same survey. It was last amended February 9~ 1987 to show two lots. One of 9232 square feet as lot n6mber 1 and the second one to be 3228 square feet. That line was redrawn in such a way that split the septic systems as they are used by both houses. They are separate systems but all the rings were put in one place in the back. The survey I have given to you was drawn with the existing location of those pools in mind. The previous one didn't have located at the time the rings. So there was a line parallel to Wiggins Street. We originally considered and applied to the Health Department for making lots one and two of equal size along the lines of the. 01d ~ub- division. In fact, this survey shows that dashed line continuing north as to how these lots could have been divided into two equal parcels as they had been back on the subdivision map in the 1800~s. The Health Department however, did not Consent.to the granting of an easement across what would be lot number two for that existing septic system. In addition, the water line runs (presently) fr~n the main that's shown there on Wiggins Street up along that .house on lot number two and it split off from there to house number one and Greenport had it tkatway. The county ~didn"t like "it ~ithe~. -10- ?a~e 2 - February 18, 1988 Public Hearing - James O'Neill and Peter McSherry Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. MOORE (continued): They wanted separate water and they want us to relocate it. This property break up then~ takes into account the existing water and sep- tic systems there. And also, the actual manner in Which the proper- ty has been used. Specifically, had we gone with the two lot of equal size, as you stepped up on the back of the larger home, you would be stepping on the property line if we went to equal lot sizes. In addition, the garage which' is shown in the northwest corner of the property is used in conjunction with the larger home. There's a driveway there which is dirt rutted and the garage door fronts on Eighth Street. So the actual way the property is usec% suggests a configuration along the lines which we've got here~ a nd with the difficulties of the Health Department, this enables us to retain the septic systems as they are. We will have to relocate the water line and we show a proposed water line on this survey to service that separate dwelling. I understand the Board prefers, when splitting up property, as does the Planning Board, to make them of an equal size. I give you this background so you can see that there was a lot of thought and time with the Health Department in trying to come up with a way we could ~ave done equal size lots. They were only willing to do it ~by easement and would have insisted upon relocation of the septic systems and water as well. The water is .far easier. The variance is appropriate to divide these two properties primarily because the dwellings exist already. Unlike the case where someone wants to peel off a piece of property and make it a vacant lot to then sell or build on. We already have the two dwellings here. So I don't think it 'makes a lot of difference which actual configuration you give to the lot for the reasons cited of the Health Department ~- the septic and the water. I w~uld request that you approve it as we have submitted it here. In addi- tion, by creating two lots each with a separate dwell~ing, .w.e ar.e alimi~ating~one no~confor~tv while creating some others; the eliminating o~ one noncon- Torm~y ~s nawngswo ~w_e. ii~ngs on, one_- ~ pzece o~ ~'oper~y. we mo ge~ r~m oz that one, granted we do come up with undersized lots but I would suggest that by approving such a subdivision, you will open up the ability to sell the house at lot number two. I don't know. if that's their intention but at least it could be done easily. A house in that neighborhood, a lot of that size, certainly, can not go for some tremendous dollar figure~ And by so splitting these properties into two pieces, you have created the ability to sell off one house hopefully in a market area that is under-emphasized or has a shortage of housing now. I'm not sayihg that clearly. But I'm trying to suggest that this lot could be sold more cheaply than to someone who could not afford to buy this property with two houses on it~ lhe character of the district where this property is located Will not be effected. The lots in this entire area up and down these streets are undersized having been divided years and years ago. So that w~ are not cre- ating some tiny little set of properties where there are large properties in surrounding areas. I have nothing further to add. If there are any questions~ I'll be happy to answer. -11- ' ~age 3 - February 18, 1988 Public Hearing - James O'Neill and Peter McSHerry Southold Town Z.B.Ao CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: these buildings? Can you supply us with any pre-c.o.'s on MR. MOORE: That was right there with the letter that never ma- terialized. I have one. I can give you the one c.o. I got from Southold. It's the only one I've got. If you want to take it and I'll come photocopy it from you, that's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see you don'~ have the C.0. for me to ques- tion you ,about it (joking]y). MR. MOORE: I don't know how well written that'is. It says two family dwelling. I will have to f0]]0w to see if that's two single family dwellings or a two family dwelling. This copy of the c.o. was acquired from another file. It means I won't explain how ~ got it. CHAIRMAI~ GOEHRINGER: Is the 'present two story house which is the main house, wi~h 'a larger house on the larger piece of property ~ i$ ~ that presently a two family dwelling? MR. MOORE~ It's separated where they had two apartments in there. With two dwelling units in there. Yes. So I can't tell by reading that right now. I will follow it up. I believe St covers the en- tire parcel because that's one dated 1977 and it was for one piece of property. These gentlemen finance with a local bank. And at that time the bank closed and the bank typically calls the Build- ing Department to make sure that c.o. covered the structures that are on the property. And I speak from personal knowledge of that one. ~ will double check and make sure that's there no other c.o. floating around. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the cottage? And will you supply us with a pre-c.o, on MR. MOORE: I believe that one covers it. If it doesn't I will get you that one. I think that one document has covered it - the tw0-fami]y is meant to cover the entire piece of property. If it doesn't, I will get what you need for that. In addition, Linda Kowalski had requested of me, and I do not have it at this time, the square foot- ages of the house. I presume, you mean the envelope that surveyors would determine for me for purposes of the lot coverage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of the ground floor living area. MR. MOORE: I started thinking about second floors and everything else because I thought that was what you were asking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It will probably cover porticos. There's a porch on those big two story houses. My question to you, would you like us to deny this application if we don't so approve it, which seems to be a rather redundant statement. However, what I mean is would you like us to deal with alternate relief or would you like us to flat out and deny it if we-don't care for your sub- division? -12- ~pa.?e~4 - February 18, 1988 Public Hearing - James O'Neill and Peter McSherry Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. MOORE: Unfortunately, my client is out of the~country and I couldn't ask him that question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have a couple of weeks to get back to us. MR. MOORE: I will do that. Thank you. Is there any suggestion on the alternative that I migh~ pass back to him? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Increase the square footage on lot number two. MR. MOORE: Ok. Perhaps that may be done hy extending the northerly boundary line of lot number two parallel to Wiggins Street. CHAIRMAN-GOEHRINGER: No~ I was thinking more on this line if you want to take a look at it, MR~ MOORE: Lot' #2~ Actually run it up this way. _ CHA'IRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. You're going to nave to play with some septic systems. No question. But I'd like to know how much square footage is in there anyway. So maybe you could mention that to '.him. So if we attempt to close this hearing, we will close it pending the receipt of any pre-c.c. 's that maybe hanging around and any changes of lot lines. Now, I don't know if we should close it or recess it until the next meeting to just collect that '.information and then close it. Can we recess it until the April meeting? MR. MOORE: Sure. SECRETARY: We could add it to the meeting on the 3rd or 4th. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Or March 4th. We're going to have a special meeting on March 4th which is two weeks from tonight. May- be the 3rd or the 4th. MR. MOORE: I should be able to get an answer from these guys before then. lhank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further questions, I'll recess this hear- ing until March 3rd or 4th. MSMBER SAWICKI: Second. All in favor - AYE. (All) Corrections after comparing typed copy wi th recorded tape. ~inda Kowal s~i -13- TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1988 Appl. No.: 3633 and 3636 Applicant(s): TARTAN OIL CORP. Location of Property: S/s Main Road, W/s Marratooka Lane and E/s of Sunset Avenue, Mattituck. County Tax Map ID No. 1000-115-3-9 Board Members Present: Chairman G e~a~id P~. Goehringer, Members: Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and~Sawicki. Absent: (None) Also Present: Vi~tor Lessard (Building Dept.) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A., Secretary and approximately 45 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearin~ at 8:]0o'ciock p.m. and read the notice of hearin~ and applicationSfor the record° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated 2/2/87 from Petroleum Associates. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard sir? MR. MOORE: Where would you like to begin with respect to the self-service end of the application CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll go with th~ self-service first-- if that d0esn't cause a pr0b]em. MR. MOORE: The partial Self-service requirements are set forth 'in the code in Section 100-70 subparagraph number 5. And they set forth a series of requirements running A-G. Very quickly, the applicant will comply with each and every one of those re- quirements set forth in the code to get the permission for the self-service. An attendant will be on duty when this station is open. The attendant can supervise the shut off control. The control console inside shall pr0vide a viewfor the attendant of thee pumps outdoors. The pump can only operate when the nozzles are removed from the pump itself. Automatic fire sUpp~es$~o~ sys- tem is in. The self-service is only available to those with a valid driver's license and there is to be no locking latches where he can keep the pumps open and the lock unfastened on those pumps which will be designated self-service. Each of those are requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance for a self-serve use® Self-services, as you're probably well aware, has become Page 2 - February 18, 1988 -14- PUblic Hearing - Tartan Oil Corp. Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. MOORE: (continued) the bulk of gas sales today. It's estimated that in excess of 70~of gas salesare done in a self-service fashion. People prefer to save the nickel a gallon or dime a gallon. There are sales records that indicate 95% of gas sales are in a self-ser- vice fashion. People of all ages, young and old ask how to use the thing and they go up there and do it. That's what they want to do. So their request for self-service and the partial self service request we have tonight is a reflection of the economic demands and the preferences of a motoring public that wants or prefers self-service over full-service if it saves them money. The conversion of the existing station which as a gas station, predates, zoning. To include self-serve along with full-serve, it will not in anyway prevent the orderly and reasonable use of the adjacent property. The companies that put in these new high tech gas pumps, simply shift shifts and provide self-serve. So something going from a full-serve pump to a self-serve pump really has no impact on the use of the property persay. We had some complaints from the neighbors about the use of the property out there. There are some~speakers out there and I got a copy of the letter in June. It was addressed to the Zoning Board and the speakers were turned down. Lights in the back were kept off. We're still working on site plan discussions with the Planning Board. I should p~int out that tonight, Linda Kow~lski was kind enough to give me a copy we hadn't rec~ived~ at 7:20 p.m. tonight from the Town Planner indicating her comments about the uses on the property. I'd like to be able to respond to those at another time. Basically, the code sets forth the criteria to operate a self-service station and the applicant will in fact do so. He has done so at his other station and would ask that you favorably grant the request of self-service use here on this piece of property. Any questions with respect to self-service before we go on? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that the diesel and the kero- sene will be self-service also. MR. MOORE: That is a request. We disagree on the interpreta- tion of the ordinance with respect to the decision granted at the Peconic Mobile Station. I might come back and ask you to reconsider that in light of an overall definition of gasoline products. You recall obviously, that the definition precluded diesel and kero. I would point out that this station, the Building Code now requires and there have been installed, fire s~presSion Of diesel and kero as well. If that's a concern. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is on this station? MR. MOORE: There is fire sup~ession there. Page 3 - February 18, 1988 -15- Public Hearing - Tartan Oil Corp. Southold Town Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where does it come out? It's not overhead because there's no overhead canopy there. MR. MOORE: There are apparQntly pipes. They do overhang. So there is a supresslon system there. It's not just a fire extinguisher which is also on the islands. I would ask that you reconsider that distinction made between and diesel and kero as non-gasoline products. Particularly in light of the fact that the big bulk of the diesel users are truck drivers and they prefer to pump it themselves. The other side to that is the owner of the car that takes diesel really shouldn't be penalized paying the full-service price if he can go out there and pump it himself. The fire supression there may elleviate the concern you had on that. I've prepared a memorandum for your consideration that I will summarize, (I will give you all copies of it) with respect to the accessory use request for the convenience store and where that's gone and where it's going. I will do that now. I would ask that this be made part of the record. I promise not to read it. I will summarize. With respect to the accessory use; a little background. A building permit was requested to do renovations at the location and to install a canopy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm glad you brought that up. MR. MOORE: At the time the request was made, there was no indi- cation at all that the use, as a use, would cause in any way a retail shopping center which was indicated in the notice of this approval which came after the discussions about the building per- mit and the applications of the town for a building permit. In other words, the building permit was for the canopy and renova- tions and there was no discussion at that time, that this would be deemed a retail shopping center and there was no indication that in fact, the renovations were going to be denied or the question of the renovations were going to be denied. Based upon conservation with the Building Department that I'd had, the ap- plicant went ahead and ordered equipment and materials for %hat use because the use itself, was not in question. Now, the de- gree of the renovations was what may or may not have required a building permit. So apparantly, they got dissected and the Build- ing Department granted a building permit for the canapy and then realized that the convenience store in conjunction with the gas station was under the interpretations of the past of the town or the Zoning Department, deemed a retail shopping center. That was a surprise to me when the notice of disapproval did come and the materials were already ordered and installed. If the necessary permit for the renovations as renovations go was required or is required, it would be obtained in the Zoning Department. So in the failure or the absence of the building permit for renovations persay, will be cured. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The renovations of the retail store. -16- Page 4 - February 18, 1988 Public Hearing - Tartan Oil Corp. Southold Town Z.B.A. MR. MOORE: That's correct. The interior renovations that were done. to the extent that those renovations required a building permit but was done, that will be obtained and that will require some discussion with the fellows who came in and did the work and get the application from the Building Department. That will be taken care of. More importantly though, it becomes the use. And the reason the building permit was denied and the cited rea- son was that a convenience store operating or I should say a gas station operation in conjunction with a convenience store, con- stitutes a retail shopping center. I must submit to you that that is an incredible interpretation. I don't know whether the Board agrees. I find it hard. the memorandum addresses that. I would suggest, based upon a decision of this Board for an exactly similiar type of request by the Ocean I. lgen, down the street. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Texaco Station coming into town." MR. MOORE: Yes. Right. In Mattituck. They came in requesting exactly the same type of a use on the grounds that it was a re- tail shopping center. And apparently when we were given the go ahead on the building permit for the canopy, that interpretation had been forgotten about with the Building Department. It came in a notice of disapproval to me afterwards and that was quite a surprise. In any event, this Board in its decision, I think, properly recognized that a convenience store is accessory and is incidental to the gasoline station and that is exactly what is going on at this location. Now, as far as a use goes, the zoning ordinance states in 100-70 that accessory uses do not require the approval of either the Zoning Board of Appeals or th Planning Board. They're listed in separate paragraphs and are customary and incidenEal to. So there's no need for the use to be approved. Reading your decision on the Texaco station, recognizes this as an accessory use, is completely logical. It made unnecessary, I think, they requested a variance which is that 100-62 paragraph B; one acre of permit for retail shopping center. Once you have decided or agreed that the convenience store is accessory to and incidental to the gasoline station, you're' no longer talking about a retail shopping center which by the way, is not very well defined in the code. It certainly does not appear in Section 13 which ms the definitional section in the ordinance 113. It appears mn 100-62 itself and the definition is simplical. You're not supposed to use the word in defining in a defintion because it doesn't help people later one. And what 100-62 says is that a re5ail shopping center is a building or combination of buildings containing retail stores, mercantile establishments offices, banks and financial in- stitutions commonly known as shopping centers. So there's the full circle. I do point out in that definition, each and every use or illustrated use is in the plural indicating multiple uses. Other towns define retail shopping centers. I would guess that a retail shopping center is not a principal use with an accessory use. It is two individual uses. I think we all agree that the A&P Shopping Page 5 - February 18, 1988 Public Hearing - Tartan Oil Corp. Southold Town Z.B.A. -17- MR. MOORE (continued): Center in Mattituck and the King Kullen Shopping Center or I should say retail area in Cutchogue which galls in the defini- tion of the shopping center, retail shopping center indepen- dantly operated retail uses on a given site. To suggest that a gasoline station with a convenience store cons5itutes a re- tail shopping center, I think it is really pushing it well be- yong the reasonable interpretation. There are business in town where hardware stores sell televisions, dryers and washers. And typcal hardware stores, at least where I come from, didn't sell those types of items. And yet because you sell a variety of items, and provide a variety of services, I don't think you would consider a hardware store a retail shopping center. We've got boat marines plus that. Because the father or mother cor- poration provides the sole product, i.e. boats and trailers and things of that nature, also manufactures lawn mowers. We've got a business that does lawn mower repairs and services and sells lawn mowers at the same time, is engaging in the sale of marine items. I don't think we're considering those retail shopping centers wither. There's no place in the code that says a gas station in con]unction with a convenience store constitutes a retail shopping center. I think you were right in your Texaco decision. I don't think that couching it in terms of a variance thereafter, is necessary or required. I think you found it to be an accessory use. I asked the Secretary of the Corporation so I could truly establish this as an accessory use, give me an idea of what sales are. We're not talking about sales being 50 50 or even the case of sales exceeding the gasoline sales in the convenience store. Gasoline sales are 10 to 1 over the convenience store. I think that in economis, there establishes it as an ac- cessory use. Now, to have, as I Mentioned before, been handed a paper with comments from the Planning Board expressly relating to this accessory use question and the interpretation that you're asked to get at tonight. I would like the opportunity to re- spond in writing to those comments becausae they are widespread and ask that we continue the hearing. I apologize for letting it go on like this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am going to... And I really don't like to do this but I'm going to drop a bomb. And I have not discussed this with any of the other Board members, anyone at this specific time. But I intend to, at the culmination of this hearing tonight, recess this hearing indefinitely and I'll tell you the reason why. Let's continue with the hearing and see of there's any comments from the public or if you have anything else you'd like to say and unless you want to know why I want to recess this indefinitely. MR. MOORE: Well, let me make one other comment which I did not make. And thatis that we have submitted to the Planning Board a site plan to discuss with them just what site plan improvements are or not required on existing buildings and existing uses and Page 6 - February 18, 1988 Public Hearing - Tartan Oil Southold Town Z.B.A. -18- Corp. MR. MOORE (continued): and trying to distinguish very carefully the fact that this is an accessory use. It all gets very very intertwined when you realize that if it's an accessory use, you don't need the per- mission of the Zoning Board or the Planning Board. so we are before the Planning Board. And the ture place where the juris- diction of th Planning Board steps in (to be perfectly frank) is with respect to the self-service use. Expressly, they're in the code and I fully agree in 100-70 subparagraph B. You go for partial self-service, that's one of the listed use requing a special exception permission of the Zoning Board of Appeals and site plan permission from the Planning Board. I fully agree with respect to the self-service use. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's see how the hearing goes. Anybody like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? This becomes very difficult for me to say this but... In some cases we've gone too far with some applications. And in this particular application, the minute I saw the portigo over this gas station constructed, I should have (as a citizen) gone to the Building Department and asked them to pull the permit. The portigo is within two feet of the front property line. No application, to my knowledge, has ever been brought be- fore this Board concerning that portigo. And of course, it's tied into the site plan approval that you refer to. And I will, at this particular time, offer a motion to the Board basically recessing this particular application indefinitely until such time that an applications is brought before this board for the portigo which I think is something that should not have been con- structed without Zoning Board approval in reference to setbacks. And whatever the Planning Board feels, we'll deal with them also in reference to it. We usually work very very nicely and we'll discuss it with them at that particular time. But I did address this issue to the Building Inspector several months ago and there were feelings and interpretations concerning that. but this is one application that I can not go any further with, personally myself, without addressing this portigo as it exists because of it's addition to the building and because of its magnitude in size and because of its proximity not only to the overhanging power lines and along State Road 25, but also its proximity, al- though it's not ~n the ground, it's elevated above the ground, to the front property line. And I hope that you accept that in the manner in which I am saying it and I can not continue with this application until such time that situation exists. And it may require you to go to the Building Department and be denied for the portigo but I will not be a part of any application until such time that particular area is addressed. I don't think it's ugly. I don't think it's awesome. I don't think it's anything. I just think that has to be addressed first. ,Page 7 - February 18, 1988 Public Hearing - Tartan Oil Corp. Southold Town Z.B.A. -19- MR. MOORE: I will respond in writing I think CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. The motion. Ail in favor - AYE. Southold Town Board of Appeals - 20- February 18 ~ 1988 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 370l - Matter of CHARLES ZAHRA requesting reversal of Determination of Building Inspector in his Revocation of Building Permit ~[5428Z issued October 27: 1986. Premises known as [40 Pike Street~ Mattituck. ,County Tax:~p Parcel 1000-141-04-005. B-1 Business Zone District. The Chairman oPened the hearing at 8:46 o' clock p. m. ~ read the notice of hearing as published in the L.I. Traveler-Watchman and Suffolk Times~ and the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have copies of several things in the file. I guess the first one I'll deal with is the survey. ~hich appears to[~ethe "original" survey which is dated-Zit' s a sketch of a survey--the date~ March 14~ [973 by Roderick VanTuyl~ P.C. -~-which is basically the survey that deals with the building as it existed'wher~ the applicant purchased the property. And then we have building plans. SECRETARY: There are copies of the Building Permit file also. CHAIRMAN: There are Copies -of the. Building Permit file. And we have building plans which are dated 8/8/86 in behalf of Steve G. Tsontakis Associates. The other survey that I was referring to is a sketched-in survey which is on the plan itself which indicated the areas of the building that were being filled in around the periphery and so therefore I will not place that in other than the fact that it is in our file in toto. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Bressler~ would you like to be the first pe.rssn who would like to speak tonight? Are you ready to raise your rig.bt hand? ERIC J. BRESSLER, ESQ. Welli I don't know that I will be giving any testimony~ but I'll be happy to be sworn in~ certainly. CHAIRMAN: All right. Would you raise your right hand. ~rould you tell us that the information you are about to give to us is the truth to the best of your 'knowledges. MR. BRESSLER (raising right hand): So affirmed. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. ,, Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- February 18~ 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3701-PUBLIC HEARING -C. ZAHRA_, continued:) MR. BRESSLER: Gentlemen~ as you all know~ we are here tonight in the Matter of Charles gahra wherein he is seeking a reversal of determination of the Building Inspector which revoked his building permit. The subject of this particular building permit, location~ this' whole matter is the premises known as--commonl'y known as "The Coffee P~t" in Mattituck on Pike Street t located at 140 Pike Street in the Hamlet of Mattituck~ Town of Southold. CHAIRMAN: Can I just stop -you -- is that mike on? Can everybody hear him all .right? No? (Not too loud) MR. BRESSLER: In any eventt it' s known as the Coffee Pot in Mattituck. This structure for many yea. rs has housed in the downstairs a restaurant--known to those in the area as Coffee Pot serving a fast somewhat marginally bearable lunch. But loved by all of us. Upstairs there was a residential apartment. This situation obtained or persistedt depending on how you like the food~ for a number of years and up until the end of 1986~ at which time Mr. Zahra acquired the building. The time that Mr. Zahra acquired the building and p.roperty~ he intended to renovate itl make it nicer fix up the restaurant~ fix up the apartment, and leave it for the same uses to which it had been putt for so many years. You will hear from Mr. Zahra in connection with this particular project. He conditioned this purchase of the building and property upon the obtaining of a building permit to do just that. It' s a contingency in the contract. The con- tingency was met~ the contract came to fruition~ Mr. Zahra purchased the building and thereafter enbarked his plan to renovate and improve the building. He obtained the building permit and started work on itt and I will leave a more detailed statement of the facts when Mr. Zahra answers my questions--but suffice it to say he proceeded for quite a time until the instant difficulty that we are all familiar with arose. The issuance of the Stop Work Order t the abort of criminal prosecution in the local Justice Court, and culminating of the what we consider the "improper .revocation of the building permit" which brings us here tonight. Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3701-PUBLIC HEARING- C. ZAHRA~ continued:) MR. BRESSLER (continued): Turnin9 technically to what occurred in this particular case, let us turn first to one of the attachments to the application which is dated November 5~ 1987: Town of Southold apparently form~ "Order to Remedy Violation." And what it states is "...your Buildin9 Permit issued October 27~ 1986 is hereby .revoked. Reason~ "...not followin9 plans--did not comply with Stop Work Order, a violation of 100-142C and ID .... " We contend that neither reason stated is a valid reason for revoking this Building Permit, and that the determination ought to be reversed. Let's turn first to the alleged disobedience of the Stop Work Order. In connection therewith~ we turn to the again Southold Town form called "Order to Remedy Violation" dated September 22~ 1987. This document purports to be a Stop Work Order, although titled "Order to Remedy Violation." It says in pertinent part, "Stop All Work--Not in Conformity With the Provisions of the Plans or Specifications of the Building Permit in Violation of 100-143." Now it seems apparent and the Board has already ruled on the fact that this purported Stop Work Order is invalid on its face. The reason that it' s invalid on its face -- I will spread again on the record -- and that is quite simply it doesn't comply with the statute~ 100-143, which states that a Stop Work Order must state the conditions under which~ or it may be continued or proceerl. The Board has previously addressed this matter'°with the Gambino Variance, and it found on virtually identical set of facts the purported Stop Work Order did not comply with the.law. And I' m constrained to point out that this is the second time that at least I am aware of a purported Stop Work Order coming in this form. It's invalid on its 'face. Any revocation based upon it is obviously invalid. Let' s turn now to the bottom, of the purported Stop Work Order. The premises to which this Order to Remedy Violation refers are situated at 1830 Pike Street~ Mattituck. Everybody knows by now where 1830 Pike Street, Mattituck, is. It' s his house. It' s currently Zahra' s house. It' s not the coffee pot. The Coffee Pot is at [40 Pike Street. You have only determined the building permit which follows the Order to Remedy Violation to see the building permit is issued to renovate an addition on an existing restaurant as applied for~ premises at 140 Pike Street~ Mattituck. Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3701- PUBLIC HEARING -C. ZAHRA, continued:) MR. BRESSLER (continued): Ground Number Two. The .revocation based upon Stop Work Order issued with respect to the wrong premises cannot stand. It's a matter of law. Third~ as a matter of fact which we will hear from Mr. Zahra shortly: he did not violate the Stop Work Order, even assuming (a) it is validly issued and (b) it applied to the right property. Even forgetting those issues~ he didn't violate it. In fact, the Stop Work Order, purported Stop Work Order issued on the 22nd was followed by an Appearance Ticket for Criminal - Prosecution. I' 11 go into more detail later, but that criminal prosecution was dropped. The Town refused to go through with it. They couldn't go through with it. I' 11 explain in more detail why. Now~ let' s turn to the second purported ground~ the pulling of the building per mit. Not following the plans. I' ye got to say to this Board that I can't tell from looking at this piece of paper that I don't know what was not in conformity with the plans and specifications: and I will tell you know that I do not know to this day~ to this minute: and you will hear the same thing from Mr. Zahra, what is not in con- formance with the plans and specifications. And t-' il go into more detail on that later. But at no point have we even been given in writing or indeed anything orally that sets forth the particular falling to comply with the plans and spec' s~ or more importantly~ what he can do to fix the problem, hre don't know today, standing before you what we can do to fix the problem. Indeed after the .receipt of the first round of papers~ I called the Building Department to make an appointment with them~ and I got an appointment with them. And I received a call back saying that nobody can meet with me at the appointed time and place. And I said~ "Fine. Let's make another tim'e and place." And they said~ "No. Everyone's too busy. We can't give you a time or place." I wrote a letter and I said "Let's have a time and place." And I still have .received no .response. This is the type of situation that we' ve been running into and trying to find out exactly what the nature of the difficulty is. And finally when we did have a conference--which came about only after the criminal case was in progress--we had a confe.rence~ and we left the .room still not knowin9 what we could do to fix the problem. ~t~re stand here today before you telling you that we don't know~ we don't know what we did wrong, and we don't know what to do to fix it. But whatever it is~ we didn't do it. You'll hear that fromNlr. Zebra and you'll hear that from Mr. Tsontakis~ the Architect on the job. SoutholdTown Board of Appeals -24- February 18~ 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 370l - PUBLIC HEARING - C. ZAHRA~ continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: You are telling me as I sit here that you had a meeting with the Building Department with at least one Building Inspector and he did not tell you? MR. BRESSLER: In the context of the criminal proceeding~ and the question was put "What about these plans and spec' s? What do you want to see on them.?" And we never got a satisfactory response. I don't know today, -And y_ou' ll hear that from. Mr. Zahra. I don't know today what they want us to do on the plans and spec' s that will be any different that what we gave them. CHAIRMAN: Welt~ you basically answered my question ~ Mr. Bressler~ and that is -- I shouldn't say that -- i told you as we walked out of the room in the recess that I had anticipated holding this particular hearing over until March 3rd or 4th, and you asked me why. And the reason being~ ok, that we have all intentions of finding out what .remedy or remedies would possibly exist in this particular case. And we want to know the sequence of events that have led to this particular time, and we want to know it from the Building Department. And if need be, we will subpoena the Building Inspectors to be here on March 3rd or 4th--whatever night we can get the Hall, and-we will make every attempt to find out. MR. BRESSLER: MayI ask why they are not in attendance tonight? CHAIRMAN: I don't know~ Sir. We have informed them that this hearing was to go on~ both verbally and in writing. MR. BRESSLER: In that event~ at the close of the testimony, I' m going to make an application for you -- to you -- on that very issue~ and I want you to reconsider that at the end of the hearing. Now: let me say a few words briefly about the Criminal Case so the Board has the full flavor of what went on in this particular proceeding. On September 23rd an appearance ticket was issued purportedly again for a violation of the Stop Vrork Order. This required Mr. Zahra' s appearance in local Criminal Court. He was charged with a violation which the Board is aware, notwithstanding the fact that it's a violation~ potential incarceration is available~ as punishment for a guilty fine--a fine and/or imprisonment. Mr. Zahra was hailed into the local Justice Court on October 2nd. At that time~ an application was made to the Court for a piece of paper setting forth what the exact nature of the violation was~ not a simple appearance ticket that said "Please appearin Cou.rt~"- An explanation of what the charges were. He' s entitled to it by law and in fact Judge Tedeschi ordered it. He ordered it by October 15th with a Trial~ on October 30th that he had. October lSth came and went. October 30th came. SoutholdTown Board of Appeals -25- February 18~ 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 370[- ZAHRA HEARING~ continued:) MR. BRESSLER~ continued: ) We appeared in Court again. There were no papers. An application was made to dismiss the Criminal Case. It was granted. In fact~ it was made by Mr. Yakaboski, Special Town Attorney, What possible .reason could there have been for a 30-day delay and no papers produced whatsoever .relating to any charge against Mr. Zahra. It was determined at that particular time not to go forward. I joined in the application. It was dismissed. People are unavail- able. And I'll quote~ "I' ll explain to the CoUrt Number One~" Mr. Yakaboski says. "We assure you on this date that we~would be prepared for Trial today. We knew Mr. Horton would be unable~ but we th,ought Mr. Lessa.rd woUId be. He's not." Representation was made at th~ time ~"We can't try the case." It would be the 16th. October 16th. "lde can't file on the 16th. One of the Inspector will be away. We can do it on the 30th~ Judge." Fine. Now~ they come in on the 30th. No one is available, t would only note in that regard we are here tonight. After the Board has indicated had been given notice: and nobody is be.re and there' s no explanation. Well nobody was there then at the Criminal Case. Secondly~ again~ there's no criticism of my Building Depart- ment~ but investigation of the facts here .reveal that the Appearance Ticket and criminal charges were issued not much more than one hour after the issue of the Stop -- issuance of the Stop ~v'o.rk Order. One hour. Not even time to pick up his tools and move his wood and get the job site cleaned up. Although the minutes don' t .reflect t.hat that was part of the One hour and we dragged him into criminal court. Needless to say'~ that was dismissed. It has not be re-pursued. So we are here before you tonight seeking the revocation~ this decision~ that we find absolutely baseless. Now~ iii might at this time~ I'd like you to swear in Mr. Zahra and I would like to put the questions to him. that will elucidate for you the events that took place leading up to this particular t.ransaction~ as I .really don't have persona! knowledge of those facts. CHAIRMAN: Charlie~ could I just ask you to see if you could get that mike to wdrk before I swear you in. MR. BRESSLER: Do you want us to move 0ver there (other mike)? CHAIRMAN: If you wouldn't mind. SoutholdTown Board of Appeals -26- February 18~ 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3701- ZAHRA HEARING~ continued:) CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your .right hand please? Mr. Zahra~ will you tell us that the information that you are about to give us is the most correct information Lo the best of your knowledge? CHARLES ZAHRA raising his right hand: Yes~ I will. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. BRESSLER: Will you state your name and address for the Board please? MR. ZAHRA: Charles Zahra. I.reside at 1830 Pike Street~ B4attituck. MR. BRESSLER: ldill~ you tell the Board what is located at 140 Pike Street~ Mattituck? MR. ZAHRA: Formerly 'known as "The Coffee Pot." Premises formerly known as "The Coffee Pot." MR. BRESSLER: The subject of this 'particular hearing? MR. ZAHRA: I hope so. MR. BRESSLER: Would you state for the Board your current occupation and your experience in the area of building and constr~ction please? MR. ZAHRA: For the past ten yea.rs~ I' ve been invol:ved in various phases of building construction. MR. BRESSLER: Now~ did there come a time when you first acquired the Coffee Pot? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: In late 19867 MR. ZAHRA: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: And you heard my statement earlier regarding the contingency in connection with the purchase of the Coffee Pot that is the issuance of the building permit-wasthat correct? MR. ZAHRA: Yes~ it was. SouthoId Town Board of Appeals -27- February 18~ 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3701- ZAHRA HEARING~ continued:) MR. BRESSLER: And did you in fact prior to the acquisition obtain that building per mit ? MR. ZAHRA: Yes~ I did. MR. BRESSLER: And were there plans and specifications submitted to the Building Department upon which the building permit was issued? MR. ZAHRA: Yes~ there was. MR. BRESSLER: Does the Board have those plans and specifications in its file? CHAIRMAN: To the best of our knowledge. MR. BRESSLER: Now~ did there come a time when you commenced work in accordance with the plans and specifications? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. We began working in the Spring. MR. BRESSLER: Of [987. MR. Z.AHRA: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: Did there come a time shortly after you commenced work that representatives of the building department appeared at the job site? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: Would you tell the Board who it was and what transpired? MR. ZAHRA: On commencing work on the project known as "The Coffee Pot~" we were in the process--I had Mr. Zaleski down doing excavating to facilitate the insulation of the foundation at said premises. Approximately 4 o'clock that afternoon: Mr. Horton and Mr. Lessard appeared on the job site. MR. BRESSLER: You are referring to Curtis Horton and Victor Lessard employed by the Building Department~ Town of Southold? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. Both appeared on the job site late that afternoon. Victor SoutholdTown Board of Appeals -28- February 18:1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 370l - ZAHRA HEARING~ continued:) MR. ZAHRA (continued): Lessard came over to me and questioned what am I doing. I said: "Victor~ I' m doing exactly what the plans call for." He said~ "Well~ you' re taking out the floor. You' re taking the walls out. You' re installing the foundation. The plans do not call for a foundation." I said~ "Victor~ I beg to differ with you but they do." He said~ "Well~ I have a set of plans right out in the car." I said: "Fine. Go get it. We'll both look at them." With this~ Mr. Lessard goes out to the car~ comes back with the plans~ opens them'' in the presence of myself ~ Curt Horton and Roy Dean~ who is here tonight. Paged to the foundation~ and I so pointed out to him~ "Victor~ is this not a foundation in the plans?" Vi_ctor says to me~ "Hmm~ well I can cover you on that." Im mediately thereafter-- MR. BRESSLER: Could we stop at this point? DO the plans the Board has before them show a foundation? CHAIRMAN: Well~ I think you should bear 'in mind~ M.r. Bressler~ that we are not engineers or construction people~ ok. MR. BRESSLER: We can approach and take a look at what you do have. Maybe -we could determine if you have the right plans. SECRETARY: Those are the plans that were deIivered to us the other day. MR. BRESSLER: I' m lookin9 here at page 4 of the plan--on the lefthand portion~ it says Foundation Plan~ in pare'mtheses~ replace existin9. CHAIRMAN: Ok~ just so we get all the plans straight. Let's take the plan from the Buildin9 Department file. Maybe the one that should be stamped. MR. BRESSLER: You want this one. CHAIRMAN: No~ that's not bearing on the, case~ Sir. SECRETARY: That's the plan. The (copies) are all the same. CHAIRMAN: But they' re not stamped plans. MR. ZAHtLA: Did you not say you were going to get the plans? (All photocopies wer'e of the original stamped Building Department plan. The originals submitted by applicant 2/17/88 were not stamped by the Bui l'di ng Department~ ) Southold Town Board of Appeals - 2 9- February 18 ~ 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 370l- ZAHRA HEARING~ continued:) CHAIRMAN: We do have them. Right here. MR. ZAHRA: The original? No good. I thought you were going to bring the originals. SECRETARY: We[l~ I do have the copies. MR. ZAHRA: They wouldn't give it to you? (No response. ) MR. BRESSLER: All right~ Mr. Zahra~ you were explaining what happened with that particular meetings and you just finished reciting what had happened regarding the foundation. Did a further communication take place between you and one of the Building Department representatives? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. At this point Mr. Horton intervened and his statement to me was~ "What about your fire wall? Where's your fire wail?" And imagine the building is hanging in mid air. There's no foundation~ and he's asking me about a fire wall that is going to set on the foundation. Again I said to Mr. Horton~ I refer you back to the plans." " the plans~ do the plans call for a fire wall?" He said~ "I don't care if the plans call for it. You have to have a fire wall between these two buildings because the Code calls for it. The buildings are less than ten feet apart." Again at this point~ it's the end of the days I elected to schedule a meeting with them on Monday. Friday afternoon I scheduled a meeting for Monday. MR. BRESSLER: Did you have such a meeting on Monday? MR. ZAHRA: Yes~ I did. MR. BRESSLER: Who was there? MR. ZAHRA: I walked in the Office and Mr. H~rton was theres so I asked to speak to Nit. Horton in private-- MR. BRESSLER: Did you? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: What was the conversation? MR. ZAHRA: I asked Mr. Horton~ I said~ "~arhat seems to be the problem here?" He says~ "Well, he takes these plans ins looks at--halfass looks at theme" excuse roes "stamps them~ puts his name on them~ and Sends them. out and never even ~ooked to see what they meet!" Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 370[- ZAHRA HEARING~ continued:) MR. BRESSLER: Referring to who? MR. ZAHRA: Mr. Lessard. So I said~ "Well~ that's an internal problem~ that I don't think I should be concerned with. At the same time~ we would like to continue on with the project. What would you like from me?" Mr. Horton's response was~ "Give me the fire wall." I said~ "Fine~ if that's all it's going to take. It's only minor-I'll put the fire wall in." With-- MR. BRESSLER: And did you--go ahead. MR. ZAHRA: With that Mr. Ft0rtOn went over to the files and grabbed one of the sets of plans~ and indicated on the office set "fire wall." In two separate locations. I did not -- I elected not to give himmy plans. My plans do not show the fire wall. MR. BRESSLER: Dothe Board' splans indicate the existence of a fire wall? CHAIRMAN: No. SECRETARY: We have two different sets. CHAIRMAN: We have three different sets--we have the copy that' s stamped. MR. BRESSLER: We don't know which set was marked and which one wasn't~ but suffice it to say~ we put up a fire wall. CHAIRMAN: Yeah~ I'm aware of that. I just--before you go on~ Charlie~ I just want to say this. At what actual stage of construction were You at that point? Was Frank Zaleski there at the tim. el starting the excavation underneath the building ? MR. ZAHRA: The excavation has already been well in progress. We were in the process of cutting our deteriorated and inadequate floor and wall structures. CHAIRMAN: Now, were the steel beams then placed in the building at that time also thereby-- MR. ZA HRA: CHAIRMAN: MR. ZAHRA: CHAIRMAN: They had already been installed. They had already been installed. The building was suspended that I so stated. Ok. Go ahead. I' m sorry. Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3701- ZAHRA HEARING~ continued:) MR. ZAHRA: Where was I. Back to the fire wall in the office. After Mr. Ho.rton~ after I told Mr. Horton, after Mr. Horton sad to me, "Give me the fire wall and you can continue," my words to him were, "Are you going to leave me alone on the project now. Can I continue and finish it." His words, ',Yes, Iwill." He shook my hand and thanked me for my cooperation, and I left to commence work on the project a§ain. NIR. BRESSLER: Now~ did there come atime when you had further communication with the Building Department representatives concerning the condition of the first floor of the building? MR. ZAHRA: At the time we discussed the floor - the foundation, we discussed the deterioration of the floor beams and the walls. He was fully aware of it because they --some of those materials had been removed already~ At the time Mr. Horton and Mr. Lessard were on the site. MR. BRESSLER: And what did you discuss with him about the replacement of the .rotted and deteriorated members? MR.ZAHRA: Explained that they would have to be .replaced to meet Code, which they were fully aware of. MR BRESSLER: And did they agree to that? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. (Changed to Tape 2) CHAIRM~N: 'You' were. talking about the first floor of the building at this particular time? MR. ZAHRA: Yes we were. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MR. BRESSLER: Now, did there come a time when you had further communications with a Buildin9 Department representative concerning this project? MR. ZAHRA: Yes~ unfortunately~ Mr. Horton appeared on the job site again after the foundation and the first floor was ripped up. His question to me was, "You're not addin§ any square footage to the upstairs?" I said, "My God, Mr. Horton., we have to go back to the plans again. The plans show an addition--a square footage to SoutholdTown Board of Appeals -32- February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 370l - ZAHRA HEARING, continued:) MR. ZAHRA (continued): the second floor." With this, he did not say anythin9. He left, went back to the Building Department, and brought Mr. Lessard to the job site.- NIr.. Lessard- put the question to me. "Are you adding square footage to the upstairs?" I said exactly as I spoke to Mr. Horton and told him, "Refer back to the plans. Yes. 'We are." I said, "Fir. Ho.rt')n, you have a set of plans stamped by an engineer and as you required. You signed them and stamped them yourself. I don't know what you want me to do." With this, no more conversation took place and they left. : ~ MR. BRESSLER: And did you proceed with the work? MR. ZAHRA: Yes, we did. MR. BRESSLER: And did there come a time after that when you had again contact with members of the Building Department? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. We had finished renovating the lower structure and were in the process of moving to the upper structure, -and in the process of exposing the walls, we found more deterioration. No fire breaks in the walls. The spacing of the studding was grossly outdated. In some cases~ five feet apart. We felt that-- I felt at this time I should go to the Building Department and explain my dilemna to Mr. Lessard. MR. BRESSLER: And did you? MR. ZAHRA: Yes~ I did.: MR. BRESSLER: Did you have a conversation with Mr. Lessard about this particular problem? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: What was the content? MR. ZAHRA: I came to the Building Department, sat down with Mr. Lessard, and discussed my dilem ma with him .with regards to the inadequate structure -- balance of the structure. He went over to the file cabinet and pulled my file. Opened it up. He had a discussion. His one comment of his to me was, "Do you realize if you re- move this upper structure, you' .re going to have to bring it into line with Code, SoutholdTown Board of Appeals -33- February 18~ 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3701-ZAHRA HEARING~ continued:) MR. ZAHRA (continued): which would mean you would have to put in 2 x 6' s." I said~- "Victor~ the job-- I wish to have the job done right. It' s only money. I want the job right and to Code." After some brief words back and forth~ Victor took the file~ folded it up~ -- are the lights going out? -- folded the file up~ stuck it in the file cabinet~ and his words to me was~ "Do what you have to do." CHAIRMAN: And was he referring to the second story of this structure? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. That' s all that was in discussion. The dilemma with the second structure. I put the question-- I told him I had to disassemble the entire upper structure in order to facilitate the replacement of windows and to bring it up to Code. Energy Code as well. MR. BRESSLER: And did you proceed to do that? MR. ZAHRA: I went back to the job site and removed-began to remove the upper structure. Completed it. There was a time span between the confliction of removing the structure and my going back to start rebuilding the other st.ruc- ture. MR. BRESSLER: What happened when you commenced building upstairs--tried to? MR. ZAHRA: I'd like to back up for a minute. With regards to the conversation I had in lVIr. Lessard's Office. CHAIRMAN: Approximately what date was that~ do you remember? MR. ZAHRA: I'm not as good as Eric is in remembering numbers. (Pause) CHAIRMAN: You can supply that later. I would appreciate it. MR. ZAHRA: After the conversation with Mr. Lessard back in the Office with regards to his making the statement, "Do what you have to do.~" I said to him~ due to the fact that Mr..Horton was not available~ or present at the time~ I said~ "Please inform. Mr. Horton as to what Conversation took place here~" "so he does not come down and harass me on the job any longer." He says~ "Don't worry about itl I will~" Now we are back to-- Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 370I- ZAHRA HEARING, continued:) MR. BRESSLER: Then you went back, and at a point, you started work on it, did somethin9 happen then? MR. ZAHRA: When I commenced work with rebuilding the upper structure as per Mr. Lessard's conversation and myself-- CHAIRMAN: Now wait a minute, the entire upper structure was now removed? It was severed from--it was never attached to the lower structure:-it was suspended. Suspended, right. Ok. MR. ZAHRA: No, it wasn't suspended. It was -- CHAIRMAN: Oh, now it was set on top of the first structure, which was reconstructed. MR. ZAHRA: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. BRESSLER: That brings you, does it not, to September 21st-- September 22nd of 1987. CHAIRMAN: Of 1987. MR. ZAHRA: It would be the day - it would be September 21st. MR. ZAHRA: We commenced work. At this time, Mr. Horton appears back on the job. He finds the ladder and he says to me, "Charlie, have you submitted your fresh plans." At this point, I was perplexed and did-not know what he'was talking about, and asked him, "What do you mean by fresh plans?" He said, "Well, you know, you took the top off you've got to submit fresh plans." I said, "Well, if I Dive you fresh plans, you' .re going to get the same plans you had in your office with Victor's signature and stamp on them. Because I do not intend to change or deviate from the plans that I issued to the Department." CHAIRMAN: Except for 2 x 6 construction? MR. ZAHRA: Which was in line with Code. MR. BRESSLER: Which had been approved by Mr. Lessard. Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- February 18:1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. NO. 370[- ZAHRA, HEARING continued: ) MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's the only deviation? MR. BRESSLER: Walls were in the same place, windows in the same placer everything was the same. MR. ZAHRA: Ok. At this point Mr. Horton leaves and again comes back with a Stop Order. I' d like to back up with regards to the statement of Mr. Horton-- when Mr. H-Iorton found the ladder. After my explainin§ to him I was not going to deviate from the plans, I also Said to himt "Did Victor not tell you what trans- pired in his office with regard to our conversation on the second structure?" He said~ "WelI~ he's telling you one thin9 and he's tellin9 me another." By this time I was a little bit upset to say the least. And I proceeded to tell him that this is typical. Then he left and came back with the Stop Order~ affixed it to the building, and I was a tittle bit more upset at this pointt and came down to the Buildin9 Department to see if I couldn't rectify this situation with Mr. Lessard. At this point~ I sat down and said to Mr. Lessard, I said "What is going on here? I had told you to tell Horton our conversation as to what I' m doin9. I explained to you I had to remove the structuret and you told me to do "what you have to dot" bring it in. line with Code~ use 2 x 6 constructlont'~ and now he's issuin9 me a Stop Order. 'What's taking place here?" Victor's response back to me was., "Yes~ I told you to do what you have to dot but'I didn't tell you to remove the structure." He says~ "You could have raised the .roof." I' d like to say with regards to that, the plans show a complete new roof~ I believe. MR. BRESSLER: If the Board would note on their plans ~ they do indicate a new roof, so that what Mr. Zahra is stating is a suggestion that was made to him that's completely nonsensical and wouldn't have served any purpose at all, raising the .roof. The roof was going to be removed anyway. What we' re talking about here is a replacement of rotted and deteriorated members as indicated by Mr. Lessard. Which he was proceeding to do when he was stopped. After the issuance of the-- let me back up -- at that pointt did Mr. Lessard tell you what you can do with respect to plans to get back [n compliance? MR. ZAHRA: No~ he did not. MR. BRESSLER: At any time thereafter, did he tell you what you could do to get back into compliance? MR. ZAHRA: No, he did not. Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- February 18~ 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 370l - ZAHRA ~ HEARING continued:) MR. BRESSLER: Upon informing Mr. Horton that the plans would be identical~ did Mr. Horton indicate at any waythat that' s what you should do or that~ s all he wanted or what you had to do~ in any way to get back into compliance? MR. ZAHRA: No~ he did not. MR. BRESSLER: At this time has anybody told you what you have to do with .respect to the alleged pians in order to get back into compliance? MR. ZAHRA: No~ no o~e has., CHAIRMAN: Can I ask a question? Was there~ or did there ever comea time when the discussion basically lent itself to a onegstory structure? As opposed to~ quote unquote~ what you had had in your plan as a two-story? MR. ZAHRA: No. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. BRESSLER: Upon the issuance of the Stop Work Order~ did you perform any work on the building thereafter? MR. ZAHRA: No~ I did not. MR. BRESSLER: Did you proceed thereafter to collect your tools and collect the building material? MR. ZAHRA: I attempted to. MR. BRESSLER: What happened? MR. ZAHRA: I was issued an Appearance Ticket - failure to obey a Stop Order. CHAIRMAN: HOw much later was that after .receiving the Stop Work Order? MR. ZAHRA: I'd have to refer you back to the record. I don't-- MR. BRESSLER: Was it very long? MR. ZAHRA: No~ it was not. S outhold Town Board of Appeals - 37- February 18~ 1988 Regular Meeting (Appt. No. 3701-ZAHRA HEARING~ continued:) CHAIRMAN: It was the same day then? Approximately. MR. ZAHRA: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: Now~ at this particular time~ are your plans with respect to the building if this .relief is granted to proceed in accordance with the plans and specification as submitted to the Building Department? MR. ZAHRA: Yes, those intentions stay. MR. BRESSLER: And did the plans and specifications as submitted to the Building Department provide for the placement or .rotted and deteriorated members as they appeared when .revealed? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: And I would direct the Board's attention respectfully to that portion of the notes on the plan where there is a notation made by Mr. Tsontakis that items which are discovered during construction are to be .replaced as necessary. I don't know whether you can .read on that -- maybe you can .read it on this one.~ CHAIRMAN: Would you like me to turn it around~ Sir? MR. BRESSLER: Thank you. Yes~ I' m looking at the second paget Note No. 5 - '.'..existing structural members and required bracing to be evaluated when exposed .... " I would submit to the Board that what has happened in this particular case is exactly that. The problem arose with respect to the first story when the structural members were exposed. They were evaluated~ and the necessary work was done. And the structural members,.~ were exposed and evaluated on the second story~ again it was taken up with the Building Department. Advice was given. And Mr. Zahra acted on it. The work~ as you will hear from Mr. Tsontakis to date has been in accordance with those plans and those notes~ he',-s done an inspection ~ and he will so testify with respect to bringing the construction up to Code, that's definitely sol and I don't think the Board would expect any less. If you were to replace structural members~ you would certainly w~ant them replaced to Code. In that regard~ in that regard I would note for the Board that the advice 'which was given to Mr. Zahra by the Building mepartmen~ is entirely consistent with its previous posture on these matters. And I"would direct the Board's attention to a letter dated April [4~ 1986 on the stationary at the Office of SoutholdTown Board of Appeals -38- Februaryl8, 1988 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3701- ZAHRA HEARING~ continued: MR. BRESSLER (continued): the Buildin9 Inspector to a Peter P. Brophy from an Edward Iiflindermann~ then Buildin9 Inspector. Copies for Members of the Board. (Copies of letter were distributed for each Board Member and for the file. ) NiR. BRESSLER: I would suggest that it is~ gentlemen~ germane to the case in the following .respect. The proposition has been put forth tonight that when Mr. Zahra brought to the attention of the Buildin9 Department inadequacies in the construction~ that he was advised by Building Department personnel that he was to take certain steps. What I' m introducin9 tonight in this letter and the highlightin9 was added by us~ what I am introducing in this letter tonight is evidence of continued practice by the Building Department to take this position, and I think it is probative of the fact that the conversation that Mr. Zahra has testified to did take place and that this was said to him. And I would state for the .record that the letter .reflects the fact that where a building is being altered~ any substandard construction that is found in opening up of walls and exposing foundations shall be brought up to Code standards. This at times will necessitate the removal of old structures -- that is walls, ceiling joists, rafters~ floor joists~ foundation~ and .replacing with an improved assembly to carry any live or dead load. The scope of this improvement was covered under this permit. And when you turn to the buildin9 permit~ it says.~ alteration and addition to existing dwelling-- the same language that was issued to Mr. Zahra. And I submit to you that what he did was entirely -in accordance with the plans and the longstanding directive of the Building Depa.rtm. ent~ and what he's testified to happened just as he said it, just as it happened with Mr. Hindermann and NIr. Brophy. I would also suggest to the Board that there is precedent with .respect to alterations of existing structures to comply with safety and other standards. And I' m referring the Board to a letter from Kontokosta Associates to Victor Lessard dated November 5~ 1984, .relating to the I-~Ieltenic Snack Bar. The Board may .recall in this particular case there was a p.f~oposal to make altera- tions and an addition to an existin9 restaurant, l¥hat actually happened was as set forth in the second and third paragraphs.~ and I quote~ 'To attempt to alter the existing structure and disturb its structural stability would be · risky and would .result in a structure o£ questionable integrity. So the interest of public safety and a 9rear expense to my client~ the decision was made to demolish the building and .rebuild it the same location. This type of p.ro. cedure although, I dare say this was more substantial than ours--has been sanctioned ky the Building Depar~_i~fit'andit has been .recognized by Mr. Hinde.rmann and later by Mr. Lessard that these steps are legitimate and can be performed pursuant to a Building Permit to make alteratio~ns and additions. At this time, I'd like M.r. Stave Tsontakis. Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- Februaryl8, 1988 Regular Meeting (Zahra Hearing, continued: ) CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask you a couple of questions--in reference to back- ground, not specifically on the two things that you have just presented to us~ but just on the history of the building. The building operated as "The Coffee Pot" until approximately what date--do you have any idea? When it was the last operational date as the Coffee Pot? MR. ZAtt RA: I don' t have that at this time. We can supply you with that. MR. BRESSLER: We can supply you with that. We are aware of the interests of the Board in the timing, and we have been sensitive to the timing of the issue with .respect to this item. CHAIRMAN: Can you tell me when North Fork Bani< took title to the property? MR. BRESSLER: No, I can't, but we can supply it. CHAIRMAN: O'k. MR. ZAHRA: I' d like to relate back to the record with regards to the direction you' re driving in. And this is one of the contingencies of requesting--with regards to obtaining the Coffee Pot. I required that the use be proven and in effect -- be used as a Coffee Pot, a restaurant and/or apartment upstairs so that we wouldn't lose the use. CHAIRMAN: So I might as well just ask you the question while you' re right up here. At any time, did you attempt or did you think tl~at you were altering this and thereby extinguishing this use in some way through this alteration-- I apologize for the wording -- through the alteration process, did you feel that you were altering, changing or aborting this particular use? MR. ZAHRA: No, I did not. MR. BRESSLER: In fact, quite the opposite. That's why the contingency for the Building Permit to renovate it. Had we not gone that route, even Mr. Zahra would have been faced with two choices. Either not to take the building or to take the building and keep it in its current state and keep the use going. However~ the building permit was issued, and we would have been done by now, and would have been back in there and operating as we alwa~[s had been within the time 'constraints of the ordinance. Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting (Zahra Hearing, continued: ) NIR. BRESSLER: Now~ did you have occasion at my request to go out and examine these premises while under construction? MR. TSONTAKIS: Yes. I was asked by Mr. Zahra to inspect the construction site with .respect to compliance with the drawings. And on September 10th~ I made that inspection and found that the construction was in accordance with the drawings~ except that there was a two-hour concrete block fire wall installed which was not indicated on the drawing. I found that several of the structural members had been .replaced, and when I questioned Mr. Zahra about itl he indicated that as was stated in the drawing should any damaged members be found, they should be evaluated and either .replaced or assisted as required, and he told me he had approached these problems with the Building Inspector, who had given him permission to go ahead and .replace all .rotted construction and unsound members. I said that if necessary on the Building Inspector's .request we would add any changes to the drawings .requested by the Building Inspector to accurately .reflect all those changes that were made to make the building structurally safe and sound. MR. BRESSLER: That' s the only question I have of Mr. Tsontakis. If the Board has anything-- CHAIRMAN: Yes. If you don't mind my (your) standing there~ I'm going to put my personal knowledge into the r_ecord and then I' m going to ask you a question. I had frequented the Coffee Pot approximately ten plus yea.rs-- eve.Fy morning before I went to work, and that was during my teaching career and during my career in the County. And probably up until the last day of the close, or the day before the last day of the close. There came a time in 1983 Supervisor Pell approached me--the time I worked for the Suffolk County Sheriff' s Office and I was an aide to the Sheriff~ and he said~ "We' re going to give you another task. We're going to let you hear cases before the N.Y.S. Construction Code." And I informed him that I had been a fireman in Mattituck since 1969~ and I had tc/ld him that I didn't think that I was really qualified to cbthat, and I didn't feel my Board was qualified to do that, and I wasn't speaking for them. There came a time after that that we made an appointment with the Town Board, and I can remember the Town Board sitting right where Ruth Oliva is .right now--I' m sorry--the Zoning Board sitting right where Ruth Oliva is sitting r~o~_, and I had basically t,old them that I was not going to hear cases before the N.Y.S. Construction Code and that I had no idea what grounds were for insubordination of an appointed Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- February [8, 1988 Regular lVieeting (Zahra Hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: (continued): official. Some time thereafter, a ruling came down from. Albany the Zoning Board could not hear questions before the N.Y.S. Construction Code. The reason for appointing this Board that there was a case in the Hamlet of Mattituck-- a bar and restaurant owned by a Mr. Eugene Gionnone. This gentleman had wanted to place a bar/cocktail lounge on the second floor of his building. It was a wood-frame buildin9. It was mentioned to me at that particular time that we would have to hear this case, in the sequence of events that I was men- tioning, and that was his only way that he could possibly get a permit to do so.. We then began to delve into the Code and we realized that some time prior to that, New York State Construction Code indicated that any activity on the secoPd floor of a building-- a wood-framebuilding--would necessitate--ok, unless it was preexisting, complete cement construction, either by poured cement walls or cement-block walls. The question I' m basically going to ask you, Mr. Tsontakis is, was there a time in the construction of this particular building that to your ~ knowledge that this building should have been brought up to those standards of full cement block walls? MR. TSONTAKIS: Well, the application was made based on that. The renovation clause of the Code which requires that--which says in essence, and I don't know the exact working right now, but in essence .it says if you make alterations or changes to a ~uilding which amounted greater than 50 percent of the value of the building, then the entire building must be brought up to the Code. In other words, it must comply with Part B of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code of the State of New York. (Secretary changed tape. ) CHAIRMAN: Do you feel at any time during the demolition of this building that the building probably should have been brought up to. these standards? Of either cement block o._r poured cement? MR. TSONTAKIS: (Pause) Well, if you-- That's hard for me to say. I think that' s a legal question because it depends on how you evaluate the .renovation and the zoning laws in place at the time, and a preexisting condition C of O. And I don't think I'm in a position to really render an opinion on that. Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- (Zahra Hearing~ continued: ) February 18~ 1988 Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN: Ok. MR. TSONTAKIS: MR. TSONTAKIS: I' m here as an expert in construction as an engineer~ and I think that this question falls a little bit out of my realm of expertise. CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask you this question. MR. TSONTAKIS: Can contribute to this but I can't give you a complete answer. CHAIRMAN: I know. If the building was completely demolished and it necessi- tated construction on the second story of this building--if the Building Permit was so granted so as to utilize the second-story of this building for whatever reason~ all right, other than storage, would it be required for the building to be of cement block construction? MR. TSONTAKIS: It most probably would have to be a Type 4 Building. CHAIRMAN: Is that cement block construction? MR. TSONTAKIS: That's block walls with wood floors and wood roof. CHAIRMAN: So the outside periphery walls are basically cement block? MR. TSONTAKIS nodded affirmatively. I thank you. No problem. And again~ if I put you in a situation which- We' re here to try and solve a problem, so-- to help-- CHAIRMAN: Right. We thank you very much. It's very nice of you. MR. BRESSLER: Let me just say in .response to that question~ Mr. Chairman~ that I think you have put your finger on one of the elements of the problem and Mr. Tsontakis amplified it--that is the timing of this particular project. The way you phrased the question certainly begged the answer~ and that is that if the whole thing had been torn down at once~ you would have had to take certain steps. I think: (a) that wasn't the case here~ and (b) possibly the answer to hat question is "yes." But that didn't happen here. It happened step by CHAIRMAN: Well~ I'm sorry if I put you in a~ what ve refer to as a Catch 22 situation. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- February 18~ [988 Regular Meeting (Zahra Hearing~ continued: ) MR. BRESSLER (continued): step~ and at each step of the proceeding what Mr. Zahra did was check with the Building Departm. ent~ and it did happen in stages~ and I think that under the circumstances, he followed the advice of the Building Department. I think the Building Department gave him. these directions. They were acting in good faith~ and they did indicate that he should do certain things, and he did~ at each stage of the proceeding. And had the issue been put to him at the outset, you had to do this or you have to do that--that could have been presented to hirn~ before he got three-quarters of the way down the'road. And Mr. Zahra has indicated to 'me just that fact--that had it been put to him at the~ outset, that if you want to do this and if. you want to do that~ you may have to do x~ y and z-- his response very possibly might have been~ "Yes, I' d been willing to do that" knowing that with his eyes open going into the project. But we're not there because of the way the events transpired. CHAIRMAN: I understand that. MR. BRESSLER: Yes. Mr. Zahra would like to address'that issue as well. MR. ZAHRA: I would just like to mention the fact that in your possession you have step by step pictures proving the fact that I tried in vain to save this particular structure. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: Yes. The Board has a copy~ I believe of these photographs-- and if you have any questions about any of them at any stage of the proceeding-- CHAIRMAN: If you could give us-- MR. ZAHRA: ~re also have a video if you would like that. CHAIRMAN: If you have possibly some guess-timated dates of when those things might-- and I' m not talking days--I ' m talking months--it would be a little helpful to put it into the sequence. There' s nothing that has to be done tonight. I mean--you know what I'rD saying. In the next two weeks~ maybe ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- February I8~ 1988 Regular Meeting (Zahra Hearing~ continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): you could sit down and just some estimated time so that we when we sequentially place this all back~ we can possibly fit it all in--and that' s basically the situation. MR. ZAHRA: No problem.. CHAIRMAN: All .right. I thought think you substantiated what date exactly you took title to this premises. MR. BRESSLER: That was in November of 1986. MR. ZAHRA: I' 11 look in my file and see if I have anything. MR. BRESSLER: After the issuance ,of a Building Permit. Obviously. Since it was contingent upon that~ and the Building Permit was issued on October 27~ 1986~ so ;_t would be November something -- I don't know the exact date. CHAIRMAN: Would you substantiate the condition of the building at the time you took possession. Was the building fully lighted~ or were the windows boarded up? MR. ZAHRA: The windows were boarded up. The electricity was on. lights in the building. Plumbing. Septic system. There weFe CHAIRMAN: Everything was operating or could have been operable at that particular time? MR. ZAHRA: Yes. MR. BRESSLER: Without a doubt~ I think Mr. Tsontakis could also address that since he inspected it in connection with the performance of the plans. CHAIRMAN: Yes, xould you do that for us please? MR. TSONTAKIS: Well~ some time in the Summer of '86~ I guess it must have been July--I was asked to prepare a set of drawings for the alteration and renova- tion of this building~ and of course~ as part of that the first thing I had to do was going to see what we have to start with and work with~ and I did that. Southold Town Board of Appeals -46- February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting MR. TSONTAKIS (continued): I measured the building. And inspected it. It was--it was unlighted but there was service--electric service which had been shut off. The gas service was off. MR. BRESSLER: But it was available. MR. TSONTAKIS: I was connected to it but shut off. I couldn't get under the building so I couldn't determine what condition the floor joists were in because there was no crawl space. You just couldn't get under there. There was very little space. Of course the interior walls were finished, so we couldn't very well see what the walk construction was. And so starting from that and an indication from. Mr. Zahra what he wanted to finally end up with~ I prepared the drawings~ which are dated 8/8/86. But they--as far as the question whether you could occupy the building safely at the time~ I believe you could~ having power on and-- habitable. CHAIRMAN: Did you enter the second story of the building? MR.TSONTAIiIS: Yeah~ I went upstairs and I couldn't move around much in there. It was pretty dark. And again i couldn't- I couldn't carry walls--/ couldn't see what the primary structure looked like. And so because of that condition~ I added that note on the drawing indicating that the interior walls were pulled off~ the structure should be evaluated as to what members had to be replaced or assisted. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you~ Sir. Yfill you also supply us~ Mr. Bressler, with the approximate date or the date that North Fork Bank took title to the building? Thank you. Is there anything else you would like to say in toto? MR. BRESSLER: I' d like to say that with respect to Mr. Tsontakis' offering with respect to making what we believe are not even necessary notations on the plan~ that was offered to the Department~ and the question was put "if we do this~ say 2 x 6 instead of 2 x zi~ which is what you directed any way~ but if we do that~ will that be sufficient?" And there was no answer. And we stand .ready certainly to do that~ I hardly think that that's material since the walls are in the same place~ the Building Department directed it. But just to clarify that for the record~ that was offered and no answer was given as to Southold Town Board of Appeals -47= February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting MR. BRESSLER: (continued) whether that was satisfactory or not~ so I can't tell you why the whole case is over the absence of 2 x 6 and an "x"~ but I don't think so. I don't know. Now~ Mr. Chairmman~ you had indicated earlier that a certain desire on the part of the Board to recess this to get at the facts. I have an application at this tim. e-- and the, application is that that motion not be made by the Board. And the reasons are as follows: We are here tonight seeking a Reversal of the Determination of the Building Inspector that took away Mr. Zahra' s permit. Mr. Zahra has been effectively stopped from working on that building~ so it's the time of the issuance of the Stop Work Order~ invalid Stop Work Order. I thinh that's clear to everybody here tonight. Nevertheless~ as.a result of that invalid Stop Work Order~ he's been prosecuted criminally~ and we' re not going to put ourselves in a situation where we are going to permit that to happen again and again and again. Maybe at some point~ they m.ight even issue a Stop Work Order that might be valid~ I don't know~ and then we'll be back in front of you again. Well~ I' m not going to permit that to happen. By the same token~ September~ October~ November~ December~ January~ February--it's five months and if the mere. bets of the Board have been by that building~ you would have seen that the time and effort Mr. Zahra invested in that building were virtually shot. Mr. Zahra asked if he could get a letter from the Department allowing him to secure the premises in some way~ and to save his investment--that is not forthcoming. All this time and effort in there and is .rotting away. So on those grounds first~ I would ask the hearing be closed on the evidence~ and the Board renders a decision. Second Ground [n this application is: We are here tonight~ as I said~ seeking to overturn this. We've presented evidence. I've spoken~ Mr. Zahra has put in his factual testimony~ we've had our engineer down here. I'm not aware that there is a Building Inspector or a Building-Departm.ent representative here with any knowledge of the facts. And we don't know that they knew about this. I've received norequest for adjournment. I have no knowledge nor in response to my questioning the Board apparently does the Board have any knowledge as to why nobody from the Building Department is here. This is a very important and significant matter. CHAIRMAN: Well~ I know why. MR. BRESSLER: Was there a request for an adjournment? May I ask. CHAIRMAN: Not to my knowledge. Southold Town Board of Appeals -48- February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting MR. BRESSLER (continued): If the answer is no~ then I put forth the proposition to the Board that they have waived their rights in this matter. Although this is an Administrative Proceed- ing~ we are seeking relief from the Building Department determination~ and I think that is is incumbent on them to either: (a) be here~ or (b) make some sort of application to this Board and while I understand the Board' s desire to have some one here from the Building Department to fully explore this matter~ I thin[< that it is prejudicial to my client. It's going to cost him. valuable time during the wintertime with this building. We' re going to have to come back to another hearing for no discernable reasons~ because they didn't show up. Not onlythat~ they didn't show up at the Criminal Proceeding. They didn't show up here. And I don't think that my client should be prejudiced by their answers, and I respectfully and urgingly request that this Board retire and consider the evidence before it and make a determination. I they didn't think enough to come down here and contest it~ I will note for the record the last time I was before the Board~ on Mr. Gambino' s case~ the Board will recall that there was a representative here it was rather sharp explained--and there was testimony from both sides. There' s nothing here. They're history for the lack of response and cavalier attitude. There are attempts to resolve this and I think' s it' s militate in favor of closing this hearing and taking a decision on the evidence particularly in light of their failure to even request from you any consideration~ and I deplore you people to close this hearing and .t~ender him some sort of relief in m.y application. CHAIRMAN: We had not even gotten to the public discussion of this particular hearing~ so we' re not even to that particular point yet~ ok? The other thing I wanted to mention to you~ however, [s that we did send the Town Attorney a letter today indicating--that is~ the fulltime Town Attorney and the Parttime Town Attorney~ both letters indicating to them that -- I should say the Town Attorney and the Assistant Town Attorney letters indicating that a representa- tive of the Building Department has to be here~ and at the next .regularly scheduled Special Meeting of this particular case~ and if for some reason we don't get any response by the 29th~ then we would issue subpoenaes for those two Building Department members to be here. SECRETARY: And the Town Attorney said he could not be here tmight. CHAIRMAN: Right. AndtheTown Attor. neywas unavailable t-0 be here Southold Town Board of Appeals-49~- (ZAHRA Hearing, continued:) February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN (continued): tonight, so we will discuss that at that particular time. will deal with that. But we So, if you want, the Board wi.Il talk about this collectively after we talk to the public and see what responses they have, and then we'll make a decision at this point, if we want to continue with it ~ we'll accept your suggestion. MR. BRESSLER; Yes, I understand the position with respect to the desire to secure the testimony~ I would suggest to you that it is incumbent upon that Town agency to come forward, and it is not--and I'm not faulting your motives, which are only the bests but it is not incumbent upon you to insist or demand or issue subpoenaes for someone from the Town from the Building Department, to come forward and put in what may or may not be opposition evidence. I don't feel respectfully despite your desire to find out their side of the story, and I don't think that that's warranted on these facts, but maybe we should proceed with the public portion of the hearing. CHAIRMAN: Only to answer that quickly and we'll discuss the rebuttal in between later, and that is basically that there are or there appears to be, not from your point of view but from the point of view from looking -= I'll be honest with you _i I spent the better part of last Sunday looking over all of the information that we have in our file, and I see that there are things missing that I would like to discuss with the Building Department in reference to questions that I'd like to ask them, and that is the reason why I would like to recess the hearing. That, s the only reason to be honest with you, ok? Now, we'll get to the point -- is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application, and I would suggest that you speak if you have an interest in it. Bearing in mind that we haven't made a decision if we're closing the hearing tonight--we may come back again on March 3rd or 4th, which is not our regularly scheduled meeting. It will be a Special Meeting merely to close this particular case, to discuss or questions we have with the Buillding Department at that particular time, and I'm. sure that possibly counsel would like to ask a couple of questions of the Building Department, I have no idea at this point. And if for some reason the situation Southold Town Board of Appeals -50- (ZAHRA Hearing, continued:) February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting CHAIRMAN (continued): doesn't lend itself to meet on that particular time, then we will meet the following week. Our next regularly scheduled meeting is March 17th, and we are trying, because we have a total calendar for that date and almost a total calendar for the April date. We are trying to clear the record for that regularly scheduled meeting. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Yes, Sir, would you use the mike and state your n~ame please. FRANK CARLIN: Frank Carlin. CHAIRMAN: How do you doo MR. CARLtN: Yes, Sir. I've been on many a jury duty and listened to the case, and tonight it's obvious by listening to all these facts, that this man deserves to have that decision reversed~ and give him a right to continue on and the time that he had lost. You ladies and gentlemen are educated peoples and I know you have the ability to make this decision. I know how the Southold Town operates, and maybe some people know how I operate in this Town. I know Ruth (Oliva) does. I call a spade a spade w,I'm playing pinnocle when i say that. I read articles in the paper--many of them doesn't get printed. But I'l[et the chips fall where they may. I've beent hrough one time like this man was many years ago with the Zoning Board. I don't want to keep you people here too long tonight, but I had to do the same thing. I come out of the service in 1951 and I live in Matti- Laurel on the Main Road, and t opened up a little TV shops you know, to make a few dollars. And myself. So I hung a little radio-TV sign out in front maybe a 24" x 12", and the Building Inspector come down and said "You're going to have to take that down. You can't have that'out there. It's against the ordinance." I said, "Why? Is that doing any harm? A little sign. It's not bothering anybody.~' I said, "I'm not going to take it down." So at that time I got Roy LaFreniere--rest his soul in peaces a good lawyer. And I feel that I am--like we are here tonight. And I won the case. And I believe they added Southold Town Board of Appeals -51- February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting (ZAHRA Hearing, continued:) MR. CARLIN (continued): to the zoning rules. That was quite a many years ago. And he added that portion into the Code. So I remained for ten years and since I~¥e been out of--retired~ And now I'm employed by Grumman and I'm going to retire .in another year there. But I still keep making the Board meetings. I don't want to disappoint Frank--it's a little bit strang to me tonight. I usually don't make these meetings. But I was following this gentleman's case, and I wanted to be here to really listen to it and _s. ee really what it was. It's amazing how they give this man the runaround. I'm also going to recommend the next Town Board meeting, the 23rd-- I usually make them all~ And I'm pushing very strongly in this Town for a Board of Ethics: To get a good Board of Ethics here is what we need here in this Town. But I don't want to get off the subject. I think this attorney, gentlemen, did a wonderful job presenting the case's facts. I think the facts are here tonight to make a decision. Not wait. They should have been here. If they're not here-- I had a lawsuit once, too and I went to Court. Against a Company. The people didn't show up and I lost time for work. The lawyers--the jtldge says, "Let me hear your case anyway." He heard my case. I won the case. Even if they wasn't there, I won the case~ I feel this man s'hould Win his case tonight, and I think you people have the ability and knowledge from what you heard tonight to make that decision tonight. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Carlin. MR. ZAHRA: Do you have a number for that building permit, I want to copy that file. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody el se that would like to speak in favor or against this application? (Several persons raised their hands indicating they were in favor.) CHAIRMAN: Ok. Hearing no f'urther comment-- MR~ BRESSLER~ Jerry, before you go further, you mention that you needed some information from the Building Department. CHAIRMAN: Right~ Southold Town Board of Appeals February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting (ZAHRA Hearing, continued:) MR. BRESSLER: Is there anything that we have or may have in our file as a result of tb~s file or other examinations, we might be able to-- C~HAIRMAN: Anything that can supplement the file that would help us in understanding some of the verbal things that went on between the Building Inspector and Mr~ Zahra. And we're not questioning either your integrity, Mr~ Zahra's integrity, Mr. Tsontakis, and we're not questionin~g--'I"m not questioning _anybo'dy~ I just thought you might have jotted some of this stuff down that you could supply to us--you know what it is? In reading the testimony, as you read it, it comes out just the way we say it. It does not have the transitional phrases we can place back in~ and it's much easier to understand it in the vain. If you--in other words~ Charlie, if you jotted it down on a note pad, that would be very. helpful. MR. ZAHRA: Jerry, your statement before~ if I can recall the record, you were mentioning that there were items missing-- are they specific items or are you generalizing? CHAIRMAN: I'm generalizing~ I'm saying--yes. MR, ZAHRA: Ok. there though? Are we looking for something that might not be CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MR, BRESSLER: Yes. That's what he's asking for. CHAIRMAN: And the only way that we can reduce it is by having the people--illicited is to have the people here to tell it. MR, BRESSLER: And that's the other sided who is missing. That's -- that's my point. I have only one other request in addition, of course, to the fact to join in this man's statement that it be closed, and that is if the Board does decide to set a recessed date, I think you indicated that I may have a few questions for any representatives that show up. I take it you are talking about a right of cross-examination? Southold Town Board of Appeals -53- February 18, 1988 Regular Meeting (ZAHRA Hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: Well I cannot in any way, manner or form ask somebody to answer a question~ If they don't want to answer a question, then they really don't have to answer a question, ok. And I said this before referring to Building Inspectors or any other members of this Town, and I'm not going to ask or demand or whatever. But I have certain questions that I'd like to ask the Building Inspector and they are general questions which I feel fit into this particular case, and if you feel that you want to ask some questions and they want to answer them, that's fine with me. MR. BRESSLER: And if they don't, that will be that. CHAIRMAN: That~s be that and we'll close the hearing and that's it. MR. BRESSLER: hearing~ Ok, in that case, I would ask that you close the CHAIRMAN: You mean tonight? MR. BRESSLER: Absolutely! Right now. (The Board caucused briefly.) CHAIRMAN: Ok. The Board does feet that we would like to give the Building Inspectors a chance to discuss just a couple of issues with us. It's not going to be a lengthy thing. So, we would like to reconvene at 7:30+_ on March 3rd, which is two weeks from tonight. And invite everybody back~ and hopefully we can wrap it up in a half hour -- did I say something funny? ('Jokingly). And we thank everybody for their courtesy, including the two main people that spoke, and their frankness and opinions and everything. It's really very helpful for us, and we thank the public also. And we hope everybody has a safe trip home. And thank you again. I'll make that in a motion~ On motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to RECESS the hearing in the Matter of CHARLES ZAHRA under Appl~ No~ 3701, until THURSDAY~ MARCH 3, 1988 at 7:30 p~m~ to be held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass, Doyen and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. The .~testimon~ ended at approximately 10:40 p.m. ~nda F. ~Kow~ski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLmql( DATE I ~ ]',3D/~.J4. Town Clerk' TOwn of Sou'[holoI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF APPEALS RE: Charles Zahra -Application for Reversal of Determination of Building Inspector - Revocation of Building Permit. Town Hall Southold, New York March 3rd, 1988 8:15 p.m. BEFORE: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Robert J. Douglass Linda Kowalski, Secretary Charles Grigonis Serge Doyen, Jr. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A P P E A RA N C E S : WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, ESQS. Attorneys for Charles Zahra P.O. Box 1424 Ma in Ro ad Mattituck, New York BY: ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GOEHRINGER: This is the last hearing of the evening, and I do have to apologize to you, Mr. Bressler that you were not the only hearing on tonight so, therefore, you are still the last hearing of the evening, and I know that we had promised you that you would be the only hearing tonight, but I'm sorry there were other more pressing issues before you or just as pressing. MR. BRESSLER: I need another date then. No, just kidding. MR. GOEHRINGER: For the record, this is Appeal Number 3701, is reconvened from the last regularly scheduled monthly meeting. This is on behalf of Charles Zahra. For the public in question, during the last hearing we had three witnesses sworn in and one witness that spoke independently that was not sworn in and two of those witnesses are before us tonight, and that is Mr. Bressler and Mr. Zahra, and we will be swearing in other witnesses tonight. As for the tenure of the meeting, I would ask if there are any spokespersons that would like to speak that represent either a group or 3 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if you'd like to speak as an individual, kina~ly just wait -- just kindly state your name and please restrict your statements that are germane to this particular subject area and preferably to this particular hearing. If you are not completely aware of the hearing in question, of what is specifically stated within or embodied within the transcripts that I have before me, then I would ask you please to limit your conversation to those areas that particularly deal with that. Thirdly-- or secondly, I have a specific problem in the respect that I made a statement at the last meeting that I was unaware of the whereabouts of the two building inspectors and that was not particularly true. I'll be honest with the public, I was not -- I was more interested in the hearing than I was basically on the -- of the whereabouts the other people were or whereabouts other people were and I apologize to the building inspectors for that particular part of it. I was aware, of course, that Mr. Lessard was ill and Mr. Horton was on vacation, and so if I caused any problems, I 4 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 apologize, gentlemen. I guess we'll start with the hearing. Mr. Bressler, could I -- would you step up to the mike for a couple of moments? You were going to supply us with some information. We had the mike fixed this afternoon. You were going to supply us with some information that we had requested on specific dates. MR. BRESSLER: Yes, that's correct. At the time of the last hearing, as I recall, Mr. Chairman, you had requested in order to aid and in organizing the testimony a brief chronology of events. I have -- I have prepared that chronology listing the various events with copies of relevant documents which were not yet or at least to my knowledge not yet in the record. Secondly, I believe that you asked for a chronology with respect to the photographs which have been previously submitted. This has been furnished in the form of Xeroxes of the photographs, numbered sequentially, taken between the period of May to August of 1987. MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 5 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 3~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Documents handed to Mr. Goehringer.) MR. GOEHRINGER: I appreciate it. Is there anything else you wanted to add to the record at this time? MR. BRESSLER: Not at this time, Mr. Chairman. MR. GOEHRINGER: I believe there's a lady in the back on my left-hand side that would like to say something. MS. FARR: Are you going to take statements from people on this hearing after the hearing information has been completed? MR. GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. FARR: Thank you. Then I'll wait till then. MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you for waiting. All right, basically I guess we've gotten to the point where we want to discuss a couple of issues with the building inspector, so I'll ask Mr. Lessard if he would step up to the mike and raise his right hand. (Mr. Lessard approached the podium.) MR. GOEHRINGER: Mr. Lessard, the information that you're about to bring forth to RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this board is the truth to the best of your knowledge? MR. LESSARD: Yes. MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you, sir. Is there anything that you want to state for the record concerning this case? MR. LESSARD: Because of -- because of pending legal activities or action that's pending, if you would, I'd make a statement that would encompass that part of the project that would be to where I would consider the Board of Appeals would be involved and may have' to address, if you would go that way. And that would be probably sometime in early September or late August when Mr. Zahra came into my office and he said he had a terrible problem; that he could not frame the roof affair to meet the existing apartment roof. And I said that at that time,"Mr. Zahra, you have a stamped set of plans from an engineer or an architect. That's the people you should be talking to, because the Building Department is not in the business of designing buildings." And he said "Oh, I can't -- I can't talk 7 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to that stubborn GD Greek because he won't do what I want him to." And he said "My problem is the new roof that I have to frame will not meet the old one." It was quite obvious because the ceilings were too low in the existing building, along with the windows and it would have to be picked up. And he said "Do you suppose I could open up parts of the accessory apartment and put in two by sixes?" And I said to him something to the effect that it is a nonconforming apartment; you have to be careful you don't exceed the value of the 50 percent. And he said, "Well, I really don't know what to do." And I said "What you have to do as far as I'm concerned is to go back to your engineer and do whatever you have to," and he left. This was in the early -- this was in the morning, around 10 o'clock. Early in the afternoon Mr. Horton had returned from being on the road, and he said to me, he said "Was Mr. Zahra in?" And I said "Yeah" -- I'm sorry, h~e RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 said "Was Charlie in?" I said "Yes, he was this morning." And he said "Did you make any arrangements with him?" And I said "No. Why? What is hell is the matter?" And he said he took the whole top of the building off. So he went back and spoke to Chartie and I guess he got the impression from Charlie, and you'd have to ask Mr. Horton this to verify it, but from what I was told, Charlie told him that I had said to him he can do anything he wants. And I said to Kurt, Mr. Horton, "You know damn well that nobody in the Building Department has the authority to okay getting rid of nonconformity and getting it back. Okay?" I guess a Stop Work Order was issued. Whether the first one was torn up or not, I It's hearsay, and I'm not gonna say don't know. that. The end result, and Mr. Horton could probably tell you the sequence, Mr. Bressler came in, early in the morning, 8:30ish maybe the following day or shortly -- the following Monday or whatever, wanted to talk to Mr. Horton because he can't talk to that "damn Lessard," RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 which is perfectly fine with meo And when he left I said to Mr. Horton, "Well, what's the end result?" He said he explained to Mr. Bressler that because the top was taken off, the plans that the permit was issued for no longer pertained, he would have to go out and get another revised set of plans and bring them back in again. And Mr. Bressler said fine, or something to that effect,. I guess, and he would be back. Further down the road we got reports that Mr. Zahra was back working again, I had no choice, but because he wouldn't stop, revoke the permit. Okay? The only other thing that I would say was from that day in early September until now, nobody has come in with the revised plans, nobody has ever told those people they couldn't have their restaurant, nobody has filed with the New York State Board of Review on whatever problem he has there, no one has come into the Building Department to ask if they can make the building safe. Nobody has gone to your board pertaining to the accessory apartment, if that's RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 what this is all about, and that's about all I can say. If I can answer anything, I'd be glad to, providing it doesn't go into that legal area. MR. GOEHRINGER: Well, you're going to have to stop me if it does. MR. LESSARD: All right. Yes, sir, I'll try. MR. GOEHRINGER: And I want the public to be aware of the fact that the thoughts that I have perceived are mainly thoughts that were resurrected or elicited from the last hearing, and they were not specifically anything that I had derived out of reading the minutes, because I'll be perfectly honest with you, I purposely did not read the minutes; okay? There was a discussion made by the applicant, and I think it was somewhere in this area of that day that Mr. Zahra came in and he reflected the raising the roof; okay. I just wanted to ask you first, what -- if somebody mentioned to you, Mr. Lessard, I have to raise the roof, what would that mean to you? MR. LESSARD: That could be one of two RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 things; either to take the roof apart and put a new one onto it, or it could be as was suggested, that the building itself could be picked up and added onto on the bottom, depending on what the condition is. MR. GOEHRINGER: My only question is that at no time were you ever with the thought that this entire second story was going to be demolished? MR. LESSARD: Absolutely not. had made myself perfectly clear. MR. GOEHRINGER: So basically the reason for the Stop Work Order was because of that severing of that second story? MR. LESSARD: One, that nonconformity was removed, then the plans as submitted no longer pertained, and by law you have to come in and show us now what are you doing, can what you want to do from this point on legally be done. You have to meet the State Construction Code, regardless. So there is no choice. He did something that we had no authority to say fine, just keep right on going. We had no choice in that department but stop it, and that's what we 12 I thought I RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 13 did. And when he refused to stop it, then we have no choice, but to revoke the permit. MR. GOEHRINGER: To your knowledge, based upon the New York State Construction Code, which I believe is the code in effect -- and that's what you more or less rely on? MR. LESSARD: Yes, sir. MR. GOEHRINGER: Okay. What's required for new construction on the second story of a wood frame building in a business zone for utilization of that second story, either for -- MR. LESSARD: If you are talking a new building -- MR. GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. LESSARD: Okay. A new building in a type five or wood construction flammable material~ if you would, is not permitted to go any higher than one story; okay, as far as the public is concerned. If it is an existing building, the state cannot say anything, except the way it's constructed to meet the safety regulations. Once it is removed and it now becomes a RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 new building, then you must meet today's requirements, and the State Construction Code says in a type five no way can you have an apartment or living quarters over it. It must be a ty~pe two noncombustible and a whole mess of other stuff. MR. GOEHRINGER: Just for my own personal edification, what about the utilization of it for a business purpose on the second floor? Would it have to meet the handicapped law and all the rest of it? MR. LESSARD: Absolutely. Absolutely. You would have to -- you would have to probably design some type of elevator and put it in there for that, as it stands today. There may be modifications shortly, but as it is now-- MR. GOEHRINGER: Okay. I thank you very much, Mr. Lessard. That kind of answers my questions. I guess we get to the approach -- approach a conflict at this particular time, and I do see the town attorney in the audience and I'll see -- do you feel that you want to answer any questions from the applicant at this particular time? RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LESSARD: I'd have to know what the question is and whether it would involve something other than this part of the hearing that involves this board. MR. GOEHRINGER: Then maybe what we'll do is we'll ask you to sit down and we'll see -- maybe we'll get you back up again. We thank you, and we'll ask Mr. Horton if he would step up to the microPhone for a few moments. MR. LESSARD: Thank you. MR. GOEHRINGER: I thank you. (Mr. Horton approaches the podium.) MR. GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horton, would you raise your right hand and solemnly swear -- MR. HORTON: I do. MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. There came a time during the hearing, the last hearing, that they discussed the erection of a cement block wall on the east side. Can you kind of give us some background? MR. HORTON: All right, I will try to inform everybody tO the best of my knowledge. This so-called firewall cement block wall, I don't care what we call it -- first off, when 15 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 the foundation was put into this building, through, I don't know what, rain storms or what, the easterly wall collapsed. We were called -- we were sent up there, we went up and we observed, both Vic and I, he was there, and we seen the wall was all collapsed in. At this time Mr. Zahra said some few things and he said something about either he'd like to expand the upstairs if he could and like this. When -- this is a no-no because the way the permit was issued, so I did make a suggestion that we -- why don't you go for a firewall, because you will be too close to another wood frame building, the Broken Down Velice, it would be less than 10 feet, and I said if you boarded it up it wouldn't cost you anymore money, you're down to the ground, your footings now, start up and there would be in your favor if you wanted to go to the Board of Review and this you will see on a set of plans. We talked about it, we wrote it down there, and everything was done this way. He agreed specifically because was told him, this is just a suggestion, he didn't have to do it, but it RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 would be to his advantage, because we have been to the Board of Review before. In fact, there's a man in the audience right now that was there with us and he knows what we' re talking about, and when you go to that and you lay the facts on, they do give you breaks. I'm not saying they give it to you, but they do give you breaks, so this was just a suggestion. He agreed to go with it. I'm not saying it cost him anymore money or any less money, I don't know, that's not my job. But this is how it came about. Nobody said he had to do it. MR. GOEHRINGER: Does this firewall have to go all the way to the second story or is it mainly for the first floor? MR. HORTON: It was to go above the other -- Broken Down is the one-story building next store, it was to go above that, which it did. Now, it wasn't formerly filled in. He might have wanted to do this, I don't know. He just said I'd like to enlarge what he's doing, like a deck or anything, I don't know. MR. GOEHRINGER: During the actual RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 granting of this permit, did you have any reservations in reference to the preexisting use of the building? MR. HORTON: I was not involved in the granting of this permit. MR. GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of that. But did you have any feelings about the preexisting use of the second story? MR. HORTON: Yes, we all know what we're doing, like that, there is reservations when you have a nonconforming use and there are certain restrictions you got to be careful of. MR. GOEHRINGER: I thank you, very much. I think that's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Horton. Is there anything you'd like to say in rebuttal, Mr. Bressler? MR. BRESSLER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd certainly like some questions put to Mr. Lessard either from you or through you. I think his statements certainly raise a number of issues that bear investigation. MR. GOEHRINGER: Could I ask you a favor, Mr. Bressler? Could you use that mike over RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there and we'll put Mr. Lessard back over here, and if he wouldn't mind, and what we'll do here is you'll ask the questions to the dias, if you would, to the board, and then if he feels that he can answer them, he'll answer them. MR. BRESSLER: Surely. In the first instance, I believe Mr. Lessard testified that in late August, early September this problem arose. I would like him to pinpoint for the board, if he could, the time when it first came to his attention -- MR. GOEHRINGER: In reference -- MR. BRESSLER: -- that the second story had been removed. When in late August, early Se,ptember was this work done? That's my question. MR. GOEHRINGER: You mean in reference to a chronological date, time? MR. BRESSLER: That's right. All I got was August, September. When did it come down and this problem arise? That's my first question. MR. GOEHRINGER: Can you answer that? MR. LESSARD: I tried to pinpoint it as 19 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 close as I could, Mr. Chairman, because at the time I thought everybody understood and I didn't -- I didn't put that much thought into the matter after it was discussed. I didn't figure it was a problem. I didn't see nothing wrong with it and I've got a million other things to do. It is just another one of those things during the day. MR. GOEHRINGER: I understand. MR. BRESSLER: I would like to know if a note or record was made of this occurence which would help the board in ascertaining when it is claimed that the taking down of the second story and this conversation occurred? MR. GOEHRINGER: You mean is there some note in the file that would be able to -- that would allow this gentleman to refresh his memory at this particular time? MR. BRESSLER: Precisely, Mr. Chairman. MR. GOEHRINGER: Well, the only thing we can do in that particular case is to take a three-minute recess and allow the building inspector to refresh his memory for that particular incident or action or occurrence or RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 whatever you want to call it at this particular time and we'll see if -- you know, that's the only thing I could do. MR. BRESSLER: Please. MR. GOEHRINGER: I just want you to remember, that although we're on the structure of somewhat of a tribunal, this is not a tribunal in that respect. We are trying to water it down to a certain degree. I'm not an attorney, although I've spent a beck of a lot of time in court. I was never trained in that particular area, so I wish that you would bear that in mind; okay? MR. BRESSLER: Fine. Three minutes would be perfectly all right. MR. GOEHRINGER: So with everybody's indulgence and seeing what I would hope Mr. Lessard -- you know, I understand and I didn't think this specific question of this nature was going to be answered -- asked, rather, to the board for your response, but we'll take a short recess and we'll ask Mr. Lessard if, you know, if you can answer that. MR. LESSARD: I don't see any bearing on RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whether it happened on a Monday or Tuesday, but I'll give it my best shot. MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I make that motion for about a three-minute recess, Gentlemen. MR. GRIGONIS: Second. MR. GOEHRINGER: All in favor? THE BOARD: Aye. (At 8:30 p.m. a short recess was taken.) MR. GOEHRINGER: Are you still going with the same question? MR. BRESSLER: Yes. I'd like to know if Mr. Lessard found anything? MR. GOEHRINGER: Could you -- thank you, sir. MR. LESSARD: my records, okay, the first I became aware of the second floor disappearing was somewhere in probably the week of the 20th of September. MR. GOEHRINGER: That's -- As far as I could tell from MR. LESSARD: I can't pinpoint it any closer than that. I'm sorry. 22 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. LESSARD: That's when Mr. Horton made RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 me aware of a problem in Mattituck. to Mattituck. MR. BRESSLER: 23 I didn't go Now, I would like the board to ask Mr. Lessard if he is aware of whether or not the approved plans called for a new roof structure? MR. LESSARD: Absolutely. How else can you add on, sir, without putting the roof? And you can't put a roof on unless it's new. MR. GOEHRINGER: If I might just ask a question, are we talking about the roofing material or are we talking about -- MR. LESSARD: I don't know. MR. GOEHRINGER: -- or are we talking abou% the roof rafters? MR. LESSARD: I'm assuming he's referring to new roof rafters on the part that's gonna be added on. I don't know what he's after. MR. BRESSLER: His understanding is exactly right, the new roof rafters and those items which go upon it. answer is yes? MR. GOEHRINGER: the existing roof? And I take it the For the addition or for RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BRESSLER: A new roof over the entire structure. I take it the answer is yes, as shown on the plans? MR. LESSARD: Not as indicated in the plans as I determined. I got the impression that that area that existed may in all probability get a new asphalt roof to go with the rest of what was added on. technical that is. MR. GOEHRINGER: Well, that's basically what my question was. MR. BRESSLER: Well, I would ask, then, as to whether or not Mr. Lessard is familiar with what the existing construction of the roof was as.opposed to what is shown on the plans, and I'd submit to the board that it"s evident from comparing the two that there is a new roof shown on the plans. If you look at two by eights and two by sixes, which I'm advised were not there, I don't see how any other conclusion could be drawn. MR. GOEHRINGER: Do you want to say anything about that, Mr. Lessard? MR. LESSARD: That may be as it is. 24 I don't know how RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's up to the engineer or architect to take care of. What I studied on that roof plan indicated that it was feasible, according to the state code, and that's what my job is. The responsibility of whether the roof is framed properly is dependent upon the engineer or the architect. According to the education law or the executive law, it is up to the architect on all commercial buildings, has to be there, that's the object of it. I don't know where this is going to, as far as voiding the permit or whatever he asks or whatever he's asked to reverse the decision on. Did you want to say something? MR. HORTON: Yes, I want to know if somebody else can whisper in somebody else's ear. Can I go whisper in Vic's ear? MR. ZAHRA: If you want to pay him. I happen to be paying him. MR. LESSARD: If we are going to turn this into a circus -- I think I've given you enough information to this board to make a determination. If we're going to turn this into 25 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a circus, I have nothing to say. MR. BRESSLER: I object strenuously to those remarks. I believe I've asked questions in good faith that go to the heart of those issues, and I think as you, Mr. Chairman, put it at the last meeting, we're trying to get down to the bottom of things here, and I would state for the record that my client and I both do not appreciate those remarks and would reiterate the fact that are they are asked strictly in good faith strictly to get to the bottom of things here and I don't believe that this has turned into a circus by any means. It is a very serious matter and I would like to proceed, Mr. Chairman. MR. ZAHRA: Excuse me, one second. I'd just like to apologize to the board and the group for the outburst. I'm sorry. MR. GOEHRINGER: Would you sit down, Mr. Zahra? I realize that there are times you might have to confer with your attorney. You kind of left me on a cliff hanging, Victor, and you have to help me understand this. In other words, although the plans say that they RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 call for a new roof, meaning new roof rafters and so on and so forth, you did not specifically think that they were going to replace anything other than the shingles on the existing part of the roof? MR. LESSARD: That is the common practice, sir, but that's between him and his architects, not between him and the Building Department. MR. GOEHRINGER: Okay. So you thought he was only going to add on the addition, which was -- the addition was going to be the new roof, which is the part that -- which we refer to a reverse gable coming off on the east side facing the Broken Down Velice. MR. LESSARD: That's right, sir. MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. Bressler? Excuse me, I just had to clear that issue up in my own mind. MR. BRESSLER: Fine. Thank you. That's exactly the point. I would now request the board to inquire of Mr. Lessard whether or not he is aware of whether the plans as submitted and approved called for a consideration and possible RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 replacement of structural members at the time the renovation proceeded to the point where these structural members became apparent to the builder? Is Mr. Lessard aware of whether or not the plans provided for that eventuality? MR. LESSARD: If you're referring to that statement in the plans, sir, that say that any wood that is deteriorated would be replaced, I would also point out to this board I have not -- I, the building department, have seen no reports from any engineers specifying what should be replaced and that's where it belongs. MR. GOEHRINGER: Okay. Mr. Bressler? MR. BRESSLER: May I assume that the answer, then, to my question is yes, that Mr. Lessard is aware of something in the plans which provides for that eventuality? MR. LESSARg: Plus the procedure that has to be gone through; yes, absolutely. MR. BRESSLER: I would now ask whether there came a time when Mr. Lessard had a conversation with Mr. Zahra concerning the deteriorated condition of the first floor members in this building and what had to be done RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 to correct them? MR. LESSARD: Not to my recollection. He may have talked to Mr. Horton about it, but he didn't talk to me. MR. BRESSLER: If he didn't talk to Mr. Lessard, was a conversation with Mr. Horton relayed to Mr. Lessard, wherein a conversation took place regarding the replacement of first floor members? MR. GOEHRINGER: DO you remember any, Mr. Horton? MR. HORTON: I do, yes. MR. LESSARD: I did not have a conversation with Mr. Horton on this, other than the fact that when I went on that job, the second or third time, all the -- all the first floor members have been removed and done anew, and I asked Mr. Horton what's going on here. And that's the sum total of the rotten wood or whatever you're referring to. MR. GOEHRINGER: Did you therefore want to ask that question of Mr. Horton? MR. BRESSLER: Yes. I think I got -- I think I got an affirmative response. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LESSARD: Is he done with me? going to play yo-yo here. MR. BRESSLER: I'm not done -- MR. GOEHRINGER: How many more questions do you have? MR. BRESSLER: Well, not too much, but I think it depends in part on Mr. Lessard's answers. My next question is, didn't there come a time before the second floor members were removed that Mr. Lessard had a conversation with Mr. Zahra concerning the rotten second floor membe rs ? MR. LESSARD: No, sir. We had no conversation, and I want the board at this point to understand something; Mr. Horton is a senior building inspector. Mr. Horton is well trained in his job. Mr. Horton doesn't have to come in and report every nail and splinter to his boss. If he did that, two things would happen; Mr. Horton wouldn't be able to do the rest of his work and neither would Mr. Lessard. So let's not get a little ridiculous on this. What else would you like to know, sir? 30 I 'm not RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 MR. BRESSLER: Well, Mr. Lessard, were you present at the site when a discussion was had with respect to the firewall and the foundation on this building? MR. LESSARD: I was, sir, yes. MR. BRESSLER: And wasn't the question of whether or not the first floor members were rotten and had to be replaced discussed at that time? MR. LESSARD: Not that I was aware of. Not that I was aware of. I know that Mr. Horton and Mr. Zahra went over and conversed while I was doing something else, and I know that Mr. Horton advised him -- advised him that it would be.to his best interest to put that wall up, and that's all I know about that. MR. BRESSLER: Well, Mr. Lessard, did you have occasion to look at the first floor members while you were down at the building? MR. LESSARD: I did not. I was standing on the first floor, but I didn't look underneath the first floor, no, sir. MR. BRESSLER: Well, did you look around the first floor? RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LES SARD: Absolutely. MR. BRESSLER: Was it apparent to you at that time that there were structural members that needed replacement? MR. LESSARD: when I was there. MR. BRESSLER: They were already replaced At that time did you have occasion to view the second story members at all? them? MR. LESSARD: MR. BRESSLER: Yes. And what did you note about MR. LESSARD: That they were new. MR. GOEHRINGER: I think he's referring -- MR. LESSARD: When I looked at that, there was new timbers added. You may call them ceiling joist. You may call them second floor joist, and technically that was they would be at the time I observed the second floor, now suspended with I beams. I don't know what else you want me to observe. MR. BRESSLER: Were you told by Mr. Horton that this had been discussed with Mr. Zahra and it was approved? 32 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LESSARD: MR. BRESSLER: construction. MR. LESSARD: 33 What was, sir? The fact that there was new I don't understand the question. Did I discuss -- MR. BRESSLER: Did you discuss the matter of the new construction with Mr. Horton and were you told by Mr. Horton that he had discussed it with Mr. Zahra? MR. LESSARD: No, I didn't. I just pointed out to Mr. Horton that I observed everything brand new on the first floor and I wanted to know what was going on. MR. GOEHRINGER: Could you just, again, for the board, not specifically to the -- MR. BRESSLER: If that's the case, Mr. Chairman, and that everything was new and Mr. Lessard didn't know what was going on and he didn't get a satisfactory explanation, I don't understand why the job proceeded at that point. There is something -- let me just state, Mr. Chairman, there is something inherently inconsistent about this. According to what we've heard, the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 Building Department goes down there, they see all these new things going on that are not part of the plan, Mr. Lessard doesn't bring it to Mr. Zahra's attention, he presumably has a discussion with Mr. Horton, if it's not clear by Mr. Horton, and I haven't heard that it was, and there's no violation issued and Mr. Zahra goes on his way with no approval and there's no Stop Work issued, yet the board is led to believe that at some point the story which has been put forth tonight comes out and that all of the sudden he does something else without approval and he's told to stop. This doesn't make any sense to me, Mr. Chairman, and what I'm trying to find out is what happened at the first meeting when everybody found out things had been done anew? No new plans were requested, no Stop Work were issued, there's something internally inconsistent, that's my point, and I would invite the chair to ask any questions that it has on this subject, because apparently I'm not going to find out exactly what happened, and I don't have any more questions along this line. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. LESSARD: Ail I could say to the chair is I observed everything new. I observed that what was new was in conformity, as far as the layout is concerned with the floor plan. Okay? Obviously the attorney doesn't know that much about construction, and I can understand that. I observed two things, what was put up there is what was shown on the plan and that it was all new, and I questioned the fact that it was new with Mr. Horton, and that's nobody business but me and Mr. Horton, unless we agreed that something was severely wrong. Okay? MR. BRESSLER: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I would just put forth the proposition -- MR. GOEHRINGER: MR. BRESSLER: Thank you, Mr. Lessard. -- that if that is so, and that if everything that was put up that was new was done in accordance with the plans and that was okay with the Building Department, and certainly you know from the last hearing our position that had been discussed in advance and approved and that that didn't require new plans, it is our position that with respect to the RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 second story, which was also discussed and which was also new construction and which by the way was also going to be in exactly the same place, I think we've just heard from the microphone that that, too, would be perfectly okay. MR. LESSARD: Nonconformity. MR. BRESSLER: I am at a loss, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lessard. MR. GOEHRINGER: MR. BRESSLER: I don't have any more questions for Thank you. Now, with respect to Mr. Horton, I just have one or two questions, following up on the one that you indicated properly was put to him. MR. GOEHRINGER: Do you want to answer some questions, assuming that it's not without the scope? MR. HORTON: First off, I'd like to say something to M~. Yes, I would like to answer. Bressler and like that. There's a little misunderstanding here. He made a statement about new joist and like that. He didn't say where and what. I assume the second floor joist. To tell you the perfectly honest trutlh, RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 I have never been down inside that cellar because I'm -- I can't fly down. I'm not Batman or anyone else. That cellar is pretty deep, there's no ladder, nothing when I've been there, and I've never been down in the cellar to see all the timbers and everything that was put in there. The new part you could see. What the old part is I haven't got the slightest idea, unless somebody buys me a sky hook, number 1. Number 2, what I thought he was referring to is either the second floor joist from the second story, and what happened there I pulled in there one of my files and I pulled in for in.spection and Charlie says "I want to talk to you." I says "What about?" He says "I had those old beams laying around my place," and he said "The upstairs I think was a little weak. Do you mind if I put these up there?" Well, if you take a look what's in there and where he put in, he wants to double up. That gives me a little more because the fish plates is a little stronger. I agreed. He did on it his own and everything else after it was RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 done. I did tell, afterwards, that everything was fine. I mean what can you say after a man has done something like this? At that time the second story was sitting on there and nothing was done above the floor joist, the second floor joist. He did beef them up, which is great. You can go up there and see them today. I don't know how long he said they had been laying around; that's why they were a little discolored, he said he had them stored at home or someplace, I don't know. That's what I want to square away about the floor joist. MR. GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you the same question I asked Mr. Lessard, and that was; based upon the plans, you know, when during the period of time that there was some minor modifications or anything, did you have any idea that they were actually going to destroy that second floor? MR. HORTON: None at all until I drove up there, I don't know, the 25th or 21st of September and I looked and I couldn't believe what I saw. There was no top. I had to call ,, y previous to this, ou ought to go to Mattituck RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and see what's going go on. MR. GOEHRINGER: plans -- MR. HORTON. 39 There's no top." But I mean based upon the No, because it showed they were going to come out toward the street a little bit and they wanted to change the stairway and going toward the Broken Down Velice with a stairway down there, and that's the only thing that I know. MR. GOEHRINGER: I'm not trying to add to the questions of tonight, I assure you; I am just trying to get this straight in my mind. Mr. Bressler? MR. BRESSLER: My next question to Mr. Horton is whether or not he ever had a conversation with Mr. Zahra about -- other than the beams supporting the second floor as to whether he ever had a conversation with Mr. Zahra about replacing structural members in t]~e walls. MR. HORTON: What walls are we referring to? MR. BRESSLER: Why, the walls of this building, let's start with the first -- RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 MR. HORTON: The second story, I was never upstairs. There's no way of getting there after he tore everything out. MR. BRESSLER: How about -- MR. HORTON: If you talk to Mr. Tsontakis, the engineer, he said he couldn't see, had to take a flashlight. He couldn't see and he was your engineer. MR. BRESSLER: How about the first floor walls; did you ever have a discussion with him about the rotted and deteriorated -- MR. HORTON: Not so rotted and deteriorated. He mentioned a couple of fish plates what he was changing. He beefed them up. In fact, if anybody looks at those sets of plans, they're not a good set of plans. Charlie says he's a good builder, maybe he can build them, but they're not a good set of plans. MR. BRESSLER: MR. HORTON: Were they approved? They were approved. If you read, the alteration and like that, it doesn't say a new building. MR. BRESSLER: MR. HORTON: Well, Mr. Horton -- And please check the permit RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 !1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 and you'll see what it says. MR. BRESSLER: The plans do reflect the existence of a new roof. MR. HORTON: May I ask a question? What set of plans; you have, are they approved by the Building Department or the one you dragged out of your briefcase? MR. GOEHRINGER: Let's not get counterproductive. MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Chairman -- MR. GOEHRINGER: We did run into this problem because of different sets of plans because one of them was photocopied and one was a straight set. I am in hopes that we are dealing with the set that reflects 8/8/86. MR. HORTON: Our plans have a stamp of the Building Department on there, what you can do and everything else. Any other plans don't pertain to this building. MR. BRESSLER: The answer is yes? MR. HORTON: The ones you've been showing in your hand before. MR. BRESSLER: MR. HORTON: Yes. This one you've been waving RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in front of us. MR. GOEHRINGER: ours? MR. HORTON: one he's been referring to. all. MR. BRESSLER: MR. ZAHRA: MR. HORTON: Do you want a copy of No, I'm talking about that It's been shrunk, that's Eric, I have that one here. I want to see the one Mr. Bressler has been showing through the air, that he's been referring to. MR. ZAHRA: There's no difference. MR. BRESSLER: has · MR. HORTON: at it. MR. BRESSLER: looked -- MR. HORTON: MR. GOEHRINGER: look at it. It's the same one the board 42 I'd like an engineer to look The board has already I want an engineer. He wants an engineer to MR. BRESSLER: In this case, you can look at the one the board has and answer the question. Doesn't matter to me. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HORTON: I'm not referring to that one. You didn't wave it in the air. MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Chairman, if the witness would like to look at the boards' plans to answer that question, that's perfectly okay. MR. GOEHRINGER: Could you just bring those plans up so that I could compare them with the same plans that we have here? It's basically the newer set here, the ones that -- yes, thank you. They appear to be the same set of plans, Mr. Horton, except this lacks the engineer's seal on ours. MR. LESSARD: What about our stamps, Jerry? MR. GOEHRINGER: Well, yours are on the copy of the -- of yours, okay. We had to reduce it. MR. LESSARD: I mean his. The object of putting plans through the Building Department is to -- the Building Department to mark up what is required, not take them back to their client and have them throw them somewhere and work off plans that -- 43 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 MR. GOEHRINGER: Oh, you're referring to the individual pencil marks that you placed on the plans, I assume? MR. LESSARD: The red ink marks and the stamp and the rest of it, absolutely. MR. GOEHRINGER: I have one -- the copy that we have of yours, which again is shrunk, has the fee -- the fee evaluation in longhand and it has some writing which I think appears to be yours. MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Chairman, in order that we may get on with this and not get bogged down in things that aren't relevant, here's a stamped set we've got. The board can see -- MR. GOEHRINGER: MR. BRESSLER: they're the same. Could I just see that? The board can see that It's the same, only they're very difficult to read because they're faded. So -- MR. GOEHRINGER: Kurt. MR. HORTON: right. MR. GOEHRINGER: This is the original set, Ail right. Thank you. Ail Do you want to take a RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 look at them? MR. HORTON: with that. MR. GOEHRINGER: copied it and it's shrunk. MR. HORTON: All right. MR. GOEHRINGER: sir? No, I'd have to compare ours This is yours. We just Do you want to continue, MR. BRESSLER: Well, the question was concerning the new roof, and that's when the dispute with the plans came up. I want to know, and Mr o Horton is certainly free to refer to the plans, as to whether or not it demonstrates the existence of a new roof? MR. HORTON: As far as if you look on the plans, from a point when Mr. Tsontakis put where it will start from new to old, it doesn't say all new. It nowhere -- it says it will replace certain things. It. doesn't say you'll put in all new timber in there, no way. Well, Mr. Horton, am I If it did -- let me add MR. BRESSLER: correct -- MR. HORTON: RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 ~2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 something. If it did say, someone in this room is awful stupid to go up there and put I beams up there and keep a second story up there if he's going to tear it down. MR. BRESSLER: Well, Mr. Horton, how old is this Coffee Pot building; do you know? know. say. MR. HORTON: I couldn't tell you. I don't It was there before I was born, I would MR. BRESSLER: Not too old. No. I don't think that comes MR. HORTON: into the thing. MR. BRESSLER: plywood construction back then? MR. HORTON: Pardon? Well, were roofs made with 46 MR. BRESSLER: Were roofs made with plywood construction back then? MR. HORTON: I don't know if the roof was plywood construction. I never saw it exposed. Every time I saw it it has fascia boards on it or shingles on it and I think blueish wood shingles on the outside. I 'm not sure. I'd have to check. MR. BRESSLER: My question to you, RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 · 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 buildings weren't constructed that way generally back then, with plywood? MR. HORTON: It depends. It might have been remodeled at one time. Who knows? I don't know when the last roof -- I know when I was a builder I used to put plywood on the roof. I don't know what was on there. I never saw it tore off. It was gone. There wasn't even evidence on the ground. MR. BRESSLER: I don't think I have any' more questions of Mr. Horton, Mr. Chairman. MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Horton. If anybody else would like to speak in fa¥or of this application, again, we ask again if there are spokespersons concerning specific groups or just an individual -- I know this lady had a statement. Could you use the mike and kindly state your name for the record? MS. FARR: is Cathleen Farr. I represent a group. I represent the Southold My name Citizens for Fair Government. We are at 25 Sterlington Commons in Greenport and I would like you to read the position of our group. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 "The pressure for expansion development in Southold Town is tremendous. The volume of applications handled twenty-five years ago has probably quadrupled. Thousands of items of local ordinance and legislation have been added piecemeal over the past twenty-five years. Elected and appointed local officials are inundated by conflicting demands from constituents. There are a lot of problems, problems of water supply, problems of land use, sewage treatment, garbage disposal, management of water ways, all are extremely difficult to resolve. We ask our public officials, part-time employees for the most part, to judge with the wisdom of Solomon, yet we the voters confronted them with a withering confusion of priorities. We only offer objections to our own little problems, rarely taking the time for dispassionate study of the complete picture. That job is left to, quote, government, close quote, such as yourselves. In return we offer perilously low pay and lots of criticism. We selected Mr. Zahra's case as a case in point, because it's well RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 documented. It illustrates a number of problems now typical between the town and its individual citizens. Specifically these; one, conflicting interpretation of rules. Probably the rules are not as clear as they should be and training and review is inadequate to insure consistent interpretation. Two, the system is too slow to respond, due most likely to concern that cases be thoroughly examined to avoid illegal decisions. Apparently it must be streamlined to offer quicker resolutions. For example, the legal justice system sets up a separate court to manage minor traffic violations and such. Serious crimes receive a slower~ more intensive examination of cases in a different court with different rules. Three, the system punishes a citizen without due process, before he receives a hearing. Whether Mr. Zahra gains relief from the defective Stop Work Order or not, he has been punished. By order of the Building Department, the building has stood open to the elements without a roof since mid October. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Deterioration is evident. No doubt he has also lost money due purely to the delay. Time, as they say, is money. Four, lack of priorities. of priorities should be established to move disputes through the system with greater dispatch. Five, adoption by local governing bodies of the legal concept innocent until proven guilty. We propose that citizens to be judged innocent, unless proven guilty in local civic disputes, as well as criminal ones. Lack of proof, failure to present proof and to do so promptly should result in automatic dismissal of cases, as it is done so from the criminal area. Six, lack of accountability. The supervisory body which should monitor the conduct of the Building Department is the Town Board. In the press of business, there appears to be little regular advice or consultation between the members of the Building Department and the Town Board. One member of the Town Board was -- is present at this hearing. We look to the full board to take up the matter now A determination 50 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 and study this event, not with an eye to punishment, but with all eyes riveted on preventing this whole class of problems in the future. We look to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a streamlined procedure that is much faster than this cumbersome process we now have. We have a long way to go to achieve fair government in Southold. As it has been said, the journey of 1,000 miles begins with the first step. We ask each of you members of the Zoning Board of Appeals to begin this journey by finding in Mr. Zahra's favor tonight. Thank you. MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the applicat ion? MS. GARCIA: Excuse me. MR. GOEHRINGER: Yes? I'm sorry, it's a formality, we have to have you state your name. MS. GARCIA: Mr. Chairman, my name is Corinne Garcia, and I would just like to speak as a taxpayer; that I am thoroughly disgusted RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 that I have to witness a Southold town attorney just hired and paid by the taxpayers, that I have to witness that he is outside during break discussing the case with the client and advising Thank him on what he could do to win the case. you. MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Do you have something in rebuttal, sir? MR. BRESSLER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to make few remarks in closing. First, I'd like to respond just briefly to the remarks that were just made. I think they're completely out of order and I would note for the Chairman that to have t~he attorney for the town talking to an attorney for an applicant about matters presently under consideration is what I would consider to be constructive rather than destructive, and the content of what was discussed of course is nobody's business at this point, but I would just note to the board that if attorneys for parties stop talking to each other, the legal system is gonna go a little bit crazy. RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 Finally, in summation, I would just like to point out to the board that what it has before it is a very simple and narrow issue; it has before it the issue of whether the revocation of the building permit, based on two grounds, was proper; one, the violation of the Stop Work Order, and two, failure to comply with plans. I think based upon the testimony at the first session, we've heard nothing to the contrary tonight. That to the extent that the revocation is based on an alleged violation of Stop Work Order, it must fall, and indeed no defense of that position was offered by either member of the Building Department. I might add that neither even claimed that the defects raised were not in fact there. I think that adequately disposes of the first ground. As for the second ground, that is failure to comply with plans, I would note first that I believe the process was defective in the first instance; there is no specification anywhere as to the regard in which the plans were not adhered to, and there's been no supplemental RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 ~4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 writing ever issued setting forth in what respect the plans weren't adhered to. Assuming for a moment that we get over that hurdle, we now come to the issue of whether or not there's any kind of evidence before the board as to whether or not the plans actually weren't followed, and I don't believe that the board has heard any tonight. What the board has heard from Mr. Lessard, rather, is the statement that when, during the course of construction, additions and substitutions were made to the first floor of the building and they generally fell within the parameters of the plan, that that was perfectly okay. I would put forth the proposition to the board that what was intended with respect to the second floor was exactly the same, and if the position of the Building Department is to be consistent, and I'm sure that it ought to be, then any renovation or replacement which falls within the same general outliner just as the first floor did, would be perfectly okay. We have not heard from the building 54 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 inspectors any evidence concerning in what way the plans could be altered to show anything different. Indeed, they've testified that the additions that they authorized and ratified, that is the additional supporting members of additional members on the first floor, they didn't stop work for that, they didn't require him to submit additional plans, rather they said that's fine, as Mr. Horton said, if you want to over build, that's perfectly okay, no request for new plans, no request to stop, no request to do anything. I would submit that the situation with respect to the second floor is identical, and that no plan they could ask for would be any different. It is already being admitted by Mr. Lessard that, in fact, a new roof was called for, so it certainly couldn't be that. The walls, which by the way as you heard were to be brought up to code, are going to go on in exactly the same place, and we've heard from Mr. Lessard that that's okay. I don't believe that there's any evidence before the board that any plans have been RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 violated in any respect. So I think to the extent that the revocation is founded on that ground, it must fail. And indeed, gentleman, those are the only grounds that were urged before you. While there have been, I note, several other issues tangentially swirling around this case, they haven't been addressed by the Building Department, they haven't been addressed by us, and formally they haven't been addressed by you, and they are not before the board tonight. Had they been brought before the board tonight, then I dare say they would have been considered by us, by other people and they would properly ke before you, but there are only two grounds before you, and that's what your decision must be based on, and based on the evidence that we've heard tonight, I don't think there's any basis for sustaining the determination of the Building Department. I would point out certain inconsistencies in the Building Department's testimony this evening. I would note that their testimony concerning the dates that this problem arose are RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 completely erroneous. The evidence you've heard is the conversations and the demolition with respect to the second floor of the removal took place in August. You will find that in the chronology the building stood that way for quite a period while Mr. Zahra was involved in other matters and was getting organized to proceed on the job, and there was a break in there of a good period and the board can see exactly how long, from looking at the chronology. During that period of -- and I don't recall exactly how long it was, but it would be apparent to you from looking, no action was taken, and indeed there was a conversation, and I believe it was in July; nothing was done in July, nothing was done in August. They waited until September. I don't know why. We haven't heard why. They are just in error about that. What caused them to do that, we haven't heard, they didn't volunteer. A complaint, perhaps, I don't know. We've inquired of the Building Department if there was a complaint. Who complained? The answer we got back is "We don't have to tell RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you." And that's in writing, and you'll probably find that in your file, if the entire file was turned over to you. The Building Department's recollection of certain conversations is certainly interesting, to say the least. I believe if the board studies the testimony they will find that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in terms of the chronology which has been laid out before you, and I believe to sum up, in total, there's no credible evidence before the board that Mr. Zahra violated his Stop Work Order or that he deviated from the plans as approved by the building inspectors in any significant way. I would therefore urge the board to reverse the determination of the Building Department and reinstate the building permit and on those grounds and no other grounds. MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. This board will go out and do a physical inspection of the premises. We have looked at it without measuring. At this particular point we will go out and do some measuring and I will also add to the record, because this particular 58 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 hearing will stay open from a formality point of view until the next regularly scheduled meeting, which is the 17th, and in between now and the 17th either the building inspectors or the town attorney or the applicant's attorney or the applicant may look at anything that we place in the file based upon this physical inspection, and I will go over your particular areas of chronology on the pictures and refresh my memory as to my personal instances as they pertain to this building which may or may not be placed in this area of personal knowledge and physical inspection. The only other thing I wanted to ask you, Mr. Bressler, is that you did not furnish us with two deeds. We'd like to see the deed from North Fork Bank and Trust Company, which was from Edith and Joseph Langer to North Fork Bank and Trust Company, and then the deed from North Fork Bank and Trust Company to Charles Zahra and wife or whomever is on that particular note. MR. BRESSLER: I'll furnish them for you. MR. GOEHRINGER: Thank you. On that particular note, I'll make a RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 motion, resetting the hearing for the formality for no further information on an oral sense until the 17th, at which time we will close the hearing and which will give us two weeks to do the physical inspection, and we thank you all for your courtesy tonight, and we thank the building inspectors for coming down, and I want to just close on this note, and that is that the issue of the subpoena that was mentioned not only in the paper and not only what I mentioned is basically an issue that was used to Mr. Bressler that basically a guaranty that they will be here, and as you know you objected to the closing of the hearing -- I'm sorry, you objected to the recessing of the last hearing, so I very simply used that as a secondary guaranty that these gentlemen would be here if need be, and in both cases I -- neither one of them are subpoenaed tonight. They came voluntarily and we thank you for that. (Continued on next page.) RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I'll make the motion recessing the hearing and in closing it with no further oral testimony on the 17th of March and again thank you, everybody. THE BOARD: Aye. MR. GOEHRINGER: coming. (TIME NOTED: Ail in favor -- Thank you again for 8:53 P.M.) 61 RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATION 62 I, DONNA SADLER BREITENBACH, a Notary Public in and for the State of New York, do hereby certify: THAT the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic notes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this i~£~;f~ day of '~'7~t~L ~ , 1988. DONNA SADLER BREITENBACH RAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE (516) 727-3168