Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4373 s~~ 77 /~CLrG F r GCS i G 6 S ? ~ o,:lr~ LAC raN O~~gpFFO(,~Co APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS C2 Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman W 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. Gy P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 Lydia A. Tortora Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE. BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 4373A, (#4373 Amended for Alternative) filed by RONALD J. MAYER. Applicant-owner is requesting a Use Variance for alternative relief, tinder Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2 and Section 100-30C for occupancy of second building in conjunction with use and ownership of main dwelling, as a single parcel. Location of Property: 7735 Main Road, Fast Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-31-2-26, a corner lot containing a total land area of 25,210 square feet. WIIEItEAS, a public hearing was held on June 26, 1996, at which time all persons who desired to be heard were heard and all testimony was heard and recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. PROPERTY SIZE & ZONE DISTRICT: The premises in question is located in the "R-40 Low-Density Residential" Zone District and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 31, Block 2, Lot No. 26. The lot as exists is substandard in size, containing 25,210 sf. 2. EXISTING BUILDINGS AND PERMITTED OCCUPANCY. This undersized parcel is presently improved with a single-family dwelling as the principal use, and an accessory two-story building (which building is the subject of the requested variances). A copy of Certificate of Occupancy #Z12815 dated Sept. 27, 1984 describes the occupancy for the subject accessory building to be permitted only as "Two-Story Non-Ilabital (non-habitable) Accessory Building" - see Building Permit File #Z12815 which shows the December 9, 1969 survey prepared by VanTuyl & Soar, and the two-story frame house (main building) and subject two-story building labeled "proposed accessory bldg." (also stamped 9-1-83 for facility hook-up with the main building by the County Department of Health Services and noted to be only for a non-habitable accessory building). 3. PRIOR APPEAL AND DENIAL. This property was the subject of a recent denial for the requested creation of two undersized lots from the present substandard lot - see Appeal File #4373 filed 3-26-96 Page 2 - Appl. No. 4373-A Application of RONALD J. MAYER Decision Rendered June 26, 1996 and Denial rendered by this Board on May 29, 1996, filed with the Office of the Town Clerk on June 10, 1996. 4. DISAPPROVAL BY BUILDING INSPECTOR/BASIS OF APPEAL. By this application, the appellant has submitted an appeal based upon a June 6, 1996 Notice of Disapproval by the Building Inspector in which applicant is requesting a permit for habitable use of the accessory building, and which building permit application was disapproved by the Building Inspector under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2(a)(1) permitted uses, under Section 100-31A(1) for the reason that the code permits only one, one-family dwelling on each lot. 5. REQUEST FOR USE-VARIANCE RELIEF. For consideration under this proposal is "...conversion of building #2 (subject accessory building) into a single-family house so that this parcel will contain two single-family dwellings under one ownership...". 6. CODE. RESTRICTION. In this R-40 Zoning Use District, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2(A), ref. 100-31A-1, provides that each parcel of land is limited to one-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. Since the relief requested is not allowed by the code, the request is a use variance. 7. ALTERNATIVE CODE SECTION. For the record, it is noted that the applicant was made aware of Zoning Code, Section 100-30A.2B-1, which provides that an application for a Special Exception may be filed by an owner who proposes an "Accessory Apartment" as defined by 100-13, with owner-occupancy for a principal building (dwelling) having a valid Certificate of Occupancy issued before January 1984. Also discussed was the possibility of moving this building and adding it as part of the livable floor area of the main dwelling, as part of the principal use of the property. In discussing this option with the appellant, applicant indicated that he did not plan "owner-occupancy" as required by this code provision for Accessory Apartment, and he did not know if he would move the building over and attach it as part of the principal use. (He didn't know what lie would do.) (Ref: 5/1/96 and 6/26/96 hearings). 8. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA. Board Members have viewed and are familiar with the surrounding areas and surrounding zone districts. Adjoining this parcel to the north (1000-31-2-25) and east (1000-31-2-27) are residential parcels, each improved with a single-family residence and located in the R-40 Zone District. To the south is the Main Road, and along the southerly side of the Main Road are parcels located in the R-40 Zone, and a small portion zoned Resort-Residential RR (code provisions applicable to motel-type and similar occupancy). Page 3 - Appl. No. 4373-A Application of RONALD J. MAYER Decision Rendered June 26, 1996 9. STATEMENTS MADE. In the testimony presented during the present application as well as that confirmed at the May 1, 1996 hearing, and in reviewing documentation submitted in the record, the following facts are noted: a) appellant acquired the property by referee's deed on 9/7/1995 (foreclosure amount: $200,000, ref. tax equalization form EA-5217 and assessment records); b) appellant confirmed that prior to acquiring the property on 9/7/95, Mr. Mayer was the holder of a "blanket $410,000 mortgage" on four separate parcels; the former owners of the subject parcel (prior to 9/7/1995) were John and Niki Profiris - who owned the property for more than 15 years, and for many years used the main building as a single.-family dwelling and accessory barn building as shown on the December 9, 1969 survey prepared by VanTuyl & Son; c) appellant confirmed that he and his representatives did not at any time during their direct involvement and financial interest in the property obtain original town documents, and failed to check the town files regarding a "photocopy" (later altered) of a Certificate of Occupancy for the accessory building. Appellant and his agents also failed to check any other town records before acquiring the property; d) copies of appellant's mortgage documentation and other legal material, with financial breakdowns, were requested during both this hearing and the May 1, 1996 hearing, regarding the mortgage (,losing, the referee's sale, and other information, and other financial agreeements made between the parties were not submitted by the appellant at any time during this application or the prior variance application to substantiate the grant of a use variance. Further, the record is inadequate and lacks evidence as to the alleged loss and/or profit during these time periods for the four properties in the "blanket mortgage" (during the several real estate transactions of the original loans, conveyance, payments for alleged rentals, if any, refinancing and sale regarding all other properties under the mortgage, mortgage payments, collateral and value of properties involved, mortgage foreclosure, etc.) e) Town records show that the former owner was on notice many times, and as testified at the May 1, 1996, the former owner refused access to the subject accessory building by enforcement (building) officers. The record does not show that periods of time that the subject accessory building was occupied by alleged "tenancy" by a former owner or relative, or anyone else, and very little information was given about a "tenant," the periods of time it may have been occupied, how it was occupied or used, etc. The subject accessory building has been vacant for a period of time before, Page 4 - Appl. No. 4373-A Application of RONALD J. MAYER, Decision Rendered June 26, 1996 and after it was acquired by Mr. Mayer (1995) by referee's deed. f) although the appellant has confirmed each building has been vacant and unoccupied, another notice was sent by the enforcement department of the town when the owner's real-estate agency placed a sign at the premises indicating that a use other than "single-family" was being offered for sale, in January 1996. On or about March 11, 1996, Mr. Mayer applied to the building department for two, one-family dwellings on this parcel. 10. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. In considering this application, the Board also finds, and determines: (a) that the relief requested is substantial in that the subject "accessory building" received permission from the town only for non-habitable occupancy, and to grant a use variance for conversion from accessory non-habitable use to a full dwelling use requires that "use variance" standards be met. In this regard, the following "use variance" criteria, and other pertinent factors as noted in the entire record, have been considered: (b) that Appeal #4373 is the first appeal application properly coming before, the Board of Appeals (determination rendered May 29, 1996); (c) the lots immediately surrounding this parcel contain only one single-family dwelling on each lot, and the relief requested is out of character with the surrounding parcels in this neighborhood; (d) the request to obtain approval for more than one detached dwelling on this substandard parcel is very substantial at more than 100% for the reason that the code does not permit habitable use in an accessory building; (e) the size of the parcel as exists is already undersized at 25,210 square feet, at 63% of the required 40,000 sq. ft. in this R-40 Residential Zone, and meets less than half the code requirement for a two-family use in a principal building (code requires 80,000 sq. ft. of land area for a two-family use and this lot is only 25,210 sf). (f) the variance requested is a "use variance" which must meet criteria set forth in New York Town Law; in using the test set by the Courts for a "use variance," the applicant has not demonstrated by submission of substantial evidence the following to warrant a grant of the relief requested: (1) the circumstances are related to the personal financial arrangements between the appellant and the prior owners, and the circumstances are not uniquely related to the land in question; Page 5 - Appl. No. 4373-A Application of RONALD J. MAYER Decision Rendered June 26, 1996 (2) the property may continue to be used for the uses allowed in this R-40 Residential Zone District, to wit: one, single-family dwelling with accessory use subordinate and incidental to the residential nature of the property (without adding additional dwelling unit occupancies). (3) Applicant has not demonstrated that under applicable zoning regulations he is deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property in question, which deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence. (4) Applicant has not adequately proven that the alleged hardship is uniquely related to the property and that it would not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; the neighborhood parcels, and parcels throughout the Town of Southold, may follow similar steps to achieve the same result requested by appellant. (5) The requested use variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the neighborhood which consists of one, single-family dwelling on adjacent and nearby parcels in the R-40 Residential Zone District. (6) The acquisition of the present owner and lack of knowledge on his part as to the contents of town records would have been prevented by just checking the town files, obtaining an sealed duplicate of the Certificate of Occupancy, and asking for proper documentation. (g) for the reasons noted above, the variance will in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, and order of the town, and adversely affect nearby properties, and the benefit this residential neighborhood is greater when weighing the health, safety, and welfare of the community; (h) the variances requested will have an adverse effect and impact on the physical conditions in the neighborhood since other lenders and borrowers could follow the same steps and create similar situations by failing to check town records on zoning certificates, permits and other actions of record; (i) noncompliance and refusal to allow inside investigation after issuance of an "Accessory non-habitable building" Certificate of Occupancy was created by former property owners, whose testimony has not been offered in any respect and who we understand have a supreme court action against the present owner-applicant concerning the "mortgage foreclosure" by the applicant. (j) there has been no change in circumstances since the former appeal, and the financial and other legal documentation relative Page 6 - Appl. No. 4373-A Application of RONALD J. MAYER Decision Rendered June 26, 1996 to the transfers and payments made to the applicant, has not been submitted, as has been requested at every hearing. (k) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by denying the application as requested and noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Villa, it was RESOLVED, that the request of RONALD J. MAYER for a mother-daughter use in the "accessory non-habitable building" in conjunction with the use of the main building as a single-family dwelling, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Villa and Tortora. Nay: Member Dinizio (no change in his position under former appoal who felt application must be granted based upon the testimony and record before him). This resolution was adopted with a majority plus one. (4-1) margin. Other Comments: Member Villa felt that the second dwelling structure could be relocated on a vacant, legal buildable lot (with proper permits); and that when the former owner applied for a building permit, the permit and C.O. was issued for an accessory non-habitable building and not a dwelling use, which records have continued to remain the same; that the building had been used without any attempt by the former owner or current owner until March 1996 to attempt in obtaining approval for a rental, or second dwelling purposes. Chairman Goehringer indicated that he would not object to an application for a different proposal such as an application for a Special Exception for a proposed "Accessory Apartment in the Main Building with Owner Occupancy" since the owner could apply for a building permit to move the subject building and add it to the main dwelling for increased living area (part of the principal dwelling), subject to applicable permits. This provision of law is available for par hout the Town of Southold. zB :19ECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOW14 CLT-R r ^~~~r All DATE -1/$ l9h J=OUR ! s~/~ (f _Town - o~~gUFFO(,~~o APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS °y o Southold Town Hall x a Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road Sere Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr.~Oj z Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 Lydia A.Tortora Telephone(516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOTICE OF HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the Code of the Town of Southold, the following applications will be held for public hearings before the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS, at the Southold Town Hail, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1996, commencing at the times specified below: 7:30 p.m. Appl. #4374 - FRANK AND LOUISE PALUMBO. This is an application under the Southold Town Zoning Code Article XXIV, Section 100-244 as amended 11-28-95 (which removed former subsection C thereof pertaining to former code setbacks for former subdivisions), for a variance based upon the issuance of the Building Inspector's March 22, 1996 Notice of Disapproval to construct a new dwelling with insufficient side yard setbacks. Location of Property: 3200 Sound Drive, Eastern Shores Subdivision Lot #108, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000- 33-1-7. The requirements are for total side yards of 15 and 20, with a total of 35 feet on this 27,400 sf. parcel. 7:35 p.m. Appl. 44375 - BRUNO AND FELICE SEMON. This is an application for a variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B of the Southold Town Zoning Code, based upon the issuance of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated March 22, 1996 regarding a permit to construct addition to existing dwelling with insufficient front yard setbacks. The present code requires 40 ft. for both front yards. t n Page 2 - Legal Notice Regular Meeting of May 1, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals Location of Property: 3665 Parkview Lane, Orient, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-15-1-35. Green Acres Subdivision Lot 47 containing 22,0000+- sf. 7:45 p.m. Appl. #4378 - JOSEPH CORRETTI. This is an application for a variance under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for permission to reduce front and rear yard setbacks for a new dwelling on which was deemed to have more than one front yard. The code requires a 40 ft. front, 50 ft. rear, and 15 and 20 side yard setbacks on this 21,200+- sf parcel located at 2285 Westview Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-107-7-1.1. 7:50 p.m. Appl. #4377 - DANIELE DUPUI:S. This is an application request- ing a Waiver under Section 100-26 of the Zoning Ordinance, based upon the Building Inspector's March 21, 1996 Notice of Disapproval, in which applicant was denied a building permit to construct a one-family dwelling. Under Article II, Section 100-25A enacted 1/1/96, the subject lot is substandard in size and has been held in common ownership with an adjoining lot, 1000-137-1-14, referred to as M.S. Hand Combined Lots #105, 106, 107, 108 (improved with a single-family dwelling), Applicant alternatively will provide a more equal lot size by enlarging; the dwelling lot (adding M.S. Hand Lot #105 to the lot now consisting of #104 and 4103.) The subject property for which a waiver is requested is identified as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-137-1-15, located along Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; also referred to as M.S. Hand Combined Lot Nos. 103 and 104. Zone District: R-40 Residential. 7:55 p.m. Appl. 44376 - SCOTT A. RUSSELL & ANO. This is an application requesting a Waiver under Section 100-26 of the Zoning Page 3 - Legal Notice Regular Meeting of May 1, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals Ordinance, based upon the Building Inspector's March 14, 1996 Notice of Disapproval, in which applicant was denied a building permit to construct a one-family dwelling. Under Article II, Section 100-25A enacted 1/1/96, the subject lot 1000-136-1-19 is substandard in size, is referred to as Eugene Heights Lots 78 & 79 fronting along Oak Street, and has been held in common ownership after 1983 with an adjoining lot, 1000-136-1-29, referred to as Eugene Heights Lots #111 and #112 fronting along Harbor Lane, at Cutchogue, NY. The total combined lot area is less than 40,000 sf and less than 150 lot width. Zone District: R-40. 8:05 p.m. Appl. 14373 - RONALD J. MAYER. This is an application for a variance based upon the Building Inspector's March 19, 1996 Notice of Disapproval issued under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2 whereby applicant applied for a building permit for permission to convert existing separate building for one-family dwelling occupancy, and/or to create a separate parcel containing less than the required lot area, width and depth in this R-40 Zone District. Building permit 412554Z issued 3/27/83 indicates the building inspector granted permission "to construct two-story non-habitable accessory building." Location of Property: 7735 Plain Road, East Marion, County Tax Map Parcel 1000-31-2-26, a corner lot, containing a total area as exists of 25,210 square feet. Additionally, the building as exists will not conform to yard setbacks for a principal dwelling and additional variances are necessary for approval as a principal dwelling conversion. The Board of Appeals will at said time and place hear any and all persons or representatives desiring to be heard in the above applications. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the conclusion of the subject hearing. The above hearings will not start before the times designated, and are in addition to other hearings. It is recommended that the file(s) be reviewed before the scheduled date of the hearing for updates Page 4 - Legal Notice • Regular Meeting of May 1, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals or new information. If you have questions, please also do not hesitate to call 765-1809. Dated: April 15, 1996. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman By Linda Kowalski x • FORM No. 1 • TOWN OF SOUTIIOLU BUILDING OEI'ARTMEN'r SOU7lIOLO, N.Y. NOTICE OF UI.^.API'ROVA1. DATE! PLEASE TAKE NOT CE that your application dated . . • , . , . • • _ for permit to /~14:~~~r~J~ at Location of Property _•„•-.~,(~-GZ Route No. et ! "Y street Ilamle County 'fax Map No. IOOU - Section 4~l.... BLOCK LOT ...~T Subdivision Pi. 1. ed Map No. .--......Lot No. is returned herewith and disapproved on Che rnllowinR Rrounds .Ccfi.,-u4rr j~ :2 ~O T L~ aG6 a c:.9 - ! ft- - ` e` 11v I/RO q ildi Ioapector FORM NO. 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 TEL.: 765-1802 r Examine a7 19 Application No..~ .I..... . c,., Approved 10$ . Permit No. Ia1 S. . Disapproved a/c . (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT -G Date``. 7 1A. 3. INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and su,binitted in triplicate tq ffip )3uilding Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to sciiedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is pert of this appli- cation. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit,to the applicant. Such permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever pntil a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building.Permit pursuant,to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York,, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of.buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in buildings for necessary inspections. (Signature.o f applicant,,gr,ngnle, jf pi,cg;poration) J.L~.'. . (Maili address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician„ plumber or builder. Pva.t~t.• Name of owner of premises egv~ . (as on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) Builder's License No. ~°Z. q Plumber's License No. n Electrician's License. No. S .7 •b F $t Other Trade's License No . . 1. Location of land on which propose&work will be done. ~ ' /~p GQ. M.c~ w, IVv ..............................:~t 1' `C!tt c^'-.............. . House Number :.Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section , . ,I.,.... , . , Block, ......1;;:;~ i Lot C~ tv Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot (Name) 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy b. Intended use and occupancy • ~ , ion M . Nature of work (check which apptable): New Building . • • • • • • • • Ad *n . . . Work Alter er tion ? Repair Removal Demolition . • • • • • • • . . . Other . . 4 (Description) ....`.lq AID........... . Estimated Cost ..`3s a 7n' Fee to be paid on tiling this application) If dwelling, number of dwelling units Number of dwelling units on each floor n • • • • • • • e If garage, number of cars _ If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use Rear ..../.6........ Depth 8.......... Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front /.4 • Height Number of Stories . Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front /A • . • • • • • • • Rear 7-: r • • • • • • • • • • • • Depth W r'.-.(o Height ?.V.F............. Number of Stories ...Z.-kT4-10......... . 1. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front Rear Depth . . Height Number of Stories I. Size of lot: Front ......~f . ~ Rear ........9./... 7 Depth 4.4' . . . . . . . . . . . . . p Date of Purchase . ~•I. 9T / • • • • " " " " Name of Former Owner . . . . . 1. Zone or use district in which premises are situated . (Z e~.~- •+h Q• 4 • • • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • ' Z. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: 1'v^. r.. • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . Will lot be regraded Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yes X No 3. Name of Owner of pre ises .).r. Address ~'.XPhone No Address Phone No NNameame of of Architect Contractor \J.h..+t-?'.•vl~... • • • • • • • • Address G.•X h•Y•- • ..Phone No. 7.4 Y. - 66:4.3• • • l~s~^c..n~..••.. • • PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and, indicate all set-back dimensions from troperty lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether nterior or corner lot. I 1 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF.. . S.S Sr1.F• .K.. ~h e ev • • . • rhQ4V S kJ being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named. Tta{4k•I,yl, He is the (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) s of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file lthi application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that th work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this -A I Gl, .............day of vcP.^JC 19 . NotaryPublic,,,,!7l.'~:~.~ •t•'~•(' ' ' LINDA F. KOWALSKI ' • ' ' ' ' NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York (Signature of applicai No. 52-4524771 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission F,Pnes March 3u, 193- RECEOD MAR 2 6 19% Town Offk`SNthold TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. `f 3 3 DATE March llx 1996 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. RONALD J. MAYER„, of (no Little Novae Path I, ( Name of Appeilont Street and Number Water Mill „New .„York HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipalirv..... . State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO. NZ...A DATED ........March 19x 19.96 WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO -Ronald J. Mayer • Nome of Applicant for permit of (no Little Noyac Path Water Mill New York Street and Number Municipalit y State ( ) PERMIT TO USE (X) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ON LOT SIZE LESS THAN 40,000 SQUARE FEET (X) PERMIT FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY 50 Rocky Point Road East Marion Low Density Residential R-40 District Street /Hamlet / Use District on Zoning Mop District 1000 Section 31 Block 2 Lot 26 Current Owner Ronald J. Mayer Ioc P r i or Owner John Porf iris and Niki Porf iris 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article IIIA Section 100-30A.3. and Article IIIA Section 100-30A.2. A.(1) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) (X) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 62 Cons. Lows Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal $bAmt(has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was mode in Appeal No . N/A ..............:Dated N..A............................................. REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (X) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that Petitioner has discovered that the subject property obtained at a foreclosure sale has an illegal two-family dwelling constructed on it. Petitioner wants to "legalize" the property by subdividing it into two parcels both containing 12,605 sq. ft. and each having a single family dwelling, with setbacks as shown on Exhibit 7 which is attached hereto. Form ZBt (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because your Petitioner received title to the subject property by a Referee's Deed in Foreclosure dated September 7, 1995, which was recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on September 26, 1995 in Liber 11743 Page 273, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Originally, your Petitioner was a principal shareholder and President of American Mortgage and Loan Corp. who granted the prior owners, John Porfiris and Niki Porfiris a mortgage on September 7, 1989 which mortgage was recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on October 5, 1989 in Liber 15468 Page 472. This mortgage covered the subject parcel as well as other lands owned by John and Niki Porfiris. (CONTINUED ON ATTACHED RIDER) 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because Petitioner has inherited a very bad situation due to misrepresentations by the prior owners; John Porfiris and Niki Porfiris. Petitioner cannot sell the property in its present state to a legitimate purchaser because building #2 which is a two-family dwelling cannot be legally used as such. The only practical solution is to subdivide the property into two parcels and convert building #2 into a single family house so that both parcels will contain single family dwellings, as 'shown on Exhibit 7 which is attached hereto. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the proposed division of this property is in an established residential neighborhood and virtually all of the existing lots are non-conforming as far as lot area is concerned. The proposed variance requested will allow two building lots which are in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood without any adverse or negative impact. STATE OF 1~8 6-K ss ,~.1.~ COUNTY OF SfMtnz\e) Signature k~ Ronald J. Mayer Sworn to this ...............\V:~................... day of.............. March 19 96 ona~~ .Mfj~Aye,Rt~s ~eRSO~fl\\ nvwnV '1~i thy., , ~j~ C~~yv~~"'y'e-n, R ev a~ Biic((URSON NIXr,Myow m=35V2 a * rirt&"4ird"No Bonded by HAI .r_,n# WD-4221665, 1 APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N.Y. BY RONALD J. MAYER RIDER TO REASON FOR APPEAL QUESTION #1 1. CONTINUED. In 1989 when John Porfiris applied for this mortgage, he represented to your Petitioner that the subject property contained two individual one-family houses. Building #1 which fronts on the Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25) and building #2 which fronts on Rocky Point Road. At the time of the mortgage closing on September 7, 1989, John and Niki Porfiris presented to your Petitioner a survey by Robert B. Holzman dated 8-30-89 showing the property with two dwellings, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. In the mortgage application, John and Niki Porfiris also represented that building #1 was constructed many years ago and had suffered fire damage in 1988 which had been repaired. At the closing, John Porfiris presented a Certificate of Occupancy dated May 22, 1989 for building #1, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. John Porfiris also represented that building #2 had replaced a 2-story pre-existing structure which had been used as a seasonal dwelling and had been built many years ago. Mr. Porfiris stated he rebuilt this building in 1984 and presented a Certificate of Occupancy dated September 27, 1984 showing this dwelling as a 2-story one-family dwelling, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Mr. Porfiris also represented although the Certificate of Occupancy for building #2 was only for a one-family dwelling since the time of construction it had been continually used a two-family dwelling. An inspection of the property revealed building #2 had two separate entrances and two separate living apartments, one downstairs and the other upstairs, both containing three bedrooms, a large living room, kitchen and bathroom facilities. This two-family dwelling had its own cesspool and Mr. Porfiris represented that the Suffolk County Health Department had approved same and allowed a water line to come from building #1 supplying the water to this two-family dwelling. Mr. Porfiris indicated he himself lived in building #2 after the fire in building #1 while it was being repaired. The title search at the time revealed no outstanding violations from the Town of Southold and further indicated that there were in fact two individual one-family dwellings both being assessed by the Board of Assessors of the Town of Southold. Unfortunately, John and Niki Porfiris defaulted in paying their mortgage resulting in the foreclosure of the property. The foreclosure was protracted and after the sale there were many years of back taxes which your Petitioner had to pay. In the process of paying the taxes at the Southold Town Hall, your Petitioner reviewed the property with both the Assessor's Office and the Building Department. Petitioner was horrified to find out that building #2 was a two-story, non-habitable accessory building, see Exhibit 5. In other words the Certificate of Occupancy presented at the closing (Exhibit 4) was a forgery. Further, investigation revealed that the Health Department had approved the water line but it was for a non-habitable accessory building (See Exhibit 6). Further investigation indicated building #2 was constructed by a local contractor by the name of Chester Orlowski. Upon, checking Mr. Orlowski's records it was discovered in 1983 he received a building permit for a two story non-habitable accessory building on behalf of John Porfiris. When Mr. Orlowski went to build the building he tore down the existing two story structure with a one-story addition and while in the process of rebuilding building #2 on the same footprint as the previous building, Curtis W. Horton, the then building inspector told him he had to move the building back 35' from Rocky Point Road to conform with zoning. Mr. Orlowski complied and built the building as it exists today which passed all building inspections of the Building Department. Further, in 1988 after fire damage to building #1, the Building Department granted a building permit to Mr. Porfiris to repair the damage in building #1 and could clearly see that building #2 was an inhabited dwelling. The difficulties to your Petitioner are obvious. The property's present condition is not saleable due to the Certificate of Occupancy status. In further researching this problem your Petitioner found that since 1984,building #2 has been used as a two-family dwelling in particular in the summer season. It is your Petitioner's belief that if the Zoning Board of Appeals grants two individual undersized lots,that it would be in the best interest of not only your Petitioner and the neighborhood. It would not result in any undesirable change or detriment to neighboring properties. In fact, it will be an improvement because building #2 will be only a one-family dwelling. Petitioner will remove the kitchen facilities upstairs and open up an entrance from upstairs to downstairs so that it is truly a one-family dwelling. It is Petitioner's belief that if the premises are left in an "as is" condition and sold to a third party, the third party will no doubt continue to use the accessory structure on a two-family rental basis as has existed since 1984. It is submitted that the requested area variance is not substantial in taking into consideration the neighborhood. Most of the properties in this areas are residential and undersized by the zoning requirements. The property along Rocky Point Road are of mixed use, in that two properties to the north are business properties and to the west across Rocky Point Road is a commercial/agricultural farm stand operated by John Sepenoski which is very busy and generates a tremendous amount of traffic and activity for at least six months of the year. The proposed variance will not have any adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood as it will remain residential and there will be less density then how the property has been previously utilized. It is clear this alleged difficulty suffered by Petitioner was not self-created as there has been a fraud perpetrated on Petitioner which hopefully the Board will help rectify by granting this area variance. Ronald J. Ayer TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD - 2 OWNER STREET 5 VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT r Maw !2d z' ACR. FORMER O ER onn5 ff N,' i E Sao S _ W--) TYPE OF BUILDING RES. 1 p SEAS. VL. I FARM COMM. CB. MISC. Mkt. Value LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS b a cF 6-o y _ ujiZ55/~ ~~E~s i;~G 35 y~ ` S" 1, OI ~ `o? L 1if~ 0r, CC IGi Ec-0 5~?ov i 1~12 S1 /7 go~ soo ~Soc~ 8? ; 'Gs- L 0l7 0 D = K u ~ $3 o Ox ~ ~ BSI oG con~pl zio s N Etn,F) mMn FARM Acre Value Per Acre Tillable I illable 2 i `illable 3 Noodland FRONTAGE ON WATER swampland 'rushland FRONTAGE ON ROAD rN r -louse Plot I DEPTH (BULKHEAD 'otal ' ^ DOCK P w 1 COLOR I is ¦ ~ a - - - I Z Imo!'-~-~ t TRIM Z~. A 7r- ~3tdl ~ I I I ~ LL ~ E I " ~ k ~ z i I I I Idg. 1is , 2 y7 2 Foundation s y o t/L~ Bath Dinette - sion z 2 L G Z, / S I r s 1 ,osement P.4: P Floors N K. = dD sion IExt. Walls wO Interior Finish y` y LR. ~X~ x/33 sion x o y sir 2J ° 2 Fire Place Heat ~~pt px~r DR. ,Type Roof Rooms 1st Floor BR. troar- ? reation Room Rooms 2nd Floor FIN. B. ~xZF, = /4;. o X07 x ~d ` 8 - (Dormer reezeway Driveway , z r ~lox~4a 114 A.15 Sq-0; t atio B. ptDe a IV W v St, G - ' ~ otal ~S/Q ? ~ i r r • s him PQ r, A4 f°S `~iT. IAO~ FOR A Aw a~~ a ~wffo~,t c4. Tarx oiree>', ~qoQ-~~ -z -z~ ~ / ~ ~ r ~ ~ Q~ . nr~RrriaE?s ir! .!lrvi.{dt~+y Zees p ' Area 2S.z~o • # zs-a , ~ ~ ~ _~J~ ~ f+vera,+ra s~iVdtiara 3.8''x/ fut1. ~ °b~ A cess~or,! fconc comae- t mar 22, t39fa 40 40 0. y wwMr~ ~Sur,rs~!~d Mot-. rjt99E : bM•wN rN•~ . _ . ' • 4++gw.InifIMM11M~Mrlfllw yy. •a.as~oa.newl~rwww ~r[#,~ dl~l'i'f/1~~/~~y set MY a' ~ m >gew•lwrnirpF ~ N1f L 't ~ ...s..... .a..r ^ J '.:RL ~'.iayWr..". un.J6 d+.Yxk_•:=.v.. z~_:.:.. 4.., ~ 51996 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK X~ In the Matter of the Application of RONALD J. MAYER, Petitioner, Index No. 96-16041 For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Proceeding 1 Article 78 -against- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman, SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., Assigned Judge: ROBERT A. VILLA, LYDIA A. TORTORA, Hon. Gerard D'Emilio constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Respondents. -----------------------------------------X SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK -----------------------------------------X In the Matter of the Application of RONALD J. MAYER, Petitioner, Index No. 96-20656 For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Proceeding 2 Article 78 -against- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman, SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA, LYDIA A. TORTORA, constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Respondents. ------------------------------------------X MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER LARK & FOLTS, ESQS. Attorneys for Petitioner Main Road, P.O. Box 973 Cutchogue, NY 11935-0973 (516) 734-6807 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...............................................2 QUESTIONS PRESENTED .................................................3 STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................3 POINT I: THE ZONING BOARD'S DENIAL IS ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT A RATIONAL BASIS SINCE PETITIONER HAS SATISFIED THE STATUTORY CRITERIA TO ENTITLE HIM TO AN AREA VARIANCE 10 POINT II: THE ZONING BOARD FAILED TO RECOGNIZE PETITIONER'S EQUITIES, FINANCIAL INVESTMENT, AND EXPENDITURES TO ESTABLISH FINANCIAL HARDSHIP 17 POINT III: PETITIONER'S UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND AUTHORIZING THE USE OF BUILDING #2 AS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING WILL ALLOW PETITIONER A REASONABLE RETURN AND NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD 20 CONCLUSION 32 NOTE: References in this memorandum to the exhibits in the Respondent's Return (labeled "Record" by Respondent) are preceded by referencing "Proceeding 4111' or "Proceeding #2" followed by "Ex"2 and the alphabetical letter of the exhibit referenced.' =In Proceeding #1 Respondent also filed two Supplements to the Record which will be so referenced in this Memorandum. 2The original exhibit furnished by Lynda Spangel at the May 1, 1996 hearing containing a tax map and color photographs of surrounding properties is to be furnished directly to the Court by Respondent's attorney. 'The numerically labeled exhibits attached to Petitioner's application to Respondent dated March 11, 1996 (Proceeding #1, Ex B) were detached from this application in the Record and have been dispersed by Respondent throughout its Record in various places using Respondent's alphabetical labeling of its exhibits. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK - - --------X In the Matter of the Application of RONALD J. MAYER, Petitioner, Index No. 96-16041 For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Proceeding 1 Article 78 -against- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman, SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., Assigned Judge: ROBERT A. VILLA, LYDIA A. TORTORA, Hon. Gerard D'Emilio constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Respondents. ------------------------------------------X SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK - ---------------------------X In the Matter of the Application of RONALD J. MAYER, Petitioner, Index No. 96-20656 For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Proceeding 2 Article 78 -against- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman, SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA, LYDIA A. TORTORA, constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Respondents. ------------------------------------------X MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Ronald J. Mayer (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner"), filed an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold (hereinafter referred to as the "Zoning Board" or "Respondent"). This application was for a variance to the Southold Town Zoning Code to allow a subdivision of Petitioner's property in East Marion, New York into two equal plots, so each plot would contain a single-family dwelling. (Appeal No. 4373) After a hearing on may 1, 1996, Respondent denied the application on May 29, 1996, and filed its decision with the Southold Town Clerk on June 10, 1996. Thereafter, on July 8, 1996, Petitioner commenced an Article 78 proceeding, requesting the Court to annul this decision of the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "Proceeding 41"). Petitioner reapplied on June 7, 1996 to the Respondent requesting different relief for a variance to convert the existing illegal two-family dwelling to an accessory one-family dwelling so there would be two, one-family dwellings on a single lot. (Appeal No. 4373A) After a hearing on June 26, 1996, Respondent denied the application on June 26, 1996, and filed its decision with the Southold Town Clerk on July 18, 1996. Thereafter, on August 15, 1996, Petitioner commenced his second Article 78 proceeding, requesting the Court to annul this decision of Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "Proceeding #211). Petitioner then filed a motion dated August 16, 1996 returnable on September 5, 1996, pursuant to CPLR 4602(a) to consolidate these two Article 78 proceedings on the ground of common questions of law and fact. s QUESTIONS PR NT D 1. Is Respondent's denial of Petitioner's area variance request arbitrary and without a rational basis on the facts and circumstances? 2. Is Respondent's failure to acknowledge Petitioner's equities and financial hardship arbitrary? 3. Is Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request to utilize Building 42 as an accessory habitable building arbitrary when Building #2 cannot be used for any other reasonable purpose under the Zoning Ordinance? STATEMENT OF PACTS The Property and Improvement (Subiect Property) The property which is the subject of these two article 78 proceedings is situated on the northeast corner of the Main Road (State Route 25) with Rcckv Point Road, East Marion, New York. The land is level and is shaped like a parallelogram containing 25,210 square feet with 98 feet of frontage along the Main Road and 285 feet of frontage along Rocky Point Road. The property with its improvements is best depicted on the survey of Robert B. Holzman dated 8- 30-89 which is attached as Exhibit 2 to Petitioner's application to the Zoning Board. (Proceeding #1 Ex B) There are two, 2-story frame dwellings on the subject property. The dwelling fronting on the Main Road (State Route 25) is two-stories, somewhat irregular in shape, containing approximately 2,400 square feet of living space (hereinafter referred to as "Building 4111). It originally was built prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold. 4 Due to fire damage occurring in 1988, Building #1 was repaired and received a certificate of occupancy dated May 22, 1989 as a one-family dwelling. (Proceeding #1 Ex D) The assessed valuation of this dwelling by the Assessor of the Town of Southold is $4,968. (Proceeding #1 Town of Southold Property Record Card attached to Supplement to Record) The building which is the principal subject of these proceedings (hereinafter referred to as "Building 42") fronts on Rocky Point Road, is a two-story residential structure with a flat roof. It is rectangular in shape and contains 2,288 square feet of living space. Building #2 was a complete reconstruction of a prior two-story building which was originally a barn and then converted into living space. This original structure was torn down and during the construction of Building #2 was set back further on the property. This is shown on the survey by Van Tuyl & Son dated December 9, 1969, which was attached as Exhibit 6 to Petitioner's original application to the Zoning Board. (Proceeding #1 Ex J) The reconstruction of Building #2 took place in 1983 when the former owners, John and Niki Profiris (hereinafter referred to as "Profiris"), through their builder, obtained a building permit to construct a two-story non-habitable accessory building. (Proceeding #1 Ex J) This application for a building permit dated June 27, 1983 states that this accessory structure was presently used as a "storage dwelling" and its intended use and occupancy after reconstruction is a "2 story accessory playhouse & studio". (Proceeding 41 Ex J) After Building #2 was completed, Profiris received a certificate of occupancy dated September 29, 1984 which labeled the building as "Two Story Non Habital Accessory Building." (Proceeding #1 Ex J, Ex E) This accessory building was assessed by the Town of Southold Assessors as a two-story accessory building with an assessed valuation of $5,434. (Proceeding #1, Supplement to Record, Town of Southold Property Record Card) Lynda Spangel, a licensed real estate broker with considerable real 5 estate expertise testified on behalf of the Petitioner at the May 1, 1996 hearing and subsequently submitted a letter on Hahn Realty stationery dated May 7, 1996, listing her valuations of the property. (Proceeding #1 Ex G, page 6, Ex A) Lynda Spangel found that Building 41 "as is" is valued as $125,000 to $139,000. Building #2 "as is", with no practical legal use without a variance, has an estimated value of $10,000. If Building #2 is allowed to continue to be used as a two-family house, it would have a value of $100,000 to be added to the property. If the property was subdivided, parcel one containing Building #1 would have a value of $120,000 to $125,000; parcel two containing Building #2 as a single-family house would have a value of $85,000 to $99,000. The Zoning Petitioner's property is located in a Residential R-40 District, Article IIIA, Southold Town Zoning Code. This district allows one detached dwelling per lot. The lot size and set back requirements are 40,000 square feet, lot width 150 feet, lot depth 175 feet, front yard setback 50 feet, side yard setback 15 feet with both side yard setbacks 35 feet, rear yard setbacks 50 feet. (Proceeding #1 Ex C) The Petitioner's Hardship History Petitioner is licensed by the State of New York Banking Department as a private mortgage lender. In 1989, Petitioner was a principal shareholder and President of American Mortgage and Loan Corp. The owners of the subject property in 1989 were Profiris. Profiris applied to Petitioner for a mortgage loan. Petitioner granted a $410,000 mortgage loan which was secured by four parcels of land. Petitioner investigated and appraised all four parcels. Parcel one, which is the subject parcel, was appraised at $250,000. Parcel two was the property across the street from the subject premises on the south side of the Main Road which had a detached dwelling and two rental cottages, 6 was appraised at $200,000. Parcel three was a liquor store in Greenport, and was appraised at $200,000. Parcel four was a retail store in Woodside, Queens, which was appraised at $225,000. At the time of the mortgage closing on September 7, 1989, Profiris lived in the two-story house fronting the Main Road (Building #1) on the subject property. The two-story house in the rear of the premises (Building #2) was rented out to two families. Profiris represented to Petitioner that in 1984, he had replaced the pre-existing seasonal dwelling with this 2-story year round dwelling. Profiris represented Building #2 had a certificate of occupancy as an accessory building for one-family use. The water was supplied from the Main house, but Building #2 had its own private septic system. Profiris further represented that he rented this dwelling out to different people and different families at various times. Petitioner investigated further and found that Building #1 was assessed at $4,968 and Building 42 at $5,434. Further investigation of Building #2 indicated it had two separate entrances; one to the main floor and the other to the second floor. Each floor had its own kitchen, bathroom, living room and three bedrooms. (Proceeding #1 Ex A, Mayer Affidavit para. 1; Ex J Transcript of Hearing pp 1-3, 16-17; Ex B, March 11, 1996 Petitioner's application to Zoning Board of Appeals) The title search indicated that Profiris had valid title and there were no municipal violations filed against the property. At the mortgage closing on September 7, 1989, Profiris provided Petitioner with a current survey and certificates of occupancy for both buildings. The certificate of occupancy for Building #1 stated it was issued for repair of fire damage. (Proceeding #1 Ex D) The certificate of occupancy for Building #2 stated it was issued as an accessory building for a two-story one-family dwelling. (Proceeding #1 Ex H) Subsequently, Profiris defaulted on his payments and Petitioner -commenced a mortgage 'forec'losure action for which Petitioner obtained a 7 judgment on April 10, 1990, for $443,482 plus costs of $2,800. After the mortgage foreclosure judgment was obtained, Profiris was able to find a purchaser for the property on the south side of the Main Road, as well as the liquor store in Greenport. Both properties were released from the mortgage judgment on October 30, 1990, leaving a balance of $249,473.94. Profiris then filed for bankruptcy protection which stayed the foreclosure action. The trustee in bankruptcy then sold parcel four in Woodside, Queens, and Petitioner received $30,000 after the payment of all fees, taxes and expenses. This then left a balance of $219,473.94 on the mortgage which was now only secured by the subject property. Petitioner was able to obtain a release from the bankruptcy court to sell the subject parcel which Petitioner bid $200,000 of his judgment at the foreclosure sale. Petitioner received a Referee's deed in foreclosure on September 7, 1995. (Proceeding 41 Ex A, Mayer Affidavit para. 4 & 5; Ex B) After taking title, Petitioner incurred additional expenses attributable to the subject property such as payment of back taxes, insurance, legal fees, survey, filing fees and repairs totaling $63,582. Petitioner then began to investigate how to sell the property. In the course of his investigation he discovered for the first time that the Certificate of Occupancy for Building #2 given to him at the mortgage closing had been altered. The correct certificate of occupancy read "Two Story Non Habital Accessory Building" whereas the altered one given to the Petitioner at the closing read "Two Story One Family Building". (Proceeding #1 Ex E, Ex H) Further investigation by Petitioner of the Southold Town Building Department's files indicated Building 42 had received a building permit for a two-story non-habitable accessory building and Profiris had indicated on his application he was applying for a two-story accessory playhouse and studio. The file also indicated the Suffolk County Health Department had issued its approval for a water line from Building #1 to Building #2 which was classified as a non-habitable accessory building. However, the building plans, plumbing t • • 8 estimates and fire underwriters certificates on file in the Building Department all indicated Building #2 was a 2 family residential dwelling. The plumbing details indicate a bathroom and kitchen upstairs as well as on the first floor. The Board of Underwriters fire insurance certificate indicated there was a 200 amp service, electric heat, 49 receptacles, 13 outlet fixtures and even a doorbell all which indicates that it was for a dwelling not a non-habitable accessory building. (Proceeding 41 Ex A, Ex J) Further discussion with the Head Building inspector at that time, Mr. Victor Lessard, revealed he was well aware Profiris was constructing was a two-family dwelling and it was going to be used as an accessory to the main dwelling. Mr. Lessard indicated the Building Department as well as the Supervisor, the Judge, the Assistant Town Attorney, and a deceased member of the Board of Appeals were all aware that Petitioner was renting out the building to different people. Mr. Lessard also indicated he was instructed not to try to enforce the Code. Mr. Lessard explained all this to the Respondent at the hearing on May 1, 1996. (Proceeding #1 Ex G, pp 18-22) Petitioner also consulted Lynda Spangel, a real estate broker with expertise in marketing properties. She reviewed the situation and advised the best course of action was to legalize Building #2 by converting it to a one- family dwelling and subdividing the property. Thereafter, Petitioner made application for a variance to subdivide the property into two one-family plots. Lynda Spangel appeared before the Zoning Board at its May 1, 1996 hearing and she informed the Board about the mixed zoning uses of the neighboring properties in this district. (Proceeding #1 Ex G, pp 4-6; Ex A, Spangel letter dated May 7, 1996) The Neighborhood At the May 1, 1996 hearing, Lynda Spangel presented an exhibit which showed Petitioner's property with the surrounding properties in the • 9 neighborhood. The exhibit consisted of a tax map with identified photographs of the residences and improvements on the surrounding properties in the immediate neighborhood of the Petitioner's land. (Proceeding #1 Ex G, p 5) (This original exhibit is being transmitted to the Court by the Respondent's attorney). The references concerning the different properties on this exhibit are identified by tax lot number. Petitioner's property is tax lot 26 which is situated at the intersection of the Main Road with Rocky Point Road. This plot contains an area of 25,210 square feet and the exhibit shows Building #1 facing the Main Road, and Building #2 which is a two-story flat roof structure facing Rocky Point Road. The property immediately to the east is owned by Barbara Pfanz, tax lot number 27, has a residence on this lot which has frontage on the Main Road of 97 feet with a depth of 265 feet for an approximate area of 25,705 square feet. The property immediately north of Petitioner's land is tax lot number 25 owned by George H. Morton containing a residence and 100 feet of frontage on Rocky Point Road with a depth of 186 feet for a total area of 18,600 square feet. The lot immediately north of the Morton parcel, tax lot number 24 is vacant, contains So feet on Rocky Point Road with a depth of 186 feet for a total area of 9,300 square feet and the lot immediately north of tax lot 24 is tax lot number 23 which contains 100 feet on Rocky Point Road with a depth of 186 feet for a total area of 18,600 square feet. The lot immediately to the north of tax lot number 23 is tax lot number 22.1 owned by Walter Giapa which contains a commercial greenhouse structure having a lot width of 100 feet and a depth of 178 feet for approximately 17,000 square feet. The lot adjacent to tax lot 22.1 is tax lot number 21.6 owned by Mr. Mandel and contains a commercial warehouse. Immediately to the south of Petitioner's property and across from the Main Road, owned by George Siderakis, is tax lot number 11, which has 122 feet of frontage on the Main Road and an average depth of 138 feet for an approximate 10 area of 16,800 square feet and contains a residence and two rental cottages. Immediately to the east of this last mentioned property is tax lot number 12.1 owned by Reginald Peterson which is directly south of the Pfanz property and contains 88 feet of frontage on the Main Road with an average depth of 146 feet for an approximate total area of 12,850 square feet. Immediately to the east of tax lot number 12.1 is tax lot 13.1 owned by Spinthcuiakis which contains 110 feet on the Main Road and an irregular-shaped parcel in the rear that contains a motel structure and according to the zoning map is zoned RR (resort/residential). Immediately to the west of Petitioner's property across Rocky Point Road and fronting also on the Main Road is a farm consisting of 7.9 acres and on the Main Road side is a rather large commercial farm stand known as "Sep's Farm Stand", tax lot number 5.9. POINT I THE ZONING BOARD'S DENIAL IS ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT A RATIONAL BASIS SINCE PETITIONER HAS SATISFIED THE STATUTORY CRITERIA TO ENTITLE HIM TO AN AREA VARIANCE Petitioner applied to the Zoning Board for a variance to divide his property into two plots, each plot being 12,605 square feet, with its own dwelling, with existing yard setbacks. (Proceeding #1 Ex B, Petitioner's application to the Respondent Zoning Board) The courts of this state classify this type of application for deviation from the zoning ordinance restrictions on the placement of buildings which serve a permitted use as an area variance. In other words, an area variance has no relationship to a change in use. A review of the Record in Proceeding #1 plainly indicates Petitioner cannot utilize Building #2 without coming into conflict with the restrictions of the zoning ordinance. Petitioner's request to utilize Building #2 as a dwelling in this manner comes within the definition of an area variance. Town Law, §267(1)(b) The Respondent in its decision dated May 29, 1996 denied Petitioner's request for an area variance. The Respondent is required to make findings of fact which show the actual grounds for its determination. Seaford Jewish Center Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals. Town of Hempstead, 48 A.D.2d 686 (2d Dept. 1975) Although the May 29, 1996 decision contains 15 different findings, there are numerous errors of both form and content. Some of the findings are conclusory, and some restate the statute. In other words, Respondent does not set forth any facts contained in the Record upon which it bases its decision. The decision, instead of articulating facts upon which the Board based its decision is nothing more than a grouping of glittering generalities which are not supported by fact in the Record. (Proceeding #1 Ex F) The legislature has now established five factors which are necessary to be proved to entitle an applicant to an area variance. Town Law §267-b(3). The Court of Appeals in Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374 (1995) in interpreting this statute requires a balancing test to be used by zoning boards in determining area variance questions. The Court stated at page 384 of its opinion: We conclude that Town Law §267-b(3)(b) requires the Zoning Board to engage in a balancing test, weighing "the benefit to the applicant" against "the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community" if the area variance is granted, and that an applicant need not show "practical difficulties" as that test was formerly applied. The practical difficulty criteria heretofore used has been deleted and zoning boards of appeals have to now take into consideration on one hand the benefit to the applicant, and on the other hand to consider the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the applicable neighborhood. To arrive at its decision, the Zoning Board of Appeals has five different factors which it must consider. A review of the Record in the instant case indicates Respondent ignored 12 this balancing test as it did not apply the five individual factors in arriving at its denial of Petitioner's application for an area variance. Instead the Zoning Board appears to have based its decision on practical difficulties and lack of financial hardship which are no longer applicable to area variances. This is verified by the Respondent Chairman in paragraph 6 of his affidavit sworn to on July 21, 1996 which is attached to the answer in Proceeding #1. It is noted that zoning boards still have discretion in considering applications for area variances, but they now are prescribed to rationally follow the statutory criteria in arriving at their decision. The reviewing courts must then determine whether the action taken by the zoning board was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of this discretion. The Zoning Board's determination must be supported by substantial evidence. However, as pointed out in footnote 2 in Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, supra, at p. 384, rationality is the appropriate standard of review, wherein the Court stated: When reviewing the determinations of a Zoning Board, courts consider "substantial evidence" only to determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board's determination. Using this standard, it is submitted many of the Respondent Zoning Board's findings do not have any evidence in the Record to support the rationality of its conclusions. Once the Petitioner establishes he cannot utilize Building #2 on his property and comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance as to area and setback requirements, then the burden shifts to the Respondent to establish that the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood outweighs the benefit to the Petitioner. Brous v Planning Board of the Village of Southampton, 191 A.D.2d 553, 555 (2d Dept. 1993) The Respondent then has to show that strict application of the zoning ordinance will have a valid public purpose which outweighs the injury to the Petitioner. See Matter of Zwitze v Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Canandaigua, 144 13 A.D.2d 1024 (4th Dept. 1988), aff'd 74 N.Y.2d 756 (1989) It is submitted in the case at bar that not only did the Respondent fail to recognize and apply this balancing test, but most of its findings in its decision dated May 29, 1996, were based on the practical difficulties standard and a showing of economic injury or financial hardship is no longer required. (Proceeding #1 Ex F) In reviewing the Record in Proceeding #1 it is submitted there is absolutely no evidentiary support for the Respondent Zoning Board's conclusion that the granting of the variance will adversely affect the neighborhood. An analysis of the five factors set forth in 5267-b(3)(b) Town Law in connection with the Respondent's findings contained in the May 29, 1996 decision is as follows: (1) whether an a desirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance Town Law 5267-b(3)(b)(1) The Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals in its decision neither considered this particular factor, nor is there any evidence in the Record to show that Building #2 will have a detrimental effect to nearby properties. There is simply no undesirable change because there is no change. Building 42 has existed in its present condition and use since 1984. The Record indicates there are no adverse effect or complaints from the neighbors in this community. The Record is devoid of any complaints by neighbors that this illegal structure is undesirable or a detriment. A letter dated April 25, 1996 from George H. Morton, the neighbor immediately to the north, who is impacted by Building #2, indicated there are no problems with anyone to whom Profiris rented this building. (Proceeding #1 Ex G) with no change taking place in the neighborhood, it is clear the benefit to the Petitioner by granting the area variance outweighs any detriment to the community. 14 (2) whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method. feasible for the aoplicant to pursue. other than an area variance. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(2) The Respondent did consider this factor in paragraph 6(e) of its decision of May 29, 1996 (Proceeding #1 Ex E) and finding: the benefit sought by applicant may be achieved by some method feasible, other than an area variance (regarding alleged forgery, damage to property, bad business debt losses, and other property losses); This finding is neither relevant nor rational when applied to the criteria in factor #2 of Town Law §267-b(3) (b) . The finding merely parrots the statute and as such should be disregarded as improper. Kadish v. Simpson, 55 A.D.2d 911 (2d Dept. 1977) In reviewing the permitted uses of the zoning ordinance for this R-40 residential district, it is evident from the Record that Building 42 has no reasonable use other than as a residential dwelling. The Record is clear. The benefit which the Petitioner seeks is to be able to utilize Building #2 as a residential dwelling, which was in reality its real purpose when constructed. The strict application of the zoning ordinance as far as the public interest is concerned, does not outweigh the injury that the Petitioner will suffer if not granted the variance. DeSena v Board of Zoning Appeals, 45 N.Y.2d 105, 108 (1978) Therefore, since the Petitioner cannot comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, there is no feasible method, economically or otherwise for him to pursue other than request this Court annul the Respondent's decision and direct the issuance of an area variance. (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial. Town Law §267-b(3) (b) (3) Concerning this factor the Respondent made the following finding in 6(a) of its decision (Proceeding #1 Ex F): that the relief requested for each lot as shown on the proposed subdivision map dated March 22, 1996, is very substantial in relation to the requirements, meeting only is 31& of the requirements (40,000 x 31$ = 12,400 sf), and meeting half of the present non- conformity existing (25,210 sf x 50W = 12,605 square feet); The mathematics contained in this finding considered in a vacuum, are generally accurate. However, when you apply this finding to the facts of the instant case and the surrounding properties in this zoning district, this finding is simply neither rational nor is it supported by substantial evidence. Lynda Spangel in her presentation to the Zoning Board at the May 1, 1996 hearing stated the neighborhood was of a mixed non-conforming use from a zoning point of view. She introduced an exhibit which contained photographs of the surrounding properties as well as a tax map of the neighborhood showing the dimensions, shapes and uses of the individual lots. (Proceeding #1 Ex G, p S; original Exhibit to be submitted to the Court for review by Respondent's attorney) In reviewing this exhibit, it is seen that the neighborhood where Petitioner's property is located is essentially a residential one with the majority of the residences being of older construction and located on non- conforming lots. There is no question when reviewing this neighborhood from a zoning point of view, numerous parcels along both the Main Road and Rocky Point Road in this vicinity are less than 40,000 square feet and have less than 150 feet of lot width. Therefore, it is disingenuous for the Respondent to find that the relief requested is very substantial, because in effect what you have is that Petitioner's lot even if subdivided would not be an unusual size or shape in relationship to the properties of this zoning district. (4) whether the progoa d variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(4) To this particular factor, the Respondent Board found in paragraph 6(f) of its decision as follows: 16 the variances requested will have an adverse effect and impact on the physical conditions in the neighborhood since the nonconforming land area will be cut in half, (doubling the density), and in turn the grant of lot size variances of this magnitude, due to personal or business financial hardships with misrepresentations, for this and other possible future property owners; In the first part of this finding, Respondent's apparent reasoning which indicates if you cut Petitioner's lot in half it doubles the density is faulty. This finding of the Respondent would be true if the Petitioner was making application to build a second residence on his property. However, as the Record indicates, the two dwellings already exist and have been occupied for a considerable period of time so there will be no increase in density. The second part of this finding referring to financial hardships, misrepresentations and possible future property owners makes no sense and is therefore not rational. There is no evidence in the Record that the proposed subdivision would create an adverse effect physical or environmental conditions of this neighborhood. In fact, there would be no change at all. It is mainly legalizing what has previously existed without any detriment to the neighborhood. (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created Town Law §267- b(3) (b) (5) Concerning this criteria the Respondent made the following finding in paragraph 6(g) of its decision (Proceeding #1 Ex F): the difficulties were created by former property owners, who lost their financial and ownership interests in the property; The Record indicates this finding is a statement of the obvious, and is not responsive to the statutory criteria or Petitioner's application, except it is another way of saying that Petitioner's hardship was not created by him. Certainly, the Record supports the finding that the Petitioner was not involved in the construction and the prior use of this two-family dwelling. 17 In summary, considering the Record before the Respondent Board, there is no rational basis or valid governmental interest for Respondent's denial of this variance request. A review of this Record indicates Respondent made no findings as to factor #1; the findings as to factor #2 were not rational; the findings as to factor #3 are disingenuous; the findings as to factor #4 are erroneous; and the findings as to factor #5 are irrelevant. on the other hand, substantial evidence in the Record substantiates Petitioner has satisfied the factors of §267-b(3)(b) Town Law. Further, Respondent never made a finding that the detriment to the pubic in granting the variance outweighed the equities to the Petitioner. Reviewing the whole Record and taking into consideration the balancing test required by Matter of Sasso v Osgood, bra, at 384, Petitioner does not have to show significant economic injury and practical difficulties are not required. Respondent Zoning Board's decision denying the variance must be annulled as it does not have a rational basis supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Smith v Board of Apoeals of Town of Islip, 202 A.D.2d 674 (2d Dept. 1994) POINT II THE ZONING BOARD FAILED TO RECOGNIZE PETITIONER'S EQUITIES, FINANCIAL INVESTMENT, AND EXPENDITURES TO ESTABLISH FINANCIAL AR HT At the outset, it is important to note there was no evidence introduced on behalf of the Respondent to support any aspect of its position denying Petitioner's variance request. The Record is bare of any indication that the continuance of Building 42 as a dwelling will have deleterious on the neighborhood. Petitioner's evidence was uncontested and shows that the • is variance application conformed to the aforementioned statutory requirements. Respondent ignores the fact the Petitioner became involved in this property as a mortgage lender and not as a normal purchaser. It is obvious the denial of this variance request without any legitimate reasons being set forth by the Respondent, becomes a punitive measure against the Petitioner. The Court in exercising its reviewing function should not allow the Respondent to punish the Petitioner for what were in effect Respondent's own failings to enforce its own code; when it is clear the Town of Southold officials had actual knowledge of the two individual houses on the subject property. See Matter of Belle Harbor Realty c'oro v Kerr, 43 A.D.2d 727, 728 (2d Dept. 1973) Even though the former owner cleverly forged the certificate of occupancy in question, which makes it clearly invalid, it is submitted the actual original certificate of occupancy should never have been issued to the former owner considering how the building was constructed. (Proceeding 41 Ex E) It is further submitted this certificate of occupancy issued for a two- story non-habitable accessory building is questionable at best. This is especially so when Southold Town officials knowingly allowed and facilitated the violation of the zoning ordinance by allowing these two dwellings on one lot. By knowingly and deliberately not enforcing its own zoning ordinance for such a lengthy period of time, the Town officials in effect created an appearance of regularity. Based upon this appearance of regularity coupled with the forged certificate of occupancy, Petitioner should be allowed to show that his expenses made in good faith in granting the mortgage and his other expenditures in connection with this property be considered by the Respondent on the question of hardship. The Court of Appeals in v t ° s Inc v Raynor, 22 N.Y.2d 417 (1968) held, and courts subsequently thereto have repeatedly and consistently followed, that where a land owner in good faith makes expenditures upon an 19 invalid building permit and certificate of occupancy, those expenditures may be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals in determining whether or not to grant either an area or use variance. In Clowry v Town of Pauling, 202 A.D.2d 663 (2d Dept. 1994), the court held that evidence supported the granting of a variance by the Town Zoning Board of Appeals, where among other things the land owner reasonably relied on the issuance of a permit and incurred substantial expenses for the demolition of an old garage and the construction of a new one. Similarly in Corr dd Homes, Inc v Misiakiewicz, 45 A.D.2d 1008, 1009 (2d Dept. 1974), the Court found that even though a building permit was invalid to the extent it allowed construction on a lot with less than 30 feet of access to an improved or mapped street, and the land owners obtained no vested rights by making expenditures thereon, "such expenditures made in good faith may be properly considered on the question of granting a variance." See also, R he teach v windward at Southampton, 80 Misc.2d 1031, aff'd 48 A.D.2d 909 (2d Dept. 1978) In racobelli v. City of Rye, 64 A.D.2d 888 (2d Dept. 1978), the Court remanded a variance case to the Board of Zoning Appeals to consider the following equities: The equities we refer to are (1) the letter from the city clerk indicating that an nonconforming use in fact existed, (2) the length of time the premises had been used as a five- family dwelling and (3) petitioners' apparent good faith reliance on said letter. in view of these equities, we remand so that petitioners can have further opportunity to present evidence that they will in fact suffer unnecessary hardship unless they are granted a variance. The Petitioner at the hearing on May 1, 1996, and in particular in his affidavit of May 29, 1996 (Proceeding #1 Ex A) set forth various expenditures on the subject property which the Respondent has totally ignored. It is evident from the uncontested evidence before the Board these expenditures were made in good faith based on the forged certificate of occupancy, as well as the fact there were no outstanding violations against the property. These 20 expenditures should be considered on the issue of unnecessary hardship and the entitlement to a variance. + t . ~ x It is submitted the Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals erred in not considering the equities of the Petitioner in investing substantial amounts of money in the subject property, by investing in the mortgage, the expenses of the foreclosure and taking possession, in reliance on both the appearance of regularity created by the Town's conscious policy of nonenforcement, as well as the forged certificate of occupancy. The Respondent's failure to acknowledge Petitioner's financial involvement demands an annulment of Respondent's actions. POINT T_II PETITIONER'S UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND AUTHORIZING THE USE OF BUILDING #2 AS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING WILL ALLOW PETITIONER A REASONABLE RETURN AND NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD As a result of Respondent's May 29, 1996 decision, Petitioner was under the misapprehension that the June 26, 1996 meeting with the Respondent was to discuss various alternatives for the use of Building #2 without subdividing the property. (See Affidavit of Ronald J. Mayer dated August 13, 1996, attached to the Petition in Proceeding #2) In reviewing the transcript of the "hearing" of June 26, 1996, it is clear this was not a hearing in the normal sense. There was no testimony or evidence introduced at this "hearing" as it was nothing more than a general discussion concerning the Petitioner's application to use Building #2 on his property as an accessory use to the main dwelling. (Proceeding #2 Ex C) Any evidence or exhibits received by the Respondent were as a result of the first hearing on May 1, 1996 and the subsequent affidavits submitted to the Respondent Zoning Board. iProceeding 21 41) All of the findings of the Respondent Zoning Board as a result of the June 26, 1996 decision were based on the facts and evidence derived from Proceeding #1. Thus the June 26, 1996 meeting was a rehearing to determine whether Building #2 could remain an accessory dwelling on one lot. For Petitioner to obtain a variance for the approval of the two single- family dwellings to continue to exist on one lot in this R-40 zoning district (which allows only a one family detached dwelling on each lot), Petitioner has to satisfy what now has become a four prong statutory test of unnecessary hardship, Town Law, §267-b(2)(b). In order to accomplish this, Petitioner has to demonstrate his property with the two existing dwellings cannot comply with any of the permitted uses in this R-40 district without a variance. This is a relatively simple task under the Southold Town Zoning Ordinance in this district because the only reasonable use for Petitioner's property is residential. Even though there are other existing uses in this neighborhood such as a commercial farm stand, contractor's warehouse, and motel and tourist cottages, none of these uses are permitted in this zoning district and as such are nonconforming. When the size, dimensions, and geographic location of Petitioner's property are considered along with the demographics of the area, a residential use is the only reasonable use for Petitioner's property. It is fairly obvious it would not be feasible to convert Building #2 which is two stories with 1,000 square feet on each story into a permitted accessory use of a toolhouse, playhouse, storage building or garden house. It is also not feasible to physically merge Buildings #1 and #2 into one dwelling. As in Proceeding #1, the Respondent continues to ignore the statutory requirements as set forth in Town Law 267-b(2)(b). See Shaucrhessey v. Roth, 204 A.D.2d 334 (2d Dept. 1994). Analysis of the four factors set forth in 5267-b(2)(b) Town Law in 22 connection with the Respondent's finding in the June 26, 1996 decision is as follows: (1) the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that the lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. Town Law §267-b(2)(1) The Respondent's June 26, 1996 decision is not only awkward as to form, but is somewhat confusing to follow. However, a close reading of the decision indicates there are only two findings where financial evidence was even mentioned by the Zoning Board. (Proceeding #2 Ex D, Paragraph 9d), 10f)(3)) Both of these findings in essence say Petitioner has not given the Zoning Board any information from a financial point of view. Therefore, it must not exist. These findings are factually incorrect because at the request of the Respondent in Proceeding #1, the Petitioner furnished a detailed affidavit of his financial involvement and hardship in connection with this property. (Proceeding #1 Ex A, Affidavit of Ronald J. Mayer dated May 29, 1996) In addition, at the request of the Respondent, Lynda Spangel submitted a letter of valuation dated May 7, 1996 where she analyzed the property from a financial point of view. (Proceeding #1 Ex A) Why the Respondent fails to consider this requested information is only a matter of speculation as the financial facts were given to the Respondent for its review even if not required in Proceeding #1- A synopsis of this financial hardship is as follows: The Affidavit of Ronald J. Mayer dated may 29, 1996 (Proceeding #1 Ex A) details a brief history of his financial involvement in this property. Petitioner states he made a mortgage loan of $410,000.00 on September 7, 1989 to Profiris covering four parcels of land of which one was the subject property. In the mortgage application process, Petitioner himself personally evaluated the subject parcel at $250,000.00 and determined that Building #1 had an assessed valuation as a dwelling of $4,968.00 and Building #2 had an 23 assessed valuation as a dwelling of $5,434.00. This made sense as Building #2 was newer and larger than Building #1. Petitioner, by personal inspection, also determined that both dwellings were occupied and utilized as dwellings. In fact, Building #2 was being utilized as a two-family dwelling at the time of inspection. Due to nonpayment of the loan by Profiris, a foreclosure action was commenced by Petitioner's company and a foreclosure judgment was obtained on April 10, 1990 in the amount of $443,482.00 which was against the four mortgaged properties. Profiris filed for bankruptcy and in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, Petitioner was able to obtain a release of the subject property from the Bankruptcy Court which allowed the foreclosure sale to proceed. At the time of the Referee's sale there was an unpaid balance which was attributable only to the subject property of $219,473.94. As a result, the Petitioner at the foreclosure sale bid $200,000 of his judgment. Subsequent to receiving a deed, Petitioner incurred additional expenditures for the subject property such as payment of back real estate taxes, legal fees, referee's fees and other miscellaneous expenses in order to clear the title and obtain possession all totaling $63,582 for a total investment in the subject property of $283,078.94. Lynda Spangel's May 7, 1996 letter to the Board divided the valuation of the property down into two parts. (Proceeding 411 Ex A) The first cart dealt with the property as one parcel with two structures on it. Ms. Spangel placed a valuation on Building #1 at $125,000 to $139,000 and if Building #1 had a refurbished kitchen and bathroom her estimated value would have a range of $139,000 to $150,000. Building #2 was valued at $10,000.00 as it did not have a variance. However, if this building had a variance and was allowed to continue as a two-family house, it would add $100,000.00 to the property value. The second part of Lynda Spangel's evaluation was if the Zoning Board allowed a subdivision with a single-family dwe'_Zing on each parcel, then 24 Building 41's parcel would have a value range from $120,000 to $125,000 and Building 42's parcel would have a valuation of $85,000 to $99,000. Therefore, it is easily concluded under Lynda Spangel's valuation calculations the present value of Petitioner's property without any type of variance would be from $135,000 ($125,000 + $10,000) to $149,000 ($139,000 + $10,000). If the property was subdivided into two parcels, each with a single-family dwelling, it would have a total valuation of $205,000 ($120,000 + $85,000) to $224,000 ($125,000 + $99,000). The purpose of Lynda Spangel's valuation was to show to the Zoning Board the value if the property was two single-family plots. She did not place a valuation if Building 42 was classified as an accessory building and if both dwellings were allowed to remain on one plot. It is submitted it would not differ substantially from the prior valuation. It is noted that Lynda Spangel's valuation of the property is in line with an appraisal performed by George A. Hammer, Jr. dated April 24, 1995 wherein he appraised the Petitioner's property in the mortgage foreclosure- bankruptcy action at $205,000.00. Unknown to the Petitioner, the Respondent Board obtained outside the hearing a copy of this appraisal from the Southold Town Assessor's office, and included it in the Record. (Proceeding 41 Ex A, Ex 1) Although this appraisal da hors the Record, it is assumed the Respondent read this appraisal before making its decision. The Hammer appraisal computed the value of the property in its present condition which included Building 42 as a "detached two-unit apartment building" and arrived at the valuation of the property with the two dwellings on one lot at $205,000. In summary, the uncontroverted Evidence which the Respondent Board had before it and totally ignored, is Petitioner's investment in this property is $283,078.94 and the property has a valuation of with a variance allowing the use of Building #2 as a single-family dwelling of $205,000 and without the variance, the oroperty is only worth 5135,000. Therefore, it becomes obvious 25 from a dollar and cents financial point of view that the variance has the effect of increasing the valuation by approximately $70,000. The Court should also note that with or without the variance, through no fault of the Petitioner, he is going to suffer a loss and it is only a question of how much. Again, it is obvious the amount of loss will be lessened if Petitioner's variance is granted. Therefore, the lack of "reasonable return" or loss that Petitioner will suffer is fairly obvious but for some reason ignored by the Respondent Zoning Board. These specific uncontested numbers concern actual dollars and cents proof. Petitioner was attempting to point out to the Zoning Board in Proceeding 41 and again in Proceeding 42, other than minimizing his loss, it is irrelevant as to what the property is worth with or without the variance. The entire purpose of seeking a variance is to resolve the predicament which Petitioner finds himself as a result of acquiring ownership of this property pursuant to the foreclosure of the mortgage. That predicament or hardship is not being able to legally use Building #2 without coming into conflict with some provision of the zoning ordinance in this R-40 district. In effect, Petitioner does not have a reasonable use of Building #2, which in this case is directly linked to the use of the property due to the size and location of the property and the dwellings located thereon. Admittedly, there is no evidence of whether the property can be sold with Building 42 having no practical use. However, a review of the Record in both proceedings leads anyone with any degree of common sense to draw a reasonable inference it would be extremely difficult to sell, much less use the property and obtain any reasonable return if Building #2 is not allowed to be used as a dwelling. See Stanley Park. Inc. v. Donovan, 38 A.D.2d 662 (2d Dept. 1972), aff'd 32 N.Y.2d 668 (1973) Whether a prospective buyer would be interested in purchasing the property and not have practical use of Building #2 is only speculation considering its architecture, size, assessed valuation, and the neighborhood 26 in general. It is obvious that the property has some "economic benefit". This is neither the issue nor the test in this particular case to obtain a variance. Rather the problem is what to do Building #2 to allow it to be legally used for some reasonable purpose. It is submitted that Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441 (1978) as cited by the Respondent is inapposite to the situation in which Petitioner finds himself. In Fuhst, supra, the applicant had the use of his residence, and was actually using it at the time of the variance application. The issue in that case was whether or not the applicant could obtain a front yard variance as a result of enclosing the front entrance of his house. The Court required him to show he could not use the house without the variance. Of course the applicant could not show that he could not use the house without a variance since he was actually using it. This the Court termed a personal problem, which "lacked a meaningful nexus to the use of the property itself". Fuisl t, sugra, p. 446. In the case at bar, the Petitioner has no legal or practical use of Building #2 unless of course it is used as a habitable dwelling and this is not just a personal problem because due to its size and location it affects the whole value and use of the property. Petitioner's plight is analogous to the Matter of Fior' v Zoning Board of Anneals, 21 N.Y.2d 393 (1968). In that case, Petitioner had a large barn three stories high, 75 feet in length, 35 feet in width all in a R-2 district. The barn had been used for storage of antiques for a period of four years without any complaints from the residents in the neighborhood, until he applied for a variance. The Court agreed with the Zoning Board that it was impractical due to its size and construction to convert the barn into a single-family dwelling which was the permitted use in this district. The Court found the barn had been used in the past for storage purposes without complaint and its continued use would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The Court went on to indicate that the predicament faced by the 27 owner was due to the particular barn and not a common hardship to all properties. The Court looked at the big picture and viewed the conversion of the storage barn into a dwelling as "a singular disadvantage through the operation of a zoning regulation" Fiori, supra, p. 395, thereby imposing an unnecessary hardship on the applicant in that case. So too in the case at bar; Building #2 has been in existence almost continually as a residential dwelling since 1984 with no complaints from anyone. Its continued use as a residence will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. The facts of the instant case and the predicament in which the Petitioner finds himself is peculiar to Building #2 and not a common hardship shared by all properties in the neighborhood. The finding of the Respondent Zoning Board in paragraph 10f) (3) of its June 26, 1996 decision (Proceeding #2 Ex D) is simply not a correct statement of the law either before or after the amendments of 9267 of the Town Law. There has never been a requirement that a landowner has to demonstrate he is deprived of all economic benefits from the property before he is entitled to a variance. If this were true, then the zoning ordinance would be confiscatory and unconstitutional and Petitioner would then have to be in a position to present evidence that no one would buy the property because of the lack of use for Building #2. See Matter of h y v Levine, 147 A.D.2d 871 (3d Dept. 1969) It is uncontroverted from reviewing the transcript of the May 1, 1996 hearing and the exhibits, the Petitioner among other things relied on the forged certificate of occupancy in granting the mortgage loan. (See Proceeding #1) Despite the suggestion of the Respondent in its Memorandum of Law which is twisted logic under the facts of this case, Petitioner is not asking for compensation by the Zoning Board for failure to enforce the zoning ordinance. Admittedly, the forged certificate of occupancy for Building 42 is invalid. From a legal point of view, Petitioner obtains no vested rights in 28 relying on it. Petitioner understands and this is why he is asking for ' equitable consideration in requesting a variance and not compensation. The Respondent Zoning Board completely ignores the expenditures made in good faith by the Petitioner on his investment which should be considered as financial evidence on the hardship issue. As stated by the Court in Couaevan v. Martens, 85 A.D.2d 890 (3d Dept. 1981) at page 891: Expenditures made in good faith by Canterbury in reliance on an invalid building permit may be considered by a zoning board on the application for a variance of proof of unnecessary hardship. (Matter of Jayne Estates v Raynor, 22 NY2d 417, 423). It is submitted in reviewing the Record, the Zoning Board cast aside Petitioner's financial evidence, neither understanding, nor considering the financial data which supported Petitioner's unnecessary hardship. Combining this proof of financial hardship with the inferences reasonably derived from the other evidence clearly establish Building #2 on Petitioner's property cannot be utilized for any permitted use in this R-40 district and achieve a reasonable return. (2) that the a hardship relating to the r ry in question is uni7ne. and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. Town Law 5267-b(2)(b)(2) The Respondent Zoning Board, in its decision of June 26, 1996, concerning this criteria found in paragraph 10f)(1) (Proceeding #2 Ex D) as follows: (1) the circumstances are related to the personal financial arrangements between the appellant and the prior owners, and the circumstances are not uniquely related to the land in question; This finding by the Respondent Board completely ignores the statutory criteria and therefore the finding should be ignored. The second prong of this statutory use variance criteria as cited above is fairly clear, and has to do with circumstances relating to the land. It is the hardship related to Petitioner's property, and not the personal financial arrangements with the 29 prior owners that is the test. The hardship is created by the fact that the second dwelling which is on Petitioner's property cannot conform to the zoning regulations. Certainly the facts and history of Petitioner's acquisition of the land are in and of themselves unique. These facts are not applicable to any other property in the neighborhood and it is absurd to say that the granting of the variance will establish a precedent. In reviewing the Record of both proceedings, it is obvious that Petitioner's plight in reality arose from the construction and the use of Building #2 with the de facto approval of the Town of Southold. It was the Town of Southold, and particularly the Building Department in failing to administer and enforce the zoning code that facilitated Profiris to perpetrate the fraud upon the Petitioner in granting a mortgage loan on the property. Further, it is fairly obvious in reviewing the Record that no other property in this neighborhood is confronted with Petitioner's situation with two residences on it. The only property which might be an exception is the one to the south of the Main Road, across from the Petitioner's premises which has a principal residence and two cottages. With the two cottages, there are in effect three dwellings on one property which are allowed to be used for reasons best known to the Town officials. The uniqueness to Petitioner's property is his inability to use this second dwelling for a reasonable purpose. However, it was stated in Matter of Shepley v Levine, 147 A.D.2d 871 (3d Dept. 1989) at 873: Uniqueness, the second prong of the unnecessary hardship test, did not require that the Masons show that theirs was the only property affected by the hardship... Further, it is stated by the Court of Appeals in Jayne Estates v Raynor, 22 N.Y.2d 417 (1968), page 425: In any case, as a general rule, where the landowner has made the requisite showing of financial hardship and compatibility of his proposed use with the existing land use pattern, it would seem preferable to grant the variance. To deny the variance solely on the ground that "unique r 30 circumstances" had not been shown leaves open the prospect of a successful assault on the zoning ordinance as being confiscatory... A review of the Record in both of the instant proceedings indicates Petitioner not only has a financial hardship, but these two existing detached dwelling units on his property are compatible with the existing neighborhood. (3) that the requested use variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood Town Law 5267-b(2)(b)(3) The Respondent Zoning Board in addressing this criteria made a finding in paragraph 10f) (5) of its decision of June 26, 1996 (Proceeding 42 Ex D): The requested use variance, if granted, will alter the essential character or the neighborhood which consists of one, single-family dwelling on adjacent and nearby parcels in the R-40 Residential Zone District. Although this finding is not completely true due to the nature of mixed uses in the neighborhood, there is no evidence to support the Respondent Board's finding. The key word in this finding is "alter". Nothing will be "altered" if Petitioner's variance is granted, as the use of Building #2 which has existed with full knowledge of the Southold Building Department and other Town officials since 1984. Building #2 has been utilized as a residential structure with no complaints from anyone, especially the neighbors. Why does the Zoning Board literally cast aside this evidence concerning Building #2, because by doing so the Respondent failed to recognize the character of the neighborhood. Since there is no evidence to the contrary, this finding by the Respondent is not rational when applied to the facts of this case and should be set aside. (4) that the alleged hardsh'n has not been self-created Town Law §267-b(2) (b) (4) Wisely, the Respondent made no finding as to this particular criteria and for good reason. There is no evidence to show the Petitioner was in any way involved with the creation of Building #2 and certainly it was not self- 31 created in that Building #2 was built and used by the prior owner Profiris. Petitioner's difficulties have been at least in part contributed to by the Town of Southold allowing Building #2 to be built and used for a two-family house. obviously this was all done without the knowledge of the Petitioner who got involved in the property by lending money to the prior owner and securing the loan with a mortgage. There is no evidence in the Record the Petitioner should have known that Building #2 was not a legal dwelling; due to the clever forgery of the certificate of occupancy; the tax assessments on the property and the appearances of propriety of the two buildings being used in plain view as dwellings on the property. Petitioner had no knowledge that Building #2 was an illegal structure until after he acquired the property. It is the function of the Zoning Board to apply the spirit of the law and vary its letter, when the exercise of the underlying police power may in cases like this be arbitrary and unreasonable. A variance of this nature should be granted when its denial will result in great and needless hardship, entirely disproportionate to the good which will result from literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance. on balance, the economic loss to Petitioner is extravagant when compared to the benefit the community as a whole receives by denial of the application. It is extremely difficult to see how the community in any way would be adversely affected by continuing to allow Building #2 to be used as a residential dwelling. Considering how the Petitioner became involved with this property, the zoning ordinance has in fact caused Petitioner unnecessary hardships, and considering the evidence before the Respondent there is no rational basis or valid governmental interest to support Respondent's findings. 32 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent's May 29, 1996 decision, (Proceeding #1) and its June 26, 1996 decision, (Proceeding #2) denying Petitioner's applications for variances should be annulled, with costs, as arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion on the ground that Respondent's determinations are not supported by substantial evidence in the Record. Dated: September 19, 1996 - Respectfully submitted, RICHARD F. LARK, ESQ. for LARK & FOLTS, ESQS. Main Road, P. O. Box 973 Cutchogue, NY 11935-0973 (516) 734-6807 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ---X In the Matter of the Application of NOTICE OF PETITION RONALD J. MAYER, Peti. - toner, Index No. For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 -against- Assigned Judge: GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman, SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., p.~ ROBERT A. VILLA, LYDIA A. TORTORA, constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, AUG 1 J .i Respondents. --------------------------------X - - ?LEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Petition of Ronald J. Mayer, verified on August 13, 1995, and supporting affidavit of Ronald J. Mayer sworn to on August 13, 1996, `he undersigned will move this Court at an I.A.S. Term thereof, to be held at the Courthouse located at Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York, on the 5th day of September, 1996 at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard for a i Judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 79 annul_ina the action of the i Respondents, filed in the Office of the Town Clerk on July 18, 1995 and granting the relief demanded _'_-1 the Petition. -OLZASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE at a -,-er_-_ed answer and supper-_na affidavits, if anv, must be ser-r=_d at least f_- v av_s oefcre the return date cf this app Lcat_on- REM BUG, 1 6~ 199 cz~ Smd gold Town C! i i Pursuant to CPLR §7804(e), you are directed to file with the Clerk of the Court, your answer and answering affidavits, if anv, together with a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings and all exhibits submitted at the hearing, together i with the entire official file containing the records of the Petitioner's property herein in reference to this application which are held by the Respondents and referred to in the proceedings as being in the record as official records kept by: the Respondents. Suffolk County is designated as venue of this proceeding on the basis of: Petitioner's residence in Suffolk County and the real property which is the subject matter of this action being located within Suffolk County. Dated: Cutchogue, New York August 13, 1996 LARK & FOLTS, ESQS. Attorneys for Petitioner Main Road, P.O. Box 973 Cutchogue, New York 11935 (516) 734-6807 TO: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Town of Southold Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 li I i I I Ii I SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ---------------------------------------X In the Matter of the Application of PETITION RONALD J. MAYER, p Petitioner, Index No. For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 -against- Assigned Judge: GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chair7an, SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA, LYDIA A. TCRTORA, constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Respondents. ---------------------------------------X The Petitioner, Ronald J. Mayer, respectfully shows: 1. Petitioner is a resident of Suffolk County and is the owner of real property described as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the point formed by the intersection of the northerly line of Main State Road with the easterly line of Rocky Point Road (also known as Sound Avenue) which point is 9.42 feet northerly along said easterly line of Rocky Point Road from a concrete monumen:; RUNNING THENCE along the easterly line of Rocky Point Road, North 12° 52' 30" West a distance of 223.55 feet to a point marked by a monument; THENCE along said easterly line of Rocky Point Road, North 9° 43' 10" West a distance of 62.20 -feet to a point marked by an Oren pipe and land now or formerly of Morton; THENCE along said ;_and now or -formerly of Morton, North 66° 54' 20" -last and nassina through a monument, a distance of 91.71 feet to land of Rackett; THENCE along said land of Rackett, South 12° 14" 10" East a distance of 264.92 feet to the nor_hwester'_v --ine of Main State Road; THENCE I) I along said northwesterly line of Main State Road, South 54° 55' So" West a distance of 98 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. (SCTM #1000- 031.00-02.00-026.000) 2. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Respondents, Gerard P. Goehringer, Serge Doyen, Jr., James Dinizio, Jr., Robert A. I Villa and Lydia A. Tortora constituted and still constitute the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. 3. The Respondents by decision rendered on May 29, 1996 (Appeal No. 4373) denied Petitioner's area variance by resolution which stated: RESOLVED, that the multiple requests for variances be in this proposed subdivision project requested by RONALD J. MAYER, BE AND HEREBY IS DFNIED without prejudice to apply for a different relief for the reasons stated above. (This decision denying the area variance is subject to a I pending Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Index No. 96-16041.) 4. On June 4, 1996, Petitioner applied for a "different relief" by applying to the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold for a permit to convert the existing two-family dwelling j into an accessory one-family dwelling on his property as described in paragraph i herein. 5. The app14-at]on was denied by the Southold Town Building Inspector on June 6, 1996 and a Notice of Disapproval which read as follows: . . . disapproved on the f wing ar^ounds: under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2A(1) permitted uses, under Section 100-31A(1) only one, one- family dwelling is permitted on each lot. Action required by the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Town Board 6. On June 7, 1996, Petitioner filed an appeal from this determination to the Respondent Zoning Board of Appeals. 7. The appeal was made to the Respondents in good faith for the "different relief" referred to in the previously filed area variance application which was denied by the Board of Appeals. This request for "different relief" is to convert the illegal two-family dwelling into a legal one-family use as an accessory structure, so that there would be two one-family dwellings on the Petitioner's property as more fully described in paragraph 1 herein. 8. On June 26, 1996, a. "hearing" was held before the Respondents which in essence was a re-hearing of the prior Appeal No. 4373. Petitioner appeared in support of his application which is summarized as follows: A. Petitioner proposed two alternatives: 1) to legalize the second dwelling on Petitioner's property with a "mother daughter" concept, in which the owner of the property could only allow the second residence to be used by a relative; or 2) tc convert the two-family dwelling to a one-family dwelling under one ownership wherein there would be two one-family i dwellings on Petitioner's property. i 3. Petitioner -?[)resented tllat ne would remove one of the kitchens in the two-farniiy house and convert same to a single family. C. Various members of the Board repeated statements that were made in the prior hearing of may 1, !996 (Appeal No. 4373). 9. On June 26, 1996, Respondents denied Petitioner's application as follows: RESOLVED that the request of RONALD J. MAYER for a mother-daughter use in the "accessory non- habitable building" in conjunction with the use of the main building as a single family dwelling, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED. 10. The Respondents, in its decision denying Petitioner's "different relief", classified his application as a use variance and then repeated various facts that were presented at the prior hearing of May 1, 1996. However, the Respondents, in its lengthy decision, in an effort to justify its bad faith denial of Petitioner's application, sets forth numerous erroneous facts under the heading "9. STATEMENTS MADE.", which, besides not being true were never presented at either hearing. Some of these statements are: 9 b) appellant confirmed that prior to acquiring the property on 9/7/95, Mr. Mayer was the holder of a "blanket $410,000 mortgage" on four separate parcels; the former owners of the subject parcel i !prior to 9/7/1995) were Jchn and Niki Proforls who owned the propert•.i _or more than 15 years, and _or many years used the main bullding as a single- dwelling and accessory barn building as shown on the December 9, 1969 survey prepared by VanTuvl & Son; i 9 appellant con='_rmed that he and his II representatives did not at any time during their direct involvement and financial interest in the property obtain original town documents, and failed to check the town files regarding a "photocopy" (later altered) of a Certificate of Occupancy for the accessory building. Appellant and his agents also failed to check any other town records before acquiring the property; 9 d) copies of appellant's mortgage documentation and other legal material, with financial breakdowns, were requested during both this hearing and the May 1, 1996 hearing, regarding the mortgage closing, the referee's sale, and other information, and other financial agreeements made between the parties were not submitted by the appellant at any time during this application or the prior variance application to substantiate the grant of a use variance. Further, the record is inadequate and lacks evidence as to the alleged loss and/or profit during these time periods for the four properties in the "blanket mortgage" (during the several real estate transactions of the original loans, conveyance, payments for alleged rentals, if any, refinancing and sale regarding all other properties under the mortgage, mortgage payments, collateral and value of properties involved, mortgage foreclosures, etc.) 9 e) Town records show that the former owner was on notice many times, and as testified at the May 1, 1996, the formex• owner refused access to the subject accessory building by enforcement (building) officers. The record does not show that periods of time that the subject accessory building was occupied by alleged "tenancy" by a former owner or relative, or anyone else, and very little information was given about a "tenant, the periods of time it may have been occupied, how it was occupied or used, etc. The subject accessory building has been Jacant for a period of time before and after i_ was accruired by Mr. Mayer (1995) by referee'a deed. 9 f) although the appellant has confirmed each building has been vacant and unoccupied, another notice was sent by the enforcement department of the town when the owner's real-estate agency placed a sign at the premises indicating that a use other than "single-family" was being of'ered 0 for sale, in January 1996- On or about March 11, 1996, Mr. Mayer applied to the building department for two, one-family dwellings on this parcel. 11. In its decision dated June 26, 1996, the Respondents also set forth other irrelevant and/or erroneous findings under the heading "10. OTTz^R CONSI12EBATID some of which are: 10(c) the lots immediately surrounding this parcel contain only one single-family dwelling on each lot, and the relief requested is out of character with the surrounding parcels in this neighborhood; 10(d) the request to obtain approval for more than one detached dwelling on this substandard parcel is very substantial at more than 100°s for the reason that the code does not permit habitable use in an accessory building; 10(f) the variance requested is "use variance" which must meet criteria set forth in New York Town Law; in using the test set by the Courts for a "use variance," the applicant has not demonstrated by submission of substantial evidence the following to warrant a grant of the relief requested: 10(f)(1) the circumstances are related to the personal financial arrangements between the appellant and the prior owners, and the circumstances are not uniquely related to the land in question; 10(f)(4) Applicant has not adequately proven that the alleged hardship is uniquely related to the property and that it would not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; the neighbcrhood parcels, and parcels throughout the Town of Southold, may fellow similar steps to achieve the same result requested by appellant. II 10(f)(5) The requested use variance, if granted, will alter the essential character or the neighborhood which consists of one, single-family dwelling on adjacenc and nearbv parcels in the R- -10 Res_dent_al 'one istri_ 0 10(f)(6) The acquisition of the present owner and lack of knowledge on his part as to the contents of town records would have been prevented by just checking the town files, obtaining an sealed duplicate of the Certificate of Occupancy, and asking for proper documentation. 10(g) for the reasons noted above, the variance will in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, and order of the town, and adverse_y affect nearby properties, and the benefit this residential neighborhood is greater when weighing the health, safety, and welfare of the community; 10(h) the variances requested will have an adverse effect an6 impact on the physical conditions in the neighborhood since other lenders and borrowers could follow the same steps and create similar situations by failing to check town records on zoning certificates, permits and other actions of records; 10(i) noncompliance and refusal to allow inside investigation after issuance of an "Accessory non- habitable building" Certificate of Occupancy was created by former property owners, whose testimony has not been offered in any respect and who we understand have a supreme court action against the present owner-applicant concerning the "mortgage foreclosure" by the applicant. 10(j) there has been = chance in circumstances since the former appeal, and the financial and other legal documentation relative to the transfers and payments made to the applicant, has not been submitted, as has been requested at every hearing. 12. Under the facts of this matter, it is a hardship to the Petitioner for the Respondents in their decisions to attempt to compel or even suggest to the Petitioner that his "different relief" should be: "that the second dwelling structure could be relocated on a vacant, legal, buildable lot (with proper permits) or I i "for a different proposal such as an application for a Special Exception for a proposed "Accessory Apartment in the Main Building with Owner Occupancy" since the owner could apply for a building permit to move the subject building and add it to the main dwelling for increased living area (part of the principal dwelling), subject to applicable permits." 13. In its action denying the Petitioner his "different relief"; Respondents virtually ignored the facts; the existing status and use of the dwellings on the property; and standards. and criteria set forth in Town Law 5267-b. 14. Respondencs, in its denial of Petitioner's application for a variance, advanced trivial contentions which were unwarranted by the facts, not supported by substantial evidence; I were arbitrary; illegal; capricious; unreasonable; confiscatory; imposed significant injury on your Petitioner depriving l Petitioner of the reasonable use of his property without due process of law, in violation of the Constitutions of the United. States and the State of New York. 1S. Previous application has been made to the Supreme Court of Suffolk County in an Article 78 proceeding with the same parties, Index No. 96-16041 which is presently pending before udge Gerard D'Emili^, 1.A.S., ?art 33. Simultaneously with this I, Petition, a motion is being made cursuanc to --PLR 5602(a) consolidate this Article 78 proceeding with the tending proceeding, Index No. 96-16041. '-F- FORE, P°t'--oner resr-ec!fall: fequeszs that a 'udame= i I it be made and entered annulling the decision of Respondents filed on July 18, 1996 and directing Respondents to grant Petitioner's application for a variance, together with such other and further relief as the Court deems prDper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding. RONALD MAYEV STATE OF NEW YORK: : ss.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: Ronald J. Mayer, being duly sworn deposes and says: I am the Petitioner in the within action and have read the foregoing Petition and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. OR NALD J. ? YER Sworn to before me this ' 13th day of August, 1996 . iO r i ,E aye, Notary Public DAWN MARE APCaW NftTftk9Ybd"~WyG ~ Can~~ian 6p4t ~ xC L`1C/~] SMS I I I I i SUPP.FME COURT OF THE cTA'rE OF NEW Z(~PK COUNT OF .SUFFOLF ___________________________________________K In the Matter of the Application or RONALD J. MAYER, Petitioner, SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT For a Judament Pursuant to CPLR Index No. 9 - aL'- 5-4 Article 78 -against- Assigned Judge: GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman, SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA, LYDIA A. TORTORA, constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, Suffolk county, New York, Resnondents. -------------------------------------X STATE OF NEW YORK: : ss.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: RONALD J. MAYER, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the Petitioner in the above captioned proceeding and state that I have read the decision of the Board of Appeals dated June 26, 1996, setting forth reasons for denying me a variance on my property in East Marian, New York. I am submitting this affidavit in support of my Petition dated i August 13, 1996 requesting the Court to annul the decision of the Respondent dated June 26, 1996. 2. At the outset, T wish to state I am amazed at my own naivety in believing government officials such as the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals are fair and open minded. I also consider myself somewhat stupid as after I acquired title to this property as a result of foreclosing a mortgage and found out that the second building had legal problems, I could have kept puiet, rented it out as a one or two- family dwelling. I could have also sold in an "as is,, condition wicaout saving a Nord, passing on the phoney certificate of Occupancy, that had previcusly been Given to me when I made r_:nis mortgage. sav this because for years or more, this particular house ..as been rented almost on a continual oasis, with no one complaining either li 'rcm the neighbor's --oint of -iew or crcm the 3ui1ding Inspector's office- On I _r her hand, this is not now do business. have been in business over as a New "Ip ric State ^-°nsed :nor==ace -ender -oantng mortgage money. - - arc_crd ,r .and ,pe c•'_a'..: -c do business on a straightforward and honest basis. Most of the time I help people out who are in temporary financial distress, so they wi Ll not lose their homes. 3. I am astonished at the statements made by the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals in their decision of June 26, 1996. I say this because the statements are biased and twisted, many of which are patently untrue. The Court must remember, i was personally present at the hearing on May 1, 1996, where I asked permission to divide the property into two separate lots each with its own dwelling, as well as the June 26, 1996 so-called hearing, which is the subject of this Court proceeding. Because the Zoning Board in this proceeding constantly refers back to the May 1, 1996, hearing and the statements and the evidence presented at that hearing, I requested my attorney to ask the. Court to merge these two lawsuits into one proceeding so the Court will have a complete picture as to what has taken place. Otherwise, the Court: in.reading the proceeding in this case will not have a clue, as the hearing was a farce. 4. When I was denied my request to split the property into two lots by the Zoning Board on May 29, 1996, I was left in a quandary as to what to do with this property. Since the Zoning Board seemed to indicate they wanted possible alternative solutions, I thought okay, leave the property as one lot with two houses on it as it presently exists with either a mother-daughter concept, or just with one lot with two houses on it. I then personally hand filled out the application for a certificate of occupancy for the second dwelling and gave it to the Building inspector who is required to deny it so I could make application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I then by hand completed the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals taking portions of my prior application and asking for this different relief that the Zoning Board seemed to want. It really didn't matter because if -his is what the Zoning Board canted, it was okay in the practical sense as I would be able to sell the prcuerty. As it is, r have nothing to sell because anv purchaser at the present time with half a brain will be in no better shape than I am. The point being is the second house ^n the premises was obviously from the beginning built as a -,wo-family house. Further, it is clear from looking at the building plans submitted to the Building Department to obtain the building oermit in 1983 and the certificate of occupancy in 1984 that this was in reality certainly a one-family and most probably a two-family house. The old adage which says, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and acts like a duck, it must be a duck; so too here, with this two-family house. Further if you go and look inside the house, you would find you cannot go upstairs or downstairs from inside of the house. You have to go outside the building and use the exterior entrance, as the upstairs and downstairs units are completely separated from one another. I have made offers to the Zoning Board to take a look at the inside of the house but no one has inspected the interior. I certainly would have no objection to the Judge taking a look at the property so he can make his own decision as to what it looks like. If the Zoning Board continues to characterize this two-family dwelling which has been used as such since 1984 as a "two-story non-habitual (non-habitable) accessory building", so be it. No matter what it is named, it is still an illegal two-family i dwelling. S. At the start of the second hearing on June 26, 1996, the Chairman of the Zoning Board asked if I would be agreeable to an alternate solution to solve the problem. I said yes, and then the so-called hearing began. For some strange reason, I thought the Zoning Board was trying to help me resolve the dilemma I had inherited. Was I ever wrong! The whole thing was a cruel joke on me! The Zoning Board had only one thing in mind from the outset, and that is to screw me for no apparent reason! I have done nothing to them. i i They know I did not create this second dwelling. They know that 1 took the property back by foreclosure. They know that I was given a phoney Certificate I ~ of Dccuoancv. They also :know the Town authorities, in particular the Building Inspector, the Sunerrisor, and the assistant Town Attorney who were in cr--ce at =he time, as well as the current sitting Chairman of the Board of Appeals, ail were =idly aware of the _iiegal use of the property. They know _ have a i inanc_al hardship, unless the second dwelling is allowed to be used as such. i Why they try to deny any knowledge of the other dwelling on the premises is beyond me. Talk about my civil rights being violated by this group of capricious government officials. Ghat gets me is this situation existed for over 11 years and did not cause aproblem with the Town. When I go to straighten it out, all of a sudden I receive all kinds of static that this was bad, and would set a bad precedent, and cause harm to the Town. Talk about an abuse of discretion. How can the Zoning Board at the second hearing knowing full well my financial plight suggest that I apply for an accessory apartment under a section of the Code (100-13), knowing my situation with the illegal dwelling does not even come within this definition. I submit it was the same malicious thinking that suggested I move this building to another lot or attach it to the dwelling facing the Main Road. 6. This affidavit is submitted to assist the Court to point out and correct the false statements placed in the Zoning Board decision dated June 26, 1996. The following references are to paragraphs contained in that decision. I am attaching a copy of this decision for the Court's reference as Exhibit A. 7. Statement 9 b). I never referred to the former owners John and Niki Proforis ever using an accessory barn building. I do not personally know anything about a barn being on the property. When I looked at the property in August 1987, the property contained a single-family dwelling on the Main Road, which was the home of Mr. and Mrs. Proforis. It also contained a two-family house facing Rocky Point Road. As I stated in my original application to the Board, which I verified on March 11, 1996 and again I repeated at the May 1996, hearing and in my financial affidavit of May 29, 1996, Mr. Proforis represented he replaced a seasonal dwelling with the two-story structure as existed in August of 1987 and sti11 currently exists. I never mentioned a barn building. Again, if the Zoning Board calls it an accessory barn building, that is fine, but then refine it for what it is, an illegal dwelling. I did inform the Board that Mr. Proforis indicated he received permission from the Town for onl_i a one-family house but had used it as a two- ,III I I 1 family house ever since 1984. To me, it sure looked like a two-family house with a flat roof, separate entrances and completely independent living units. In fact, when I first inspected it in August of 1987, there were two families living in the house as it presently exists. The Zoning Board forgets that I am not a buyer of property. I am a mortgage lender and I am a qualified appraiser and lend money on properties based on what they are and what legally can be done. I know what I see. So the Court will be clear as to what I am talking about, I am attaching a photograph of this illegal two-family dwelling as Exhibit B as it existed in 1987 and exists at the present time. 8. Statement 9 c), is also not true. I did not fail to check thins out. I pointed out to the Zoning Board at the hearing on May 1, 1996, I personally inspected the property, the title company doing the title search searched the Town records and found no outstanding violations against the property, because there were none then, or now. The Southold Town Assessor's real property record card indicated that the house facing the Main Road, "M Bldg.", is a house which had a building permit issued 3/10/88, to repair fire damage which is assessed, after depreciation, at $4,968.00; "Bld 42" which is two-stories with crawl space, flat roof and aluminum siding was issued a building permit dated August 27, 1983 as accessory building is assessed at $5,434.00. Copy of the assessment card showing these facts is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Court should keep in mind the Zoning Board also had these records. The copies of the certificate of occupancy presented to me and my i attorney on the day of the mortgage closing on September 7, 1988, were attached to my original application to the Zoning Board dated March il, 1996. ! The fact that I took photocopies of these documents is not an unusual practice in the mortgage lending business. I pointed this out to the Zoning Board ar the May 1, 1996, hearing. I have done hundreds of closings and very seldom get an original Certificate of Occupancy. Usually they are photocopies, z~ say I, my attorney or the title company failed to check any Town records i simply false. The plain and simple facts are if the Town had filed -rioiat_cns jl which they are supposed to do, none of tn4 s uoui.d have happened. because _t Ij would have had to be cleared before I closed on the mortgage loan. I am not complaining that the Southold Town officials did not enforce the law, that is their business; but when I am Crying to straighten out the situation, I should not be screwed by them because they were lax in enforcing their own zoning code. 9. Statement 9 d) is also false and twisted. The Zoning Board seems to believe they can take any statement, become a spin doctor, and make it say what they want it to say to get the result they want. This is irresponsible government in action, believing they are accountable to no one but themselves. After the May 1, 1996, hearing, I went to Mr. Anthony Conforti, the attorney who handled the mortgage closing, mortgage foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings. I requested he dig out from the voluminous papers all of the financial aspects of the mortgage :losing, mortgage foreclosure, and bankruptcy proceedings involving John and Niki Proforis. This was complicated and he spent considerable time doi:zg this. with his help I was able to verify the figures which are set forth in my May 29, 1996, affidavit which I personally presented to the Zoning Board prior to the May 29, 1996, hearing. Interestingly enough, they do not !ven mention this Affidavit in any of their decisions. Why? The conclusion is obvious! They are arbitrary and do not want to be troubled with the facts as the affidavit covers all of the requested financial data as applies to this property. They never specifically requested original documents some of which are filed in these prior legal proceedings. Even if I did give the original documents, would they understand them? Again, the answer is obvious. If someone would take the time to review my may 29, 1996, affidavit, it spells out my financial involvement with Mr. and Mrs. Proforis. Every one of the figures can be verified with Court records, canceled checks, or recorded documents. I am willing to obtain oricinals or court certified documents but what difference does it make because it's obvious that 1 have a true financial hardship which the Zoning Board chooses to completely ignore. It was like this Affidavit never existed. The bottom line is I. have over 5283,000.00 of my money tied up in this property. I am an unwilling purchaser at a foreclosure sale, attempting to protect my financial interests. If relief is granted to me, I stand to lose between approximately $58,000.00-$74,000.00. If no relief is granted to me, I will lose between $123,000.00-$143,000.00. This is not a financial hardship? I should roll over and smile at the Zoning Board because they think they're above the law by merely saying without any basis I have not proved an obvious financial hardship? Relative to finances, the Zoning Board also conveniently ignores Lynda Spangel's testimony in the May 1, 1996, hearing and does not mention her affidavit of May 7, 1996, which is information that they had specifically requested. Although it is attached to the Record in the first proceeding, they failed to mention it anywhere in their decision. unknown to me, the Zoning Board also had available to them another appraisal by an individual by the name of George A. Hammer, dated April 22, 1995, of this property. This was done for the Supreme Court and the Bankruptcy Court in the foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings to determine what was involved in releasing this property from bankruptcy so it could be sold in the foreclosure. Although the Zoning Hoard had it in its file, they make no mention of it and it shows the value on April 22, 1995, as $205,000.00, which explains why I had to bid the property in at $200,000.00. This affidavit came into the Town's hands when, after I became an owner and realized the high assessments on the property and found out about the illegal dwelling on the property, I presented this appraisal to the assessors to see if something could be done to lower the taxes. The point is: This appraisal is in line with Lynda Spangel's appraisal presented to the Board, and the testimony at the May 1, 1996, i hearing; but more importantly, it shows the deceit of the Board in failing to mention it. 10. Statement 9 e) Is also not true. By this time the Court will get i the impression that I am upset. You bet I am! There is nothing in the Town I records and certainiv not in the hearings of Mav 1, 1996, or June 26, 1996, :`gat show Mr. ?roforis ever refused access to the building on his property. As it turns out, he flaunted the Zoning Law openly. Keep in mind that his residence facing the Main Road suffered fire in 1987 and the Building Inspectors were on his property to issue building permits to repair fire damage. Further, at that time he was actually living in the other building, which is in question, while he was rebuilding his residence. I've informed the Board at the May 1, 1996, hearing, that Mr. Proforis had indicated to me that he always had this second dwelling facing Rocky Point Road rented. I know personally it was rented in 1587 because I saw the occupants. I know personally it was rented in November 1988 after he defaulted on his mortgage, as I was at the property and saw the tenants. I know it was rented in 1989 as I was at the property on numerous occasions. In fact, Mr. Proforis' daughter was living in this two-family dwelling. I know personally it was rented in 1995 right up to the time of the foreclosure sale, because I personally talked to the tenant. I informed the Zoning Board of these facts at the hearing. why the Board concocts these false statements is for the Court to decide. The facts are the Town never bothered to seriously attempt to gain access to this house. At the May 1, 1996, hearing, victor Lessard, the Bead Building Inspector at the time, so testified. Although he personally tried, he was told by his superior to stay away. 11. Paraaragh 9 f) is a classic spin. After I took title and discovered in late 1995 the illegal status of the second building, and brought it to the Building Department's at-ention, all of a sudden after 11 years, the Building Department miraculously writes the first letter that the second building cannot be rented. Notice I didn't rent it, but they still sent me a letter than I can't rent it. Why iidn't they officially notify Mr. and Mrs. Proforis for over 11 years? 12. In paragraph 10 of the decision of June 26, 1996, at page 4 of Exhibit A, the Zoning Board lists (OTHER CONSIDERATIONS). These are not only confusing by not accurate. For example, Other ~onc;d ra =ons 10(c) where the Board mentions lots immediately surrounding this parcel contain only one single-family dwelling, combined wirh the notion that my proposed relief is I out of character with the surrounding parcels in the neighborhood. You 'would have to be blind not to see if you stood on the front lawn of my property facing the Main Road and looked south across the Main Road on land owned by Mr. Siderakis, which contains a single-family dwelling and two cottages which are rented out from time to time during the year. Four parcels to the north, on the east side of Rocky Point Road, contains a commercial building and the property immediately adjacent to that, owned by Herbert M. Mandel, contains a commercial building in which a glass blower is presently located doing business. Immediately to the west, facing the Main Road is one of the busiest commercial farm retail outlets on eastern Long island, known as °Seps Farm, Stand," which sells not only produce from that farm but also purchases many articles of produce from other parts of the country and sells them at retail. Further, not more than 200 feet away to the east on the southerly side of the Main Road, is located property owned by Peterson and adjacent thereto is the Sointhouiakis Motel. The point of all this is the zoning Board is fully aware of this not only by going to the property, but Lynda Spangel gave the Board actual pictures of the different uses in this neighborhood. The notion my property is out of character, is totally ridiculous and an abuse of their perceived unlimited discretion. 13. other considerations 10(d) this statement makes no sense and needs no further comment. 14. other considerations 10(f)(1). Personal financial arrangements is not one of the criteria for a variance. I have a truly unique hardship which is germane to my property alone, and does not apply to any other property is this area. i is. 0 h considerations _IV f) 2) and (3)are not relevant to my prop- erty. What anypne going to de with an accessor_r non-habitable structure which is built on a two-fami v dwelling and is assessed and taxed higher than the principal dwelling on the premises as it affects the entire parcel. So i much so it is not possible `o obtain a reasonable return on my investment. This =inane'-al hardship can onii be aile^iated by allowing a residential use on the second dwelling on the property, which will be in keeping with what is presently there. 16. Other considerations 1(1(£)(4). If anyone, including this Zoning Board, can find any other property in the Town of Southold, or for that matter Suffolk County or the State of New York, which has my applicable fact pattern, with the two existing dwellings, I will admit my financial hardship is not unique as applied to this property. 17. Other considerations 1(!ff)(5) is totally inaccurate because the character of the neighborhood will not change one bit. There are two separate distinct dwellings on the subject property, one of which happens to be a two- family, which I am willing to convert to a one-family so there will be no change to the "essential character" of this neighborhood because it exists and has existed since 1984. Further, eis-stated in paragraph 12 of this affidavit as well as Lynda Spangel's exhibit submitted to the Board indicate the character of this neighborhood to be of a mixed use that it is not strictly residential. 18. Other considerations 10(f)(6) This is not a factual statement for reasons I stated in paragraph 8 of this affidavit. This again is a veiled attempt to cover up the Town's inadequacies in enforcing their own ordinance and trying to blame me for something I had not created. 19. Other considerations 1)(g) is a nice statement, but fails to state how or why granting me relief will affect in any way shape or form the health, safety, welfare or convenience of this community. 20. Other considerations 10(h) is one of the most ludicrous, ridiculous statements that I have raver read as the neighborhood speaks for itself. Why any legitimate lender would falsify papers to create the problem which I now find myself involved with is so ridiculous it needs no comment. 21. Other considerations i(ce) is another typically false statement. I have commented on inspections in paragraph 10 of this affidavit. Give me a break, how am 1 going to get John or Niki ?roforis, given the history of this case, to come and testify, much less refute or admit to _ae 3oard they i committed a fraud upon me? There is no reference in the record before the Zoning Board, that there is litigation between myself and Mr. and Mrs. i Proforis. Even if there is, it is totally irrelevant to the land use requested relief, which I thought was the purpose of my application. 22. Other cons'derationc 10(1) is also a capricious statement for the reasons that I have outlined above. The Zoning Board, on May 29, 1996, turned down my application to subdivide the property and I immediately applied for other or different relief within a week of that application so it is obvious in this short time frame there is no changes in circumstances. The financial documentation the Zoning Board requested has already been submitted to them- The Board absolutely did not read it, understand it, and did not want to understand it. 23. The above are just a few examples of the arbitrary and capricious and illegal abuse of discretion committed by this Zoning Board. The Court should annul the Zoning Board's decision based upon the actual records and I, facts, including the financial data they had at their disposal to review. I After reviewing everything, if the Court is as confused as I am as to any they I, denied my relief, it would be best to have actual sworn testimony to figure out what's going on in this matter, so that the Court can hold this Zoning Board accountable for its actions. I hate to bother the Court with all of this, but I have a large financial investment in this property and all I ask is that I be fairly treated under the law, which has not happened so far in this matter. WHEREFORE, I respectfully request this Court to review the entire record in this case, and annul the arbitrarvaet_en o£ the Resnondent. 1 Rcnaid J, 'layer Sworn to before me this 13th day of August, 1996 i Notary ?ubi_.. II DAWN MMIE APCZUJ Nary pUhlfc, 9YN d Nw YaA No. 10006-g~AdkGwry~ , CanmisewnEmn~Mrdi?2~' ~ ,y'''~gUfFdC,i-c ? OG APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS j4 y~ ~o r° ; Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman T 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen. Jr. °y • v P.O. Box 1 179 James Dirtizio. Jr.~Ol Southold. New York 11971 Robert A. Vila Fax (516) 763-1823 Lydia A. Tortora Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 1373A, (14373 Amended for Alternative) filed by RONALD T. MAYER. Applicant-owner is requesting a Use Variance for alternative relief, under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2 and Section 100-30C for occttpttticy of second building in conjunction with use and ownership of main dwelling, as a single parcel. Location of Property: 7735 Main Road, East .Marion, NY; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-31-2-26, a corner lot containing a total land area of 25,210 square feet. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on -June 26, 1996, at which time all persons who desired to be heard were heard and all testimony was heard and recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and doc+imentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are Fnmiliar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the srtrrouudiug areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the Following findings of fact: 1. PROPERTY SIZE & ZONE DISTRICT: The premises in citrestiun is located in the "R-40 Low-Density Residential" Zan "Dist Act and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as Dis ; Section 31, Block 2, Lot No. 26. The lot as exists is sub size, containing 25,210 sf. EXISTING BUILDINGS AND PERMITTED OCCUPANCY'.`;", Tbis rrudersized parcel is presently improved with a single-family dwelling as the principal use, and an accessory two-story building (which building is the subject of the requested variances). A Copy, of Cerrificgte of Occupancy #Z12315 dated Sept- 27 , 1981 describes the o::^•nr<ncy For the subject accessory building to be permitted only as "Twn-Stor} `ion-Habital (non-habitable) Accessory Building" - see 311iidin'1 Permit File =212315 w dch shows the December 9. 1969 survey . pr-pared by tianTnyl & Son, and the two-story Frnme house (main building) :urd subject two-story building labeled "prnposed accessory hidg ;also stamped 3-1-13 `or facility hook-in with the main building by 'he Cr illity Depak!nent oC Henlth Ser^ices and noted to be only for nun-!tubitiWe accessury building) . PRIOR APPEAL AND DENfAf_ This pr-merry -.vas the ;abject „i ^r, :i.,niui for the 7e1n1P97P11 -rsnriop rf -wo rtuder3i2ed jars ...rn '•Snrrr ;rtUtii.Undu r'' nr - - nnNnl -;;e a ";Ierl Page 2 - Appl. tiu. 137.1-A ,\pplicntinrn of RO(NCALD .1. ,MAYER Decision Render9d tune 26, 1996 and Deniai rendered by this Board on May 29, 1996, filed with the Office of the Town Clerk on June 10, 1996. 4. DISAPPROVAL BY BUILDING INSPECTOR/BASIS OF APPEAL- By this application, the appellant has submitted an appeal based upon a June 6, 1996 Notice of Disapprov tl fobv the r habitable Building permit Inspector in which applicant is requesting a of the accessory building, and which building permit application was disapprgvPd by the Building Inspector under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2(a)(1) permitted uses, under Section 100-31A(1) for the reason that the code permits only one, one-family dwelling on each lot. 5. REQUEST FOR USE-VARIANCE RELIEF. For consideration under this proposal is " ..conversion of building 42 (subject accessory building) into a single-family house so that this parcel will contain two single-family dwellings under one ownership... . 6. CODE RESTRICTION. In this R-40 Zoning Use District, Article IiIA, Section 100-30A.2(A), ref. 100-31A-1, provides that each parcel of land is limited to one-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling oil each lot. Since the relief requested is not allowed by the code, the request is a use variance. ALTERNATIVE CODE SECTION. For the record, it is noted that the applicant was made aware of Zoning Code, Section 100-30A.2B-1. which provides that an application for a Special Er;ceprion may be filed by an owner who proposes an "Accessory Apartment" as defined by 100-13, with owner-occupancy for a principal building (dwelling) having a valid Certificate of Occupancy issued before January 1984. Also discussed was the possibility of moving this. building and adding it as part of the livable floor area of dwelling, as part of the principal use of the property. In this option with the appellant, applicant indicated that he not plan "owner-•)ccupancy" as required by this code provision far gthe::: Accessory Apartment. and he did not know if he would mo tnriiding over and aEtach it as part of the principal use. (He- dn't know wil r lie would do.) (Ref: 5 / l i 9ri and 8 / 26196 hearingsj`479 . ti ~Y~M•~:. I. SINGLE-FAIMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA. Board Members have e^lad and ire familiar 'Kith the 3urrnunding irsas and surrounding' 7,n1e districrs. .\djoining this parcei ro the north i 1000-31-5-25.),.and =n5r 1000-;1-' are residential parcets, each improved with(. a ;Ingle-fnmilc --sideucs and located in rlie R-•40 Zone District. TQ ,4he ,(mrth is the 'rfnin Road. and along the ,nutheciy side of the MaintAond ire I)nr-iis Inrnred ill the R-'10 Zone. and a small portion -Zoned s,,,.•-R.;•sidvnrill l RI2 'f -`nde prnvisiuns tnplictibie -n morel-tg'hel•-.xnd yXTiIBirn I-'n qe 't Appt. No. 117:-c\ ,\m licarion of RONALD J. ;MAYER Dncisinn Rendered Jive 26, 1996 STATEMENTS MADE. In the testimony presented during the present application as well as that confirmed' at the May 1, 1996 hearing, and in reviewing documentation submitted in the record, the following facts are noted: a) appellant acquired the property by referee's deed on 0/7/1995 (foreclosure amount: 5200,000, ref. tax equalization form EA-5217 and assessment records); b) appellant confirmed that prior to acquiring the property on 9/7/95, Mr. Mayer was the holder of a "blanket $410,000 mortQ:lge" on four separate parcels; the former owners of the subject parcel (prior to 9/711995) were John and Niki Profiris - who owned the property for more than 15 years, and for many years used the main building as a_ single-family dweiling and accessory barn building as shown on the December 0, 1961) survey prepared by VanTuyt & Son; c) appellant confirmed that lie and his representatives did nor ar. any time during their direct involvement and financial interest in the property obtain original town documents, and failed to check the town files regarding a "photocopy" (later altered) of a Certificate of Occupancy for the accessory building. Appellant and his agents also failed to check any otller town records before acquiring the property; d) copies of appellant's mortgage documentation and other te=al material, with financial breakdowns, were requested during both this hearing and the May 1, 1996 hearing, regarding the mortgage ciosing, the referee's sale, and other information, and other financial agreeements made between. the parties were not submitted by the appellant at any time during this application or the prior.-4malmAn application to substaniiate the grant of a use variance. Ni record is inadequate')ind lacks evidence as to the alleged as d or profit during these time periods for the four properties. iatha., blanket mortgage" (during the sevemal real estate transactioii4 o ile^' ,)rig711a1 loans, conveyance, payments for alleged rentals,'-.' r-mf iancillg and sale regarding all other properties under tllertaa mortgage payments, collateral and 7alue of prooerties Xlhvoiv tl^;4° morrgnge foreclosure, etc.) Town records show That the former owner was 'oiLonotiCe munv rimes. and as testified at the May 1 1996. clie former.%Wnei- r-ftlsRd ncc°ti; to the subject accessory building by etifdItRii went blinding) officers. The record does nor show chat periods. '•ff'men 'liar. the subject accessory building was occupied by alleged "te-' bri former owner ua. relntivP, or allclrlle 41S- u. llid Vopl;.r. inl lrar ~lli(nl .vns T1Vo lrw little.. tl 111onr. q "renaur. the )eriods of -ime it ma41.,11O Vg .r,..l ))11ar1. !low it. y r: ns ')C"'lpied )r '1s?rl. >rc. Ti rt le stlbjecr. i ~~:;n•• 'nuihiin~_ has i)eeu 'racnnt `or , period 4 rime i)efors,.lnr.: Z , ~T%i _ ^C AI)1)lit:V110 a of RONALD •1. MAYER Decision Rendered .June 26, 1908 and after it was acquired by Mr. Mayer (1995) by referee's deed. C) although the appellant has confirmed each building has been vacant and unoccupied, another notice was sent by the enforcement department of the town when the owner's real-estate agency placed a sign at the premises indicating that a use other than "single-family" was being offered for sale, in January 1996. On or about March 11, 1996, Mr. Mayer applied to the building department for two, one-family dwellings on this parcel. 10. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. In considering this application, the Board also finds, and determines: (a) that the relief requested is substantial in that the subject "accessory building" received permission from the town only for non-habitable occupancy, and to grant a use variance for conversion Croat accessory non-habitable use to a full dwelling use requires that use variance" standards be met. In this regard, the following "use vnrintice" criteria, and other pertinent Factors as noted in the entire recurd, have been considered: (b) that. appeal 114373 is the first anneal application properly coming before the Board of Appeals (determination rendered Mav '~9. 1996); (c) the lots immediately surrounding this parcel contain only one single-family dwelling on each tot, and the relief requested is our of character with the surrounding parcels in this neighborhood; (d) the request to obtain approval for more rhan.-one detached dwelling on this substandard parcel is very substaggal_ahsi, more than 100% for the reason that the code does not pertnic.,jhs b ) use in an accessory building;, (e) the size of the parcel as exists is already undersized- 25.210 sciuare Ceet, at 63" of the required 10,000 sq. Ft..LA R-•10 Residential Zone, and meets less rhan half the code requir8~I; it for a two-Gamily use in a principal building (code requires 80;,000 Ft- )f hind area for a two-family use and this lot is only 2 w7a'r~G. S , ^l0ss ~ b `f) the variance requesred is a "use variance" whir usz mew r ;reria set Corth in New Yor!t -own Law. in using thet I)v hie i our,s Cor a "use variance." -he applicant ties nut demo~s I)v z;t[btnissiotl Of substantial evidence 'Ile Following to warrant>~ T" . r1w r-lief rertttested: the ircums:ances ire related rn the pe 0 ~11 ' !n:nii :ni .t. In[;plot tts bwiwee!t 'he tuneilunt iud the priur uwile t'; ~..1nd ^im lnt.os tro' riot nnic;uety Mara i tie laud in itiestionir~ -y h:1vn 5 Appl. No. 4373-1 Applicadon of RONALD J. ;47AYER Decisimi Rendered June 26, 1996 (2) tiie property may continue to be used for the uses allowed ill this R-•40 Residential Zone District, to wit: one, single-family dwelling with accessory use subordinate and incidental to the residential nature of the property (without adding additional dwelling unit occupancies). (3) Applicant has not demonstrated that under applicable zoning regulations he is deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property in question, which deprivation must be established by competent financial evidence. (d) Applicant has not adequately proven that the alleged hardship is uniquely related to the property and that it would nor. apply to a substantial portion or' the district or neighborhood; the neighborhood parcels, and parcels throughout the Town of Southold, mnv rollow similar steps to achieve the same result requested by appellant. (5) The requested use variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the neighborhood which consists of one, single-family dwelling on adjacent and nearby parcels in the R-40 Residential Zone District. (6) The acquisition of the present owner and lack of knowledge on his part as to the contents of town records would have baen prevented by. just checking :he town files, obtaining an sealed duplicate of the Certificate of Occupancy, and asking for proper documentation. (g) for the reasons noted above, the variance will in turn be adverse to the, safety, health, welfare, comfort, conveni Ca, Send order of the town„)A=d-i.adversely affect nearby proper . benefit this residential - neighborhood is greater when health, safety, and welfare of the community; ( h) the variances requested will have an adv effect and impact on the physical conditions in the neighborhood`ier lenders and borrowers could follow the same steps and c r r situations by failing to check town records on zoning 'car, Celtes, permits and other actions: of record; "7e~14i' ~5t~":. (i) noncompliance and refusal to allow :'Inside invasrigrition after issuance of an "accessory non-iiabitabie.'`butlding" ('errificnre of Occupancy was created by farmer property ow se tesrimouv lips not, been offered in env respect and who we^ arstand hate :f ziupreme court action Lii.pinst -he present owIIe fappgcant ",nr4•Pning -tie "morrga,g= Foreriosura 1)4- -lie applicant.. u there ;ILLS been -Bans= iu .:rcumstancee-!-Siace-tile !'„••mc• .,uu,eui. .uid :.lie fiilancmi ,nd )rher '.eqrni dorumentatiotvreladve ~ ~-"-7J-rl .1 Pngu ii - Appl. No. 43,3-A Application of RONALD .1 MAYER i)et'jsjoll Reudered June 36. 1996 to the transfers and pacmencs made to the applicant, ties not been submitted, as has been requested at every hearing. (k) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in consideration of all the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by denying the application as requested and noted below. Accordingly; on. motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Member 7illa, it was RESOLVED, that the request of RONALD J. MAYER for a mother-daughter use in the 'accessory aon-habitable building" in conjunction with the use of the main building as a singie-family dwelling, BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Villa and Torrorn. Nay: Member Dinizio (no change in his position under former appeal who felt application must be aganted based upon the testimony and record before him). This resolution was adopted with a majorirr olus one. (4-1) margin. Other Comments: Member 7111a felt that the second dwelling structure could be relocated an a vacant, legal buildable lot (with proper Dermits); and that when the former owner applied for a building permit., the permit and C.O. was issued for an accessory non-habitable building and not a dwelling use, which records have continlued, ,[o remain the same: that the building had been used without aay a Rt . by the former owner ar.::;curreat owner until March 1996 to 1 obtaining approval'-Ifor.*va rental, or second dweilin Chairman Goehringer indicated that he 'mould not object - to an application for a different proposal such as an application cr4 a Soecial Exception for a.: proposed "Accessot^r :apartment ia~~dti ` 3uilding with Owner Occupancy" since the owner could app ,a building permit to move: the subject building and add !t CO" JAvelling for increased living area l parr of .he principai' dg ej 3g s;. Subject 'o apadcable• permits. T1als provision of ~Aw ;s AV ler1 or'' naryels '.hroughout ;he Town of 3ouihoid. . i:k ,iei:er Dd~~•. EXHIBIT B - ; to 0 3l- z - Z TOWN OF SOUT14OLD PROPERTY RECORD' CARD y - WNER STREET VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT - - / / ' Yaw Rd 1 ~ a4z- -"y ~ Esc ORMER 0 (lER N E { ACR.' ?P r'r5 ff ccJf ~'%°i.-(~ !Tit ~i7 GZc , C , gcLL,CC . So* S TYPE OF BUILDING , S 2/0 SEAS. VL FARM COMM. CB. MISC. Mkt. Value I AND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS AF, i {DO Z n71 - o--o z7 3I ~F 2S5 ACC.ESS.i3l- d r- 3Sa~i ; u,~ Sooo i moo i s 8 9S = ( 1 1 71-13 02 j " (EQ t lPr 42c6,e2Ln L / ~~tt~ 83 0 ~N P-61UG COY ~l~ s kP1 Acre Value Per Value Acre ~I,ilile 1 luble 2 loble 3 '.ir,lland ump~pnd FRONTAGE ON WATER ux~,~arxt - - FRONTAGE ON ROAD r I Iv & c~ ' . r i ,use Plot DEPTH BULKHEAD I DOCK COLOR t Lei ~ ¦ TRIM Irk - _ u~ • i r A IE i i t I Di ';1, tilJg. 1 d tX Foundation s ° AIC- Goth neite - L rtension - Z 1 GI l e y-~7 D 5/~r1 J. osement /o q~f Floors /o/ NC K. Lhtensi«, a - w0 5/D/i1r; Interior Finish w L- r t n> LR. Ext. Walls t*tension X i~' r--~l L. sry 4S°. 2 93- Fire Place Heat p~P r. DR. - Type Roof Rooms 1st Floor BR. Porclr'o o,5 f ! 2 y, Mfr 1 770 :Z, 2b (o0_t~ lpwc reation Room Rooms 2nd Floor FIN. B. - Pun lr ! t d Dormer Breezewuy Driveway 13uaaye A,75 S 3 d 2 c2ewe s F C-(-- Patio ~L q 7 t2U t). B. GaD S~e~~ i op Y~t~JW. Stt7I G Total ~gl / ? - fee Index No Year 19 gUPgEME `COURVOF THE ATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY & SiAFOLK In the Matter of the Application of RONALD J. MAYER, Petitioner For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 -against- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman, SERGE DOYEN, JR., JAMES DINIZIO, JR., ROBERT A. VILLA, LITIA A. TORTORA, constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New '.Cork, Respondents. NOTICE OF PETITION PETITION AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT LARK & FOLTS -Atromeysfor Petitioner - - Office mtd Post Office Address. Telephone - MAIN ROAD - P_ O. BOX 973 - CUTCH000E NY 119350973 (516) 734-6807 To Attomey(s) for - Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted. z' Dated, ` - - _ Attomey(s)for - Please take notice _ ? NOTICE OF 04MY that the within is a (certified) true copy of a duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on 19 ? Norceor5ET`nXM NT that an order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the HON. one of the judges of the within named court, at on 19 at M. Dated, Yours, etc. LARK & FOLTS Arromeys for TO OJfce =d Post Office Address MAIN ROAD - P. O. BOX 973 A[[omey(s) for C'JiCHO UE NY 1 19350973 ~oS~EFOLk~oGy JUDITH T. TERRY L Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK P.O. REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS ilk Box 11 Southold, Ncw ew York k 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER Fax (516) 765-1823 rS OFFICE, OF THE TOWN CLERK UL -9" TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO REC INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION I. r //11 TO: &P&d J Yt0~1L'~S (Department or O ticer, if known, that has the information you are requesting,) RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.) IrANJC! r'f e1 m U lfP; c-( ~Ru ltlM ~IPPF v Signature of Applicant: _2"4,4- kz4jicy J Printed Name: Ofir jgnd 2/i ac Address:{~I;~, 11/3J Mailing Address (if different from above): Telephone Number: 23q -E~1(7 Date: 7/ 9/ 9 I 4J APPROVED [ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY* [ ] DENIED* RECEIVED JUL 9 1996 Judith-r. Terry oVKAa r ou o Freedom of Information Officer * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. Article 78 against ZBA starting for the Year 1995 to date as follows: Prior to 1991: Richard Goodale v. ZBA (Used car sales in Matlituck). Also, NFEC v. Town regarding Mc Donald's. The special exception was deemed valid and building permit had full effect as per Judge's decision. Favorable to Town of S. 199,1: Ammarati v. ZBA regarding Gasser (Mattituck at Love Lane). Judge's decision was favorable to ZBA. Later the Town allowed outside storage of vehicles in this zone and the claims by neighbor Ammarati were "moot" and are now "void and of no effect." 1995 - none 1996 Ronald Mayer v. ZBA ref. 1000-31-2-26 (see decisions of 5/29/96 and 6/26/96 for two denials by ZBA. Art. 78 was filed against the first denial, and a second Art. 78 is expected for the second denial. ~}f~~'~gUFFU(~-C' ' r • ~Y O~ pp APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman z 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. '~O1 ~~011yf Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 Lydia A.Tortora Telephone(516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS "TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 12, 1996 Richard F. Lark, Esq. 11.0. Box 973 Culchogue, NY 11935 Re: Appl. No. 9373 - Ronald J. Mayer (Variances) Dear Mr. Lark: Please find attached a copy of the determination received by our office from the Suffolk County Department of Planning pursuant to their jurisdiction under the Suffolk County Administrative Code for projects located within 500 feet of a stale or county highway, estuaries, creeks of the Peconic Bay area, West Harbor, Fishers Island Sound, Long Island Sound, and its tributaries. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Enclosure r COUNTY OF SUFFOLK (9 ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE STEPHEN M. JONES, A. I. C.P. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING July 8, 1996 Mr. Gerard Goehringer Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall, Main Rd. Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Application of "Ronald J. Mayer" (44373)), Town of Southold, (SD-96-4) Dear Mr. Goeringer: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on July 3, 1996, reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation Resolved to disapprove it because of the following reasons: 1. It is inconsistent with the prevailing lot size pattern in the surrounding area; 2. It would tend to establish a precedent for further such undersized lots in the locale; 3. It would only tend to undermine the effectiveness of the zoning ordinance; and, 4. Sufficient information has not been submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable variance criteria. Very truly yours, Stephen M. Jones Director of Planning B ~----art erald G. ewman GN:cc nner C:\W P W IN60\ W PDOCS\ZONING\WORKING\COMMLTRSUULY\SD-964. J U L 220 RABRO DRIVE • P.O. BOX 6100 • HAUPPAUGE, LONG ISLAND, NY 11788-0099 • (516) 853-5190 0 [AX (516) 853-4044 ,vOg0FF0(,~-c y~ p~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS 4a ti~ Gym c Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 uthold, New York 11971 , So James Dinizio, Jr.'Ofk'~ Robert A. Vila Fax (516) 765-1823 Lydia A. Tortora Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Pursuant to Arai cle XIV of the Suffolk Ccuntv Administrative Code, The °card of A=eais of the Town of Southold, :few York, hereby refers the following to the Suffolk County Planning Carmissicn: XX .Variance from the Zoning Code, Article IIIA Section 100-30A.2 Variance from Determination of Southold Town Building Inspector Special Exception, Article Section Special Permit Appeal No: 4373 Applicant: Ronald J. Mayer Location of Affected Land: 7735 Main Road, East Marion, NY County Tax Map Item No.: 1000- 31-2-26 Within 500 feet of: Town or Village Boundary Line Body of 'dater (Bay, Sound or Estuary) X X_ State or County Road, Parkway, Highway, Thruway Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federally Owned Land Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State or Federal Park or other Recreation Area Existing or Proposed Right-cf-Way of any Stream or Drainage Channel Owned by the County or for which the County has established Channel Lines, or Within One Mile of a Nuclear Power Plant Within One Mile of an Airport Comments: Applicant is requesting permission to to convert existing separate building for one-family dwelling occupancy, and/or to create a n fired lot area -5ppsrntp parcel con j Coves of Town idle anQ re ated accime^us enclosed for your review. Oat'--^ June 20, 1996 • SUfFO(^~° APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS qti~~ Gym Southold Town Hal] o Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman y V 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen. Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr.~0! ~a0 Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa ~~r= Fax (516) 765-1823 Lydia A. Tortora Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 7, 1996 Mr. Ronald J. Mayer P.O. Box 2029 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 Re: Appl. No. 4373 - Variances in a Proposed Subdivision Dear Mr. Mayer: With reference to the application filed by Richard Lark's Office, for variances in a proposed subdivision of your property at Past Marion, please find enclosed a copy of the Board's findings and determination rendered at our Regular Meeting held May 29, 1996, at which you were present. Also, a copy of your file has been transmitted to the Suffolk County Department of Planning since your project is located within 500 feet of the Long Island Sound. It is expected, however, that their agency will pass its determination back to us, as the local agency, accepting the Board of Appeals' action as written. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Suffolk County Department of Planning Building Department ?o mo .I gQiav ~ IOQF • • A ^ - May f i . MAY 1, 1996 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 8:05 P.M. Appl. 44373 - Richard F. Lark, Esq. attorney for RONALD J. MAYER. This is an application for a variance based upon the Building Inspector's March 19, 1996 Notice of Disapproval issued under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2 whereby applicant applied for a building permit for permission to convert existing separate building for a one-family dwelling occupancy, and/or to create a separate parcel containing less than the required lot area, width and depth in this R-40 Zone District. Building permit 4125542 issued 8/27/83 indicates the Building Inspector granted permission "to construct two-story non-habitable accessory building." Location of Property: 7735 Main Road, East Marion, County Tax Map Parcel 1000-31-2-26, a corner lot, containing a total area as exists of 25,210 square feet. Additionally, the building as exists will not conform to yard setbacks for a principal dwelling and additional variances are necessary for approval as a principal dwelling conversion. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a map survey indicating the parcel $1, which is the parcel that we are addressing with the building on it tonight, of 12,605 square feet indicated on the survey to be set off, and the house parcel which sits directly on the corner of Rocky Point Road and Main State Highway 25 which also comprises of two-story building, 12,605 square feet. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. And, Mr. Lark, whenever you're ready. How are you tonight? RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Good evening, Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for the applicant Ronald Mayer. As indicated in the notice that you had read, the petitioner - and 1'11 cover the history of it, as best I can. When he discovered that this property that he had purchased at the foreclosure sale, as a result of foreclosing iris own mortgage, had in effect an illegal two-family dwelling constructed on it. And he wanted to figure out the best way to proceed, and it was decided by - after 5 vin i erious consideration that in order to legalize the de facto or existing situation, that it was best to request the board to subdivide it into two parcels, each caving a single family dwelling, width 1 will cover e reasons for, in a couple of minutes. the :petitioner received title to this property by referee'sdeed in foreclosure, a copy of what you have as Exhibit 1 on ~eptember 1995. Prior to that, the petitioner was the principal n --i :~omnanv tailed the American MortZage and Loan Coro.. which Page 2 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals is a licensed New York private mortgage lender, who had granted the prior owners at this particular parcel, a John Porfiris and a Nicki Porfiris, his wife, a mortgage in September of 1989. And that mortgage is a recorded mortgage, and it covered this parcel, as well as several other parcels in the Town of Southold which Mr. Mayer will inform you about, as well as another parcel in Queens, I believe. But in any event, when Mr. Mayer runs his mortgage lending business much like any bank does, and you have to make an application, after you make an application, then there is a credit search, and then there is a title search to see what the collateral is, and so on and so forth. And when Mr. Porfiris applied for this mortgage, he represented that one of the parcels of the collateral with this property contained two individual, one-family houses, and indeed it did. Mr. Mayer inspected the property. It did have that back in 1989. Building 11 which I'll refer to in this presentation, fronts on the Main Road, corner of Rocky Point and the Main Road. Building 42 which is in the rear of the property and fronts on Rocky Point Road facing Sep'sFarm. At the mortgage closing, which was in September 7, 1989 Mr. and Mrs. Porfiris presented the applicant, who was the lender at that time, a survey, a current 1989 survey, showing the property with the two dwellings. You have a copy of that survey as Exhibit 2. And in their mortgage application, they represented that Building 41, which is on the corner, was constructed many years ago, and had suffered extensive fire damage in 1988, and had been repaired. Indeed Mr. Mayer investigated it. He found that to be true, and they producedthe CO for the closing for this building reflected on May 22, 1989, which was issued for repair of fire damage that he had previously issued by a building permit by the Town of Southold. Ok. That's also attached to Exhibit =3. In addition, he represented that building 42, which facing Sep'sfarm on Rocky Point Road, had replaced a prior two story pre-existing structure, which had been used as a seasonal dwelling, and was a built many years ago. Mr. Porfiris explained to dlr. Mayer that he rebuilt this building in 1983-1984 time frame, and he indeed showed him the Certificate of Occupancy dated Septem- ber 27th showing this dwelling as a two story, one family dwelling." Ok. A copy of that is also attached as Exhibit 2. Mr. Porfiris, Mr. Mayer will testify as *.o that because he was present. I was not, at the closing. And Mr. Porfirisalso represented, although the t_O for 3uilding 3, had been issued for one family dwelling since the time of the construction in 1983. and keep in mind this was 1989. that the building had been used as a two family dwelling because when Mr. Mayer investigated the propertv he discovered that indeed it aad two separate entrances. It iiad a downstairs and an upstairs, compieteiv independent of one another. Both having three bedrooms, a large living room. Both aaving kitchens, bathroom facilities and that dweiiing indeed had its own cesspool facilities. Mr. Porfiris represented at the 3eaith Department. Suffolk Count'.- Health Department had approved the - to .vfter line to come *.hrough he main ou:la-laz ~a lie corner - P-, r___ a_sc nc;caie(; 'Lat ae Page 3 - May 1, 1991 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals himself had physically lived in the building after the fire in building #1, while it was being repaired. The title search performed that's normally done by a lender indicated that there were no outstanding violations in the Town of Southold and the title then closed. Unfortunately for Mr. Mayer, and probably why the reason he's here today, the Porfirises defaulted in paying their mortgage, which resulted in a foreclosure, which I indicated to you earlier in my remarks as a result of which in September 7, 1995 a foreclosure deed was passed over to Mr. Mayer. Hence his problems really began as far as this particular piece of property. Apparently, when he took title to it, the prior owners had done some, In essence, some vandalism type damage to the premises, so, Mr. Mayer was in a quandary as just what to do with it, and how to fix it, and so on and so forth. In. obtaining advice of a local broker Lynda Spangel, it was discovered that "you better check it out, just what the legal status of everything was." In that process he discovered that, in fact, the CO for building #1 was indeed valid, but the CO that he presented to him at the closing was a forgery because someone, presumably Mr. Porfiris who gave the CO had altered it, from what was the real document. A copy of it was in the Building Department file and you have it as Exhibit #5 which was a two story, nonhabitable accessory building which is far different than a one-story residential dwelling. Ok. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Mr. Lark, it wasn't the altered CO that was in the Building Department file? RICHARD LARK: I didn't say that. I said Mr. Porfirisfile given to him at the time of the mortgage closing, he discovered later after taking title in 1985 what the true CO was. And that the CO given to him was indeed a forgery. RICHARD LARK: Further investigation revealed that the local contractor, who both not only did the renovations to house 41 where the fire loss was, but also had constructed this building #2, was one Mr. Chester Orlowski, a local builder. And upon checking his records, Mr. Mayer discovered that in 1983, Orlowskireceived a building permit for a two story nonhabitable accessory building. And investigation further realized that it brought forth that, when Mr. Orlowski was in the process of exercising a building on the building permit, and he was tearing down the barn that had been on there before - he encountered a stop work order by the Building Department, and even though, Mr. Orlowskiwas trying to put it in the same footprint, the Building Inspector at the time said, "No, you have to move it back 35 feet from the road. It has to conform with Zoning and there were some other difficulties with the design of the roof," which were all worked out, so on and so forth. And Mr. Orlowskithen apparently complied nrith all the requests with the Building Department, passed all the inspections and completed the building. In 1985 after the fire damage took Building #1, indeed. the 3uhding Department again came to ':he premises, and issued a Page 4 - May 1, 1996 • Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals building permit for the repair of the damage that was caused to that building. I think it's apparent from just what I've said so far, that the difficulties to the petitioners are obvious. The property in its present condition, is not legitimately saleable to a bonafidepurchaserbecause of this Certificate of Occupancy status. Further, in researching the problem, the petitioners found that in 1984, Building #2 has been used as a two-family dwelling in particular in the Summer season. But it's his belief that if the Zoning Board granted the relief requested here for the area variance of two individual lots, they would be in his best interest, so that he could sell them, and as well as the Town, to okay two single family dwellings here, that would be owned independently of one another. There is no question that he will have to make some improvements to Building #2, because he will have to open up the downstairs to the upstairs, so that the two outside doors will be a front door and one would be a side or rear door. You could get internal access to upstairs from downstairs, and move the kitchen on the second story floor as well as some other housekeeping items. It's well constructed and in pretty good shape. It just needs to be converted into a one family, rather than a two family home. At this point, not to belabor anything, I would like to CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask a question? RICHARD LARK: Surely. CHAIRMAN: So at this time there are two separate kitchens in that building? RICHARD LARK: That's right. Two separate kitchens. Actuallv there are just two complete units totally independent of one another. One exactly right on top of one another. Both with three bedrooms, a large- huge living room, a dining facility, kitchen-dining facility, and a full bathroom. All substantial rooms. CHAIRMAN: How many electric meters are on that house? MR. RICHARD LARK: I think at the present time, one. Is that correct (to Mr. Mayer)? RONALD MAYER: Yes. MR. LARK: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. RICHARD LARK: One, ok. At this time I would like to present to the board Lynda Spangel, who more or less I think, asked all the right questions when she was asked by Mr. Maver, how to properly market the property after he got it in zoreciosure. Linda:' LYNDA SPANGEL: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Appeals. :'hank you for the onportunir -o ;nt'roduce mvsel£ and address tiie issues of 'he Ronald ; . Mayer anciication _or Page 5 - May 1, 1996 0 0 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals a permit to subdivide the property on the corner of Rocky Point Road and the Main Road. My name is Lynda Lee Spangel, and I've been a permanent resident of the Town of Southold for 30 years, and a summer resident for 20 years before that. You can tell by the gray hair that there's more years in addition to that too. From 1984 until very recently, I resided on the Main Road in Orient. Driving by the subject property a minimum of four times a day, seven days a week. The major portion of my professional career was spent as an officer of Southold Savings Bank and subsequently as a Senior Vice President of North Fork Bank Corp, where I was in charge of loan operations. At one point during my tenure at Southold Savings, I was in charge of foreclosures, bankruptcies, and other real estate owned, and this property that Mr. Mayer now owns was the subject of several foreclosure actions. Thus, I have in excess of 25 years' experience with mortgage lending, everything from application through to liquidation or satisfaction. After I retired from North Fork Bank, I attended the American Real Estate School, where I became a licensed real estate sales person. After a year of experience, and meeting the point systems, taking more schooling and graduation, I now I'm a fully licensed real estate broker, affiliated with HahnRealty in Greenport. Thus as you can see, I have had continuing and concentrated experience with analyzing and evaluating property values within the Town of Southold - both from a lending prospective and/or a marketing approach. Mr. Mayer came to me in the very late fall of 1995 to discuss selling his Rocky Point Road property. Upon inspection of the subject property, I, of course, remembered the problems and its negative history. Before giving Mr. Mayer my opinion as to the range of current market value based on my banking background, I requested copies of CO, survey, deed, permits, and building card. Of course, my due diligence included further inspecting the neighborhood, which I was already very familiar with. I would like to present to you a chart showing the adjoinining properties, their addresses and what they are currently used for. CHAIRMAN: Could I see that? LYNDA SPANGEL: When Mr. Maver informed me after his due dili- gence and mine, that the CO was for a one family dwellin, with two story, nonhabitable accessory building, he said to me, "What am 1 going to do?" Mr. Mayer and I, both of us realized then, that the property was of a lotlesser value than we had originally anticipated. Mr. Mayer was very definite and so was I, to keep compliance of course. with my license, that we must address this issue in a legal manner. Therefore, he requested further assistance from me. We entertained several ehoughts that we might present t.o vou. regarding this dilemma of the bughest and best use of the property. We thought of a bed and breakfast. We thought of asking you for a permit for :i t vo family stricture or the accessory structure, which itcie~ liar been used as if .vas a ir:o _family. However. 'me did Page 6 - May 1, 1996 • • Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals agree that the fairest and most reasonable and best use for the area was to subdivide the property and ask you permission for two single family dwellings. That particular house and area, as I would pass by and would observe on weekends, summertime there would be a lotof extra cars, trucks. Many people milling about, obviously being habited by more than a single family. If you were to ask my opinion as to "as is" value of the property with the current CO, I would have to say it was in the range of $125,000.00 to $139,000.00. Now, ifyou favor us with the request that Mr. Lark has presented to you this evening, the rear house that faces on Rocky Point Road as a single dwelling, we would value it in the range of $85,000.00 to $99,000.00 with the parcel, the main house that faces on the Main Road, with a separate value of $120,000.00 to 125,000.00. The price for the front house may seem low to you. But if you were to visit the site, you would see that in the main house, it was totally destroyed by the previous owner and occupant, in that, there is not a working kitchen. They just ripped everything out of the walls. The bathroom was totally destroyed. There are holes in the wall. So there is little that's why the value, is as it is. But yet the taxes on this parcel for 55,300.00. I want to thank you very much for listening to us and giving us this consideration. Should you have any questions or need further research on behalf of a real estate broker, as myself, I would be happy to do so. CHAIRMAN: Just before you leave Mrs. Spangel. The house was renovated after the fire. Is that correct? LYNDA SPANGEL: Yes, and during that time the Porfiriseswere occupying the back dwelling while it was being renovated. CHAIRMAN: So that the vandalism that occurred, occurred, you know -(interrupted). LYNDA SPANGEL: Between 1989 and when Mr. Mayer had successfully (interrupted). CHAIRMAN: Successfully foreclosed the mortgage. LYDNA SPANGEL: The referee deed was granted to him. CHAIRMAN: Ok, great. Let me see. Does anybody else have any questions of this nice lady? Bob. MEMBER VILLA: Are you familiar with Health Department regulations? How is this going to fit in with Article 6? LYNDA SPANGEL: I do understand that there will have to be, but I refer that to Mr. Lark because he's the expert. I am not in that sense. RICHARD LARK: Mr. Mayer at my request did go to the Health Department, and they told him he would have to put in another well. Ir can be put in because Van Tucldid the survey to show that there s ~nuugh separation between the neighboring properties. He can yet Page 7 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals 100 feet, and they told him depending on the depth of the well and everything. He has not done those tests yet, whether or not he would have to go for a variance because he can get 100 feet separation. But as you now, he would like 150 feet now especially with an undersized lot. MEMBER VILLA: In fact, he has to subdivide this piece of property. RICHARD LARK: Right, he can't do anything until he gets the Board of Appeals approval. Then he has to get Article 6, under the Health Department. Then he has to get the local Planning Board to approve it. So he has three hurdles to go before he can, and then convert the house to a one family, a true one family before he can get a proper CO. So, he has four hurdles to overcome. But, no one will do anything until the Board of Appeals grants the land use of it which they can under the Zoning Code, by granting a variance because the structures are already there to quote, "for the undersized lots". MEMBER VILLA: Because I have concerns on it. RICHARD LARK: No, no. MEMBER VILLA: It's a one acre area, and you're asking for lots of 12,000 square feet. RICHARD LARK: That's correct. MEMBER VILLA: Which is a great deviation. RICHARD LARK: There's no question about it. But in my 30 years of practice I've never had a problem like this before, and I can't tell you how many hundreds of mortgages I closed. When you're working for a lender or somebody else, and I can't tell you how many times we've taken photo copies of COs, because you couldn't get one with a seal on it, and all the other kind of stuff. You just do it. I can't tell you how many times we've done that. I've never had this happen before, and when I questioned him, how did it happen'' He said, "Very easv. I went there. It was what he said it was. It was what the papers said it was. It was what the survey said it was. Everything was in proper order and the title search. They did the departmental, and it didn't show any violations." So they said, it was one of these things. MEMBER VILLA: Because you '.snow, this is different with the Health Department too, because in the past if there were two valid houses, then would subdivide them. But here, you've got an illegal. RICHARD LARK: You got an illegal. It has to be made to "legal." That's as ar as the land use :s concerned. The Health Department .old me -..hat. Come back after you get done with the Board of Appeals. Then we'll wrestle vith the problems. Make sure vou' e dot at ieast 100 feet that you could put a :veil. ?ou know, r)iav 'he ^it.;sica_.ceIls anc the eessuooi _ame. Ok. : know. Page 8 - Slav 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals LYNDA SPANGEL: I just want to reiterate the fact that, I can't see anything detrimental as far as the a:^ea goes to subdividing it. I think the chart demonstrates that. That already is an area that is of mimed use and certainly is a traffic area. It certainly would be far better to have two single one families, than to have the illegal type operation that was continuing there and perpetuated itself for many years. Thank you. MEMBER VILLA: I just have a problern trying to legalize something that was done in violation of the Town all these years. RICHARD LARK: We'll come to that. MEMBER VILLA: It just doesn't seem right. CHAIRMAN: OK, MR. RON MAYER: Good evening. My name is Ron Mayer, and I was the President of American Mortgage & Loans, that originated this mortgage back in 1979, back in 1989 - excuse me. It feels like '79. Just to reiterate a little bit what Mr. Lark said, and Lynda said. When we originate a mortgage, we do a title search, so on and so forth. This mortgage encompassed four different properties. All the COs for all those different properties were present. There was no problem with any of them, because we :iad - during this foreclosure we had, the Porfirissold off certain properties to reduce my debt. MEMBER VILLA: Were these were all adjacent properties. MR. RON MAYER: No, these are different single and separate parcels. One in Queens. Claudio's Liquors. MEMBER VILLA: You had one mortgage to cover all these MR. RON MAYER: Yes, blankets. A one blanket mortgage covering all. So, it wasn't an easy deal to begin with, and I had taken them out of a prior foreclosure. I paid off all the other stuff. I mean, they were being foreclosed before I got involved. Which should have told me something. MEMBER VILLA: What was the total of the mortgage. Do you mind saving that? MR. RON MAYER: It was $110,000,00. During that time, after six years in bankruptcy court, six years. We set all kinds of records. The Porfiris hired 17 lawyers. I went through six judges, three retired. My attorneys have never seen anything like this. This was a nightmare. The history, without attacking anybody personally was that :r. Porfiris had a sickness which was due to drink, ok, and lie could not go into a courtroom and react properly. I mean, the screaming and veiling in the courtroom. Court guards would have to take him out. Everything was a nightmare from beginning to the end. That's why he went through 17 lawyers. They couldn't take him. 0 Page 9 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals I built up costs during those six years, and I have a balance due me of over a quarter of a million dollars. I have a breakdown of cost. This last parcel that went off, I was owed $185,000.00 still left on foreclosure. Needless to say, the taxes weren't paid in five or six years. As soon as I got it back, Southold Town wanted their taxes. I had to lay out $52,000.00 with penalties and interest. The back property that was not CO'd, was being taxed higher than the front property. Which I found out, because when I was in there, and Lyntold me about this, I ran down to the Building Department and I said, Oh. What else could go wrong?. I went to the assessor and looked, and he said your taxes were 55300.00 and Mr. Lark has the breakdown of how they figure out here. I don't know. It worked out that the uninhabitable structure was being taxed at $3,000.00, and the legal one family was $2,000.00. I couldn't figure that one out either. MEMBER VILLA: Can I ask a question at this point? How do you get $52,000.00 in arrears without the County taking it over. MR. MAYER: Bankruptcy. CHAIRMAN: It was in bankruptcy. MR. MAYER: You can't do anything. MR. MAYER: Then other things such as plumbing problems, legal, sheriff evictions. She was right at the doorstep. She wouldn't even give herself the grace of moving out. She was at the doorstep when the sheriff was throwing stuff out. Reciting the law, and this and that, and the other thing. So the sheriff gave her a stay. So I had to wait another six weeks to get her out. I could go on and on about this, but meanwhile, I have a breakdown. I'm in here for $250,700.00. As Mrs. Spangel, I do ok, but when she came up with an appraisal of $125,000.00 to $139,000.00. I do ok but I don't do okto take a $100,000.00 bath here. I'm sick, I'm physically sick over this. My wife is sick over this. All this can be documented by my lawyers, as to what I've laid out. I have checks to prove everything. CHAIRMAN: Can you give us a copy of that breakdown. MR. RON .MAYER: I scribbled this out. I would be more than happy to send this to you broken down. Whatever you want to do. May I approach? CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. RON MAYER: This is part of the costs. I think I even forgot one in there. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: is this for this property. or is it for all four. MR. RON MAYER: For this property alone. =H-: wc, Page 10 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. RON MAYER: Sheriff's fees of $2500. CHAIRMAN: What did you say, Linda (Secretary)? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Are you going to ask him the values of the other properties? CHAIRMAN: What other properties? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: On the $400,000.00. RICHARD LARK: Do you want a formal copy of that? CHAIRMAN: I don't know. We'll see what happens. Go ahead, Mr. Mayer, I'm sorry. MR. RON MAYER: I could probably add some more costs in this, you get nickeled and dieted, I owed some old guy $60.00. I'm not even counting this stuff. CHAIRMAN: Now, you have presently have a house that's not habitable. Is that correct? The front house is not habitable. MR. RON MAYER: The front house is habitable. The rear house, that's the illegal structure is not habitable. CHAIRMAN: Oh, that's the one that they ripped everything out. MR. RON MAYER: No, no. Because she was being thrown out, she didn't care so they ripped the appliances out of the walls, left holes in the walls. There were holes in the ceiling where there was freeze ups. SECRETARY L. KOWALSKI: Which house, number 1 or number 2? MR. RON MAYER: The front house. CHAIRMAN: The one that was redone after the fire. MR. MAYER: Yes. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: The number 1 house. CHAIRMAN: The one that wasrehab'd after the fire. MR. RON MAYER: Right. CHAIRMAN: OK MR. RON MAYER: Right. That was a mess, a total mess. The davs of course, I didn't look down. The five or six hundred bucks that I had, I had a guide to go in, Just to do general cleaning of the place. If I sound excited, this deal after 25 years of doing business has killed me. Then when she told me I had an illegal structure in the back, you ought to have ( ) Yly greatest thing was, ,vhf,- couldn't I find this out four years ago, so when I could go Page II - Slav 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals to the bankruptcy court Judge, and show them they committed a fraud on me, they would have let me auction this thing off. I would have saved all this time, method, and money. Then they would have seen who they were dealing with, and the fraud that was perpetrated on me. If I was to go after them for fraud now. Number one, they're bankrupt. They have nothing. Number 2, I don't know where they're at. They're floating around in Queens some place. (Hesitation) (I got off my track, I'm sorry.) When I went to Lynn Spangel, I said maybe I could get, I'll take a little loss here. I'd like to get $225,000.00. I said, see what you can do. So she is the one that went to look at the property. She went down to the town board, She said," Ronnie, you don't have a legal two family or a legal one family there." I said, "What are you talking about." "You better go down to town board," and fortunately for her I did, and that's how come I'm here. I could have probably pushed this under the carpet; and said "OK, we have a problem here. It's been used since the last seven or eight years. Let me throw tenants in there, bolt it up, and get all the money I can get out in rentals." Nobody will know the difference, because nobody has known the difference. I mean, in all honesty, it's been like that for the last seven or eight years. When I closed this loan, I went to visit this property. There were people upstairs and downstairs in that two-family house, and thev lived in the main house. That was people in there right along. Maybe one apartment was vacant, but another one was I Went occupied. lied. I'll tell you one story of how bad it really b that was upstairs, an old Greek man, who was at the auction, and he said, "What are you doing with Mrs. Porfiris." I said, "I'd like to get paid." He said, "they owned this house free and clear." I said, I'm afraid they didn't. Well, I said, what's going to happen to me? I paid them three years rent up front. They take $700.00 a month that I'm paying, times three years, they told me they would give me a discount if I paid up. I paid them $20,000.00 up front to get a discount. So, I let the old man stay there, and he will move back to Greece, a little bit later. At that point, I asked Lynn to recommend an Attorney. I said, we're not going to do this. We're not going to rent this stuff out. We're going to try to get this thing, try to get it legitimized to the best we can do, and I got to try to recoup some money here. At that point, she referred me to Mr. Lark, and here I am, seven years later. Still trying to get out of this mess. They settled the Robins Island bankruptcy three years before this little thing. I would Like to just end my statement here that I would appreciate if the board could do anything that they could possible do here, and I'm willing to go, whatever they tell me to do, with the Health Department and so on and so forth. But I cannot conceivably, I thought the property was worth more money, because the Town says it's worth on the assessed rolls, over $300,000.00. I have brokers 'hat arp dealing avert/ day here, telling me it's worth S140.000.00. I believe the brokers. Thev are there every day, pounding it out, pounding it -nit. 1 believe there's a comparable nest door. Page 12 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals LYNDA SPANGEL: The property nest door that faces on the Main Road, you will see on the charts, sold for $160,000.00 two years ago, comparable size, a home in pristine condition. An older home that had been renovated, country kitchen, and the whole works. That was two years ago. The market has not improved in the last two years, as you know. Not for inland property. RON MAYER: And it sold for how much? LYNDA SPANGEL: $160,000.00 RON MAYER: Take off a commission, transfer taxes, this and that, and you're down to $148,000.00 there about. Does the board have any questions of me? CHAIRMAN: (Member) Lydia? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I have a couple of questions. The Certificate of Occupancy, the one that's the alleged forgery. On the certificate it says, right at the top, "...This certifies that the building, accessory building...." It ;says, accessory building right on it. The forgery is an exact duplicate of the original except that one line has been whited out, or appears to have been whited out. RON MAYER: I didn't have the one that said, accessory building. I just had the one, at the closing. MEMBER TORTORA: This is the one you've, the one Mr. Lark said that was submitted at the closing. This is the one I'm referring too. MR. MAYER: No, it was the one at the closing, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: If you read at the top, it says "...accessory building. " (Mr. Mayer came up to look at Member Tortora's reference.) RON MAYER: Yes. I was concerned with the "two story, one family dwelling." That's what I was concerned with. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MR. RON MAYER: When I have six CO'son a blanket mortgage. My lawyers looked at it and said, yes, it's a one family building, and we looked at all the others, and they saemed ok. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. It says accessory building, and also I mean. You didn't ask for an original at the closing? MR. RON MAYER: No, many times we don't ask for originals. MEMBER TORTORA: That's the second time (interrupted). Page 13 - Mav 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. MAYER: I do now. But even the other properties that I had, the liquor store, this, it was all photos, all photos MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, what you have submitted here appears to be a forgery. The problem here is, that Mr. Porfiris isn't here. We're hearing one side of this. MR. RON MAYER: I would love to have him here. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know who forged this, and you haven't submitted or you - Mr. Lark, haven't submitted any proof that it's virtually you know, just your word that he's done this. I don't know that for a fact. You haven't given me any evidence to substantiate that. The other thing that keeps going back through my head about all the money that you have invested. MR. MAYER: Yes MEMBER TORTORA: In this property, this tremendous hardship that vou've had with this man. A lotof this seems to be a civil matter, and I'm having a problem understanding why this is something, that's before this board in essence, in a sense that, this is a civil matter in my mind. MR. MAYER: It's a civil matter to the extent of money. MEMBER TORTORA: The very thing you're asking is substantial. MR. RON MAYER: We have a building that has been used .MEMBER TORTORA: You're asking for to subdivide two lots in a one acre zone, which requires 40,000. square feet. You're asking to create two, 12,500 square foot lots. That is a 70% request, and it's much smaller than any of the other lots in the area, and you're basing all this claim on the alleged (copy) Certificate of Occupancy that was forged without any proof of who did the forging. MR. MAYER: Well, it's to me, that's pretty logical. I mean, I was there. They gave me the COs, right. I was there. The properties are rented out. Put yourself in my position too. You're there, you're a lender. You see COs on Claudio's Liquors, on the building that's across the street, that they own. On this, on the Woodside, Queens, and you're making the loan, and it's legal, and the people are living in the properties here. What happened to the Southold Town Building inspectors. Whv didn't they evict all these tenants over the years. They knew who's illegal. I mean, that's what got me upset. I mean, it's been used for seven or eight years over here, as an illegal rental property. A guy gives me a (copy) CO, that sacs it's ok. it's a legal one family or two family house there. MEMBER TORTORA: But, all the other documentation that goes with this, says that it's not. There is this correspondence that roes ail the wav back cieariv saving, that it's not. Page 14 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. MAYER: Yes, but I only picked that up after the fact, of when Lyn went to the Building Department. I thought I just went by that CO. MEMBER TORTORA: Buyer beware. MR. MAYER: What? MEMBER TORTORA: Buyer beware. MR. MAYER: Well, I'm a lender. I didn't buy it. You know, there was a letter that came in here accusing me of going to an auction, and trying to steal the property to make money by some fellow here. Believe me, if I could make a profit I'll give it to him. I'll donate it to the Town. I'm not looking to make any profits here. I'm looking to minimize my losses in a house that has been used that way for many years in an area that is not going to hurt anybody because the property across the street. I see he has two cottages rented there, that I don't think are legal. I see Sep'sfarm stand there. The man in the back has no objection. I don't know. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Mr. Mayer, I was just curious. I'm the secretary to the board, but I was looking at the file, and there's no title report that would show that there was a survey inspection, before you gave the mortgage, and there is no mortgage in the file. Could you give us copies of those for the record? MR. RON MAYER: Sure. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Survey inspections sometimes will show if your COsconform or agree with the survey. There is nothing in the record on that. RICHARD LARK ESQ: Don't forget. There wouldn't have been a survey inspection there, because the survey given to him at the mortgage was a brand new survey. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's a brand new survey. RICHARD LARK ESQ: It's in that exhibit there. It's almost contemporaneous with the mortgage. When you have a survey that's contemporaneous with the date of the documents, they don't do a survey inspection. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: There's no inspection of the property at all? RICHARD LARK ESQ: I'm sure there's not. I'll get you the title report. We can get it from his trial lawyer. That's not the issue. But I looked at that myself and SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I !know, but normaily in Suffolk Count-; it's done. That's the only reason I'm asking. RICII_\RD LARK ESQ: No, I'm telling you. It's not done when you have a :outemooraneous surges. Page 15 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, it's just odd. Excuse me. RICHARD LARK ESQ: Well, we'll get it right in the record. What's the date of the survey that you have there. It's done by Homan. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, let's see. There are photocopies, let's see if I can find an original. They're a couple of different ones. The original in here is March 1996. So, that's apparently not the survey. RICHARD LARK ESQ: No, that's Exhibit 7. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Maybe you could give us the survey that was with the title report. That might help. RICHARD LARK ESQ: You have it with the file. CHAIRMAN: It down here. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They usually attach it to the title report. RICHARD LARK ESQ: No, they don't, no they don't. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSIiI: They do in mine. I've had three closings. MR. RON MAYER: I've had hundreds. Everyone is different. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Ok, this one is dated August 30, 1989. You're mortgage was 1983, you said, right. RICHARD LARK ESQ: No. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What is the date of your mortgage? RICHARD LARK ESQ: September 7, pardon MR. RON MAYER: September of "89. RICHARD LARK ESQ: September of '89. You see, it's contemporaneous with the mortgage. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: But it says, two story frame dwelling. It doesn't say two family. RICHARD LARK ESQ: It matches the CO's. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, no, it doesn't because it says iZICH.IRD L.1RH ESQ: Yes, what does it sac on the survey. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: it doesn't sav. two family dwelling ni 'ner° on the survey). 0 Page 16 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals RICHARD LARK ESQ: It doesn't say, but the COssays, it's a one family dwelling. SECRETARY LINDA IiOWALSIiI: You're CO, you said RICHARD LARK ESQ:: Both of them. There are two CO's. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I'm talking about house #2. The one that (interrupted). RICHARD LARK ESQ: One says, it's a "one family" CO. MEMBER DINIZIO: "...Two story family dwelling." SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Says, "two story framed dwelling" on the survey. It does not indicate :it's a two family dwelling. It doesn't indicate anything RICHARD LARK ESQ: That's correct. Now, lets look at CO for building #1. What does it say, you have it there? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, I'll show it to you. Why don't you read it into the record, Mr. Lark, because I'm asking a question - you know. I'm saying, may be we need more information to help Mr. Mayer get a better decision, that's all. It helps. The more information you have Mr. Mayer's, and that's the only reason we're asking for it, so please don't MR. RON MAYER: Yes. No, I have no problem doing whatever I have to do. SECRETARY LINDA IiOWALSKI: This was the survey probably, right. RICHARD LARK ESQ: The mortgage was dated, and I'll give you a copy of that. I will furnish that, September 7, 1989. MR. MAYER (came up closer to members): I wasn't concerned with that. I was concerned that it was guaranteed. MR. LARK, continued: The time of the mortgage closing on September 7, 1989, the applicant presented your petitioner Mr. Mayer, with a survey which is Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 shows on it a two story framed dwelling, 11150 on the corner of Rocky Point Road and Main Road. That was given a CO, which is Exhibit 3, which was dated May 22, 1989. As I indicated in my initial remarks, it's certified that a repair was made to that building at 7735 Main Road and 50 Rocky Point Road, giving the Tax Map number, and says. "repair damage from fire only to existing one family dwelling." SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: So, this survey was done after that CO, because you said, May 8 of '39 was when the CO RICHARD LARK ESQ: That is correct. Page 17 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Soutlold Town Board of Appeals SECRE'T'ARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, that's all. I just wanted a date. RICHARD LARK ESQ: Also, the survey shows on Rocky Point Road a two story framed dwelling. The CO that Mr. Mayer stated, that was given to him at the closing was Exhibit 4 dated September 27, 1984, and it's issued as Ms. Tortorasaid, for "accessory building, two story, one family building." That's what it says on it, ok. What Mr. Mayer and I said in my initial remarks, is that CO is obviously a phony because after he took title in September of '95, and talked to Mrs. Spangel, and came to the Building Department, he discovered that the original CO which was in the file of the Building Department which is Exhibit 5 was the same CO except it shows two family, non habitable accessory building, hence why we're here. He had no knowledge of the zoning, that there were two single family dwellings on the property at the time that lie closed. That's what he was operating under the illusion of. As it turned out, there were not two legal, one family houses. There was one legal, one family house, and an accessory building which has been converted illegally to a habitable dwelling, which shouldn't have been, and he was given the CO, which as I indicated to you. You get as the practice, good or bad or indifferent. You get, more times you get copies, than you get originals with the seals. It's kind of interesting, because the more I thought about this afterwards, no one takes a death certificate or a birth certificate. Although, they are getting lax about that unless there is a seal on it. But CO's they take it, and I can tell you how that happened. In the early 1980s when we were under a tremendous crush building boom, not only in Southold but throughout Suffolk County, the Building Departments couldn't keep up with it, and you couldn't get duplicates. You were lucky to get verbal alo of times, and you just went ahead and closed, because things w re happening so fast. That's what happened. It got lax and to be honest with you, he got screwed. That's what happened. MEMBER VILLA: You won't find carbons in the Health Department because we require the originals. RICHARD LARK, ESQ: Right, and as it turned out. As I put in the exhibits, because when I got into investigating, I couldn't believe this had happened, and as it turned out, you have it as Exhibit That's the survey, and notice the difference in surveyors too. That was the van Tuvisurvev that was done in -1969, and that had the original - I was alwavs told it was a barn, as I remembered it ,Vas kind of barn like structure. In any event, that was given to he Heaith Department with a proposed accessory building, wherein they granted the water line, which is existing today from the main house out. And you notice, that Mr. Brigham quite probably put nonhabitabie building, because they were feeding oil the main house. The interesting thing is, when lie went to closing he didn't dive !iim that survev. He went and got a brand new sur,7evor, and c01-1 See iiow it's doctored up, not to tell the true facts. This is -.vitut the,-tr ::ad. 0 Page 13 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals But, the point of it is. He was careful. He goes to the property as the survey shows it, unfortunately it wasn't. I've got one last person to talk to you about this because, it bothered me, when I got into the act. I had never seen anything like this in my life because I realized, although not all the property, even those zoned for one acre. There are many half acre, or less properties, which I'll talk about that in a moment, in the needed neighborhood. But, when I went down to the Building Department, I got copies of everything, and of course, the existing personnel in there didn't know anything, and properly so because their names didn't appear on anything that was in the file. You can see that, from what you have exhibit's except for Mr. Fish. But, he was only involved later. So, I contacted the original person who granted the building permit to find out what had happened, and I asked him to come here tonight just to inform the board, by way of historical fact, what the situation is. Vic, would you address the board please? CHAIRMAN: Hi, Vic, how are you doing? How are you feeling? (He was ill. ) VICTOR LESSARD (Former Building Inspector): It's nice to see your smiling faces again. CHAIRMAN: I see you brought your wife tonight, too. MR. LESSARD: She's my nurse, my bride, whatever, you know. When Mr. Lark told me about this coming up, I said, "I want to get on there and listen to this." First off, I don't know anybody in the room outside of Mr. Lark. I want you to understand that. When I started with the Town in '82, they finally straightened out the titles, and all that nonsense I was involved in. In the Spring of '83, when I was made officially the Inspector, whatever that was, the first thing I got into was this thing. Now, nobody wants to take a job, where the first one takes a dive on you, and that's what happened here. For ten years, I couldn't cure this problem, and I'll explain that to you in a minute. When the thing was applied for by Mr. Orlowski Oh, I would use different things, but I don't want to put proper names to them unless this board insists on it, but you'll know who I'm talking about. I wrote myself some notes so I'm going to be repetitious, and I know how you people like to go home at night. When I looked at the original application, and looked at the blueprints - I have a copy of the blueprints here - I'll get that to you, as soon as I get done talking. On the original blueprints, it has sliding windows upstairs, downstairs, a couple of bathrooms, a playroom, two bathrooms, two kitchens. Now, being in construction 50 some years, I may look stupid but I'm not that stupid. So I said to the other chubby Building Inspector, that was about my size. I said, what's going on here. lie said, don't worry about it. So, I had this Mr.Porfiris come in my office, and talk to him. I said, why do you need ttwo kitchens. Well, he said, my wife is an artist. She has to follow the sun around, and sometimes she'll be upstairs, sometimes she'll be downstairs. But. lie didn't :vast her running up and down. So. if Page 19 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals she wanted to have her tea, or what not, she wouldn't have to run downstairs to get it, if she was upstairs. CHAIRMAN: That's the best one I've heard in a long time. MR. VIC LESSARD: I must be a damn gullible slob because I looked at him, and anyway. VICLESSARD: The application was made to me. I never went to the Building Department, right away, so, I can't help you out on the COs. The application was made to me on the 27th of June. Linda (secretary), by the way, you notarized it for me. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I probably did MEMBER VILLA: What year,'82?. VIC LESSARD: June '83 - I'm sorry that's when it was notarized. I wrote the permit, I disapproved the permit application for two reasons. Even though it was on a corner lot, this so called barn was right up on the road. I have a copy of the note that I wrote to Curt,with four reasons why this job was going to be stopped. I have a copy of the note that I wrote to Curt, ok. I stopped this thing on July 22. First off, the design put the building too high, for an accessory apartment. When we finally decided, Mr. (Curt) Horton and myself and Chet(Orlowski). Accessory buildings are only allowed 18 feet, so they put a flat roof on it. CHAIRMAN: Right. V'IC LESSARD: Exactly, ok, and I said, that's fine. But don't give me that garbage that this isn't a barn. I couldn't stop this thing. But, don't give me that garbage, this isn't a barn foot print. I said, because it's a corner lot, I'll let you move that building back so that it's at least beyond the protrusion of the main house. But, he went ahead with it anyway, and I'll give you this too. I have an electrical thing that says if he pays 5500.00, he could get his underwriters (certificate). The building permit reads, "...construct a two story nonhabitable accessory building". And the address, acting for John Porfirisin, yes, June 27, 1983. I'll give you all that. If you can't use it, throw it away. MEMBER VILLA: So, that didn't limit the height of the building? VIC LESSARD: I'm sorry? MEMBER. VILLA: That didn't limit the height of the building? VIC LESSARD: The height was limited to 18 feet. .v IVIB ER. VILLA: O[i VIC LESSARD: I made him stay at 18 feet., anything. But you couldn't stop him. He wanted -.o keep going. Page 20 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals CIlAIRNIAN: Vic, did you look to see if it was really uniquely just a barn, or was it more than a barn? VIC LESSARD: The whole thing was down, Curtwas down there. The whole thing was down, when I got involved. But I mean, the building right on the stree:. If someone drives off the street and bits the house. CHAIRMAN: Yes. VICLESSARD: So, I also have a plumbing breakdown if that is going to do you any good. But anyway, I talked with Carton this, and lie lived down there. If I find one excuse, that building is dead. Like I told you, this is one of the few jobs that I couldn't resolve. So later on, down the road, the Town hired a permanent town attorney, and an assistant Town attorney. I said to the assistant Town attorney, jump in the car, we're going for a ride. He, Curtand I went down and parked. What's that, Bay Shore Road? CHAIRMAN: Rocky Point Road. VICLESSARD: Right in front of the place. Rocky Point Road. You could see the women, going by the window back and forth, and I said to this assistant attorney. Is someone living there or is she painting? Just about that time, she came out that front door screaming like a banchee. She came to the car, pounded on the windows. What the hell are you guys, mafia or what? Russian something, she called us. I said, what are you talking about, lady. I stopped the car on the side of the road, and we're having a conversation here. She said, you're spying on me. I said, excuse me, get away from the car and I'll move it. I came back here, and I got a phone call. Come to the Supervisor's office. So he said to me, what are you doing in East Marion, everybody's screaming. So I said to him, I took the assistant attorney down there, to find out what I could do, to get these people out of the house. SECRETARY LINDA IiOWALSKI: Is that 188 or '89 Vic. VICLESSARD: Yes, yes, and the attorney said to me. The only way, once you give them a CO, you can't go on that property any more. If you walk on that property, and you catch the guy robbing the bank, and he can prove that you set up an entrapment thing. CHAIRMAN: Right. VIC LESSARD: They will throw it out of court. They don't care how guilty he is, and that's the end of it. So, I said to this assistant attorney, what am I going to do with this guy? He's driving me nuts. So anyway, the Supervisor advised me not to go down there anymore. He also advised me to speak to a Judge. The Judge told me, Vic,I don't -Kant to to gullible, lie said, but these are appointed jobs, and I'm not going to get anybody mad uniess you can prove to me that he's 961, guilty. I said, what am I going to do with this guy? He said, unless you get an official complaint. But two anyhow. The man never got a building permit for a one family. Page 21 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals Camily, whatever dwelling. It was an accessory building. It was moved back from the road about 26, 28 feet. I think to the corner of, Bay or something on the main house on the corner. It's 18 feet high because that's what it called for an accessory building. It struck me funny that he could get an underwriters for an accessory building, but he got one. This is one of the few things that I could never put to bed. God knows, we tried. At least, I tried. So, I thought boy, I'm coming down there to see how this works, and that's why I'm here. CHAIRMAN: Well, we appreciate you coming down, Vic. VICLESSARD: If there is anything that I can answer, I'd be glad to. CHAIRMAN: Bob, has a question. MEMBER VILLA: Well the only question I had. If they're living in there, they must have put cesspools in at sometime. How did they get those in because They must have been inspected by somebody. VIC LESSARD: I had specific order from my boss, to stay out of East Marion. Now, you've worked for bosses before CHAIRMAN: I have to attest to you, that you know we've had a man oti this board, until he passed away, from Orient. He was always doing a double flip over this, and he was always talking to you about this. VICLESSARD: Yes, I noticed. CHAIRMAN: I never knew what the discourse between you and he. All he kept on reporting to us was, "What was going on down there?" So, I assumed, he was just as frustrated as you were, and you were equally frustrated. VIC LESSARD: It was frustrating, and the fact, with all the laws in this Country, you can't enforce the law. It drives you nuts. I mean, you run a bluff on the guy, and you might get away with it. But, if you don't, forget it. CHAIRMAN: Well, I can remember quite vividly when Bob Douglas said. "They're raising that barn, and they're making a dwelling out of it." So, I said well, did you speak to Victor. He said, yes. We're speaking now. I'm speaking to him now. But we watched the entire thing materialize. VICLESSARD: He, what's his name. He used more bad language. tlian you'll find in the dictionary. I'll tell you that. But. I know where lie was coming from, but there was nothing I could do with it. Two Town attorneys I tried talking to, and the Judge. Anybody else. ClfAiR.MAN: Would vole give us those. Jim. i,vdia. "h3i,k -,rou ,has.,,. ._ti y; I ,~4-, Page 22 -May 1, 1096 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals VIC LESSARD: These are my notes. You have to be half French to read it. CHAIRMAN: Vic, thank you. Good seeing you. VIC LESSARD: I just want you to know that this government was doing all it could. That's the point I was trying to make. CHAIRMAN: Yes, did you want to ask a question Mr. Mayer? MR. MAYER: No. (Just doing something else.) RICHARD LARK ESQ: Ok, it's getting late, and I just wanted to, like I said. This is probably one of the worst situations that I've been ever confronted with all the years in practice. I couldn't believe that this thing could exist as long as everyone said it was, until I finally confronted Mr. Lessard about it. He said, "Oh yeah, we all knew about it but we couldn't do anything about it." I couldn't believe as Lydia said. A careful lender wouldn't have been able to discern what was happening here at the closing, until after all this unraveled on me. I want to correct one thing, and then make a few closing comments. It is true that the property produces a little over $5,000.00 in taxes. The way they have it assessed. They have the corner piece, building $1 which we refer to, they have that assessed at 5400 square feet building, tax dollars, $2,435.97. That's the building itself. The building in the rear which is the one in question, they have it as 4900 square feet, as $2210.41. So, with the land involved in each of 108 and 44, building #2, produces 2390.85, whereas as the front building produces 2616.41. So, that would be straightened out. They do have it laid out in the assessment card as a, they call it on the front, an accessory structure, but then they assess it on the back, as a full dwelling. So, there's no question about it. Like I say, I was one shocked person.. when I went down and viewed the property myself. I couldn't believe it. The reason he said, he could hFLve left it alone, and rented it our, and probabiv no one would have said something, because it's been going on for so long. But, because he's a licensed lender and the way lie took the property, he just wanted to get rid of it, to sell it, and could have possibly passed it on to a buyer at a reduced price, with just "as is" condition with the two, or he could have perpetrated the fraud and not told anybody and with the phony CO he was giving. But when he thought about, what to do with it, and talking to the neighbors, Mrs. Spangel talked to the neighbors, and in fact, as I understand it, two of the neighbors on either side wrote favorable, because they viewed that to have two single family lots, small as they might be, is much better than what went on there previous for the past decade. That was $1. And when I think of my experience of having two dwellings on one lot, it tends to a commercial nature, especially as a property Like that within a mixed neighborhood like it is here with the busy commercial farm stand right nett door, Rockv Point Road has a business use property on it, and if you look at the Tax Map, some of the lots are equally as small as this one. Page 23 - May 1. 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals I noticed in the file today that Mr. Siderakis, the neighbor across the street filed an objection. It reminded me that one in glass houses should not throw stones. He had two illegal cottages for the summer. You see them in the picture there, and in Mrs. Spangel's presentation. Far be it from me, to cause anyone problems, but I thought it very interesting. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: (Secretary interrupted to change tape). RICHARD LARK ESQ: Certainly, you would never come here and ask that it be built. It's existing. I can't do anything about it. You heard what Mrs. Spangle, whose eminently qualified to testify as to value. He's going to take a loss on it, one way or another. It's just a question, whether to minimize the loss. Now, when you look at the criteria to granting an area variance, you have to look at, if there will be an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to the nearby properties. It's there. It's been there since 1983. There will be no detriment created. In fact, if we can get approval and if he can make the changes to create with conditions, two single family dwellings and have the Board of Health and the Planning Board go along with it, you would have two independent owners. I think, it would be an improvement in the neighborhood. Certainly not a detriment which is what's going on. I don't know what other method that the applicant can get relief, other than just renting it out and continuing what Mr. Porfirisdid for the last decade. I don't know what to do. I'll be honest with you. Other than just leaving it alone the way it is, and operate as an illegal use, which is certainly not an answer to the problem. Is this area variance substantial? Yes it is, when you look at the property. But when you look at the neighborhood, it's not really. They're not truly 40,000 square foot lots surrounding it that are one family dwellings, particularly right in the neighborhood. Particularly when you go the North Road on Rocky Point Road, which would be an impacted area if there was traffic. But, I don't think there will be any traffic affect created. Will it have any adverse impact on the physical environmental conditions of the neighborhood. There are two cesspools now, and they will continue to be two cesspools there. They have been three or more families. I think the truth of it is, I think the residence that. are down there. They used to rent it out by the weekends by the room. So, there was much more than two families there. But. that's neither here nor there, that's past. `%icis embarrassed as he explained it. They knew about it but, they couldn't do anything ahutt it for one reason or another, whatever that reason might be. But no. I don't think it will have any adverse environmental effect. The thing is there. I think the proposed use will be less. Vow certainly, what bothered me from the beginning, and I certainly think you have evident proof. T'.1e difficulty that the applicant 11r. Mayer finds himself in. I do not think is self rc,ated. '°es. sure, he had law7,ers, surveyors, title companies and He did evarlrthing What iie nornaiiv did on anv Dther Paige 24 - May 1, 1996 'transcript of Public Hearings SuuLhuld Town Board of Appeals loan, and I have to submit to you what a banker would do, on any other loan, and this one got by. It certainly was not a self created hardship. But most important, and I hope the board will take this into consideration. I think you have a full, (we'll give you those other documents). But, I think you have a full understanding of what happened here. When you use the balancing of interest test here, as to what is there, what is to be done with the property, how we can make the best out of a bad situation, I feel, that granting the two single families, would be the answer. I certainly would have no objection if you would grant two single families on one lot. One as an accessory structure, and rent out. It would be the same thing except you would be limited to one buyer. You'd have Mother/Daughter situation. He'd get the same relief. But, I just question. Would the property be valuably used if you have one owner for two things. I think it lends itself to abuse. I spoke to Mr. Mayer. I said, if the board grants this, you'll have to grant before any CO's were ever issued to the Planning Board, and the Health Department approved it, you would have to submit yourself to physical inspections of the property by the Building Inspector to make sure they are, it is an independent single family. Because as I said to you, and you're welcome to go look at the property and make that accessible to you. When you go in it, it's your classic two family house. You can't get from one place to the other in the building, unless you go outside and go around. That all has to be changed so that it would be a single family. So, I think it would be less density use. I could argue on the other thing. I'm not, if he built it, he created it, or he went into it with his eyes wide opened. He doesn't want to be here. He's here because he had to foreclose on Porfiris, and take back his security. Now he's stuck with this situation, so I think when you balance the interest in the interest of justice, and the standards that have been set forth by the Legislature, and the Town Laws, as well as the court precedent before us, in this type of situation, I think it cries for some type of relief. If you certainly can fashion a relief with conditions that is different then I propose, I would be more than happy to do it. Because, I think, just to walk away and ignore it, like has been done by our predecessors, is just going to perpetuate a bad situation. He didn't create it, and I just ask you to consider all the equities in the case, in granting him some type of relief, so he can get on with his life. Do you have any questions of Mr. Mayer or anybody. CHAIRMAN: Is that building in the rear built on a slab? MR. MAYER: Crawl space. RICHARD LARK, ESQ: Crawl space, yes that's right. Didn't have a cellar. If you notice on that one survey you have, a wooden bilco door that goes under the crawl space. That's how you get access to the rear of the property. Yes it is, like a three foot, two-three toot situaLlon. CHAIRMAN: Is there a question back there. • Page 25 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: Yes, you're saving, he foreclosed to get back some of his equity. In the original mortgage, what was this property valued at" RICHARD LARK, ESQ: That you have to refer to him. In other words, you granted a mortgage of $110,000.00? MR. RON MAYER: I figured that that property was worth about $250,000.00 at that time, having a one family, and a two family on that property. RICHARD LARK ESQ. And that was '39 then right. MR. R.ON MAYER: Yes. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Lydia was asking if we have paper work. We don't have anything in the file to substantiate--. RICHARD LARK ESQ: On these original mortgage applications papers, no. Now, what's she's asking. Do you have anything? CHAIRMAN: Do you have an appraisal? RICHARD LARK ESQ: An appraisal where you base, whether it's vours or otherwise. The '89 time frame when you granted the mortgage, that's when you furnish the title report and the mortgage. MR. RON MAYER: I'm the direct lender. I go out, and do my own appraisal. I'm not selling these loans off to other banks. So when I go out. I do my own numbers on the properties that I'm lending . RICHARD LARK ESQ: Do you have notes and stuff at the time in your file. MR. RON MAYER: I would have to find it in my file. RICHARD LARK ESQ: If you do, would you make them available to the board. She's asking for. MR. R.ON MAYER: I'll give you what I have. MEMBER VILLA: I think we'd have to see that. What you're saying that tliere were four properties,. You liquidated three of them. I'd tike to know the numbers involved. MR. RON MAYER: OK SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Could you give us one set, and then I'll ~pve duplicates for everybody, but we need one set of 9011101. lting from you. MR. RON MAYER: :A set' R.ICISARD LARK ESQ: I know what they want. Page 26 - May 1, 1990 • Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: Well you're saying, that you have to get your equity out of your house. How do we know that you didn't get your equity out of your three previous settlements on the mortgage. MR. RON MAYER: It's right in bankruptcy court of RICHARD LARK ESP: That's what he wants to see. CHAIRMAN: We would also like to see any notes, Dick, that he may have, and what he valued that property. RICHARD LARK ESQ: Yes, and there obviously had to be some kind of field notes. You went there and you did the numbers. When you did the numbers crunch, and yes that's correct. We can furnish that, whatever we have. MR. RON MAYER: We have to report that back to the bankruptcy court, as to what I'm owed. That's the trustees MEMBER VILLA: All we're hearing is you throwing out numbers. We'd like to see some proof. RICHARD LARK ESP: OK, I understand what you want. It's a verification. MR. RON MAYER: I have no problem with that. RICHARD LARK ESP: I understand. CHAIRMAN: Good, ok. RICHARD LARK ESQ: Anything else. CHAIRMAN: No, that's good. RICHARD LARK ESP: I realize we've got a tangent on tendentious issues, other than land use issues. But they don't explain the land use, unless you understand where they came from. That was the point. CHAIRMAN: It never ceases to amaze me what goes on. MR. RON MAYER: Thank you very much for hearing CHAIRMAN: Well, I was somewhat close to this based upon Mr. Doul-tass. RICHARD LARK ESP: I did not know that you had to CHAIRMAN: With Mr. Douglas's was concerned continually and RICHARD LARK ESP: No matter who I talk to, this is off the record uow, when Lynda came to me she said, I know of this property. We had trouble with this. We loaned it at Southold. I said, with these, and she said ves. you know. 1'agr. 27 - May 1, 1906 Transcript of Public Hearings Sourtiotd Town Board of Appeals CHA IRMAiN: Now, if you don't mind me calling you Lynda by your first. name. MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: Not at all. CHAIRMAN: You lent the money from North Fork Bank to this property, and Mr. Mayer bailed these people out? MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: Southold Savings was the original under lender, but it was getting out of foreclosure. It never actually went on the auction block, and then after the acquisition, Southold by North Fork, there was a department that took over loans, and sold them to people like Mr. Mayer, and packaged loans to get rid of nonperforming assets, and Mr. Mayer happened to be the unfortunate person to purchase this property. MR. RON MAYER: No, I didn't purchase a mortgage loan. I originated a new mortgage and paid off all the other ones. CHAIRMAN: Paid all the other ones. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How much was the old mortgage for Southold Savings that North Fork had? MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: It was satisfied. It was paid off. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It was paid off. It was paid off by Mr. Mayer? R. RON MAYER: There was another private lender like myself. It was a first bank mortgage and there was another private lender that had a second mortgage, and they were some judgments and liens and SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How much were they altogether? Do you remember? ' MR. RON MAYER: Between all the properties, it totaled over $400,000.00. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Just for this piece of property. How much were those liens for? CHAIRMAN: Well, he can tell us that. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You would have that in your record.' RICtIAtZD LARK ESQ: We will give that to you. MR. RON MAYER: I going to 'Look up my original closing d t~~ tFxneu f.. H.\IltMAN: Yes, yes. Page 28- May 1, 199 13 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of APP SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, that will help us understand, Niou know We thank you very much. Safe home. CHAIRMAN: Good, all right. _ fora litany of si% Years of - MR. RON MAYER: You're asking piece of property. CHAIRMAN' Yes' I know and it's just not one It's four pieces- It's alot. SECRETARY LINDA IiOWALSK : this, after you give us the CHAIRMAN: We will there' we'll go from rom his information' and Give me a week or so to get this from RICHARD LARK ESQ: prior lawyer. which is the 29• CHAIRMAN: Yes> You have until the nest meeting RICHARD LARK ESQ: sis E1t DINIZIO: Did we get the real estate agent app MEMB al in writing' on your SECRETARY LINDA 1tOWALSKI: No give us something Mrs. Spangli, could you CHAIRMAN : indicating the values that you stated to letterhead us? . LYNDA SPANGEL: Certainly* that for us? Thank YOU SO much. MS CHAIRMAN: Would you mind doing MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: Not at a"' Hearing no further CO of the I appreciate that, °k ending the receipt of Ms' CHAIRMAN : the hearir.. g,oth Mr. Lark and from I'll make a motion closing from Lark- hat requested l~s Spangle and Mr- informetiondt lrt Mayer. Mr. Mayer, Spavg All three. MEMBER 'l0 R, ORA: Second. Duly curried 4 l Y^~i R-4p i _ r y /y A R~o II ~ R-80 J R4-80 I I% -sc LB ( EAST ou R-80 x`401 ~ I Monon Lake ru a 0 4D ~ I ~ , a-o- - Ha I€NT a _ Mi SOP r /))CZ L/ - 'A ~ y rvc SOUTHOLD__ 1 ~ R-80 ~V R MAY 2 91996 S ? korzaC// /4/aver ~I PO p O. 2029 O.Jric~e pion, d/1~ ox ._9., T/ y 1/9-32 516) 537-3842 May 29, 1996 Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Variance Application Number 4373 Premises: 50 Rocky Point Road; SCTM 1000-31-2-26 TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS: STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: Ronald J. Mayer, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am making this Affidavit at the request of the Zoning Board of Appeals to review my records as to the appraisal and my costs relating to the property which is the subject of my application for a variance. I am requesting a sub-division of the property which contains two dwellings at 50 Rocky Point Road, East Marion, New York, into two individual parcels each containing a single-family dwelling. As the Zoning Board of Appeals is aware from the testimony taken at the hearing on May 1, 1996; I am a New York State Department of Banking licensed mortgage lender. I recently acquired the subject property as a result of foreclosing a mortgage I had previously granted on this and other properties to John and Niki Porfiris. The Zoning Board of Appeals has requested I furnish financial data surrounding this mortgage dated September 7, 1989. 2. As I explained to the Board at the hearing on May 1, 1996, I was approached by John and Niki Porfiris in the Summer of 1989. They were having serious financial difficulties and although at this time they owned several parcels of real estate, two of which were being foreclosed, the Profiris' requested that I help them out of their financial difficulties by granting them a mortgage. After reviewing their financial situation, real estate holdings, and the fact that they were being foreclosed, I was able to loan them $410,000.00 which was sufficient to help them out of their financial plight at that time. Due to the fact that I personally supervise all loans and possess a valid real estate broker's license with over 30 years experience, I do all of my own real estate appraisals in connection with mortgage loans. This loan in the amount of $410,000.00 closed on September 7, 1989, and was secured by four parcels of land. Parcel one was the subject premises at 50 Rocky Point Road, East Marion. I appraised this parcel at $250,000.00, because it contained two dwellings which were occupied on a moderate-sized lot in a somewhat mixed zoning neighborhood. Parcel Two was across the Main Road known as 230 Main Road, also owned by Mr. and Mrs. Porfiris, contained a house and two small rental cottages which I included in the mortgage at a valuation of $200,000.00. Parcel Three at 219 Main Street, Greenport, which was a liquor store known Claudio's Liquors, was in a good location and I appraised it at $200,000.00. Parcel Four was a building on 40702 48th Avenue, Woodside, Queens, which was occupied and used by Mr. and Mrs. Porfiris as a retail store, which I appraised at $225,000.00. 3. When I appraised the property at 50 Rocky Point Road in East Marion, New York, I saw with my own eyes the two individual houses were both occupied as Mr. and Mrs. Porfiris lived in the front house facing the Main Road and were renting the house 2 facing Rocky Point Road. In checking the tax assessment on this property, the accessors had placed an assessment on the front house at $4,968.00 because of its age and the rear house at $5,434.00, which made sense considering the size and existing use of these dwellings. The house facing the Main Road had just been repaired because of fire damage. The house facing Rocky Point Road was in good condition and rented to tenants. As I recall, Mr. Profiris stated this house was categorized as an accessory to the house on the Main Road because water was supplied to the second dwelling from the well at the house facing the Main Road. He also stated he had continuously rented this dwelling, and there were several families living at this house during various times especially in the summer months. Based on what the Porfiris' had told me concerning both houses, along with what I actually saw on the property and the neighborhood in general, I assumed this was a perfectly valid situation. This was particularly so since all the paperwork furnished at the closing on September 7, 1989, appeared to be in proper order with each house having its own Certificate of Occupancy. The First American Title Insurance Company of New York inspected the premises, found no violation in the Town of Southold, and guaranteed the survey presented to me at the closing. Further, the paperwork and representation by the Profiris' concerning all the other properties was true and factual. 4. The Porfiris made their first payment on October 2, 1989, but defaulted on their second payment on November 7, 1989. They refused to make any other mortgage payments requiring my foreclosing the mortgage. The original Judgment of Foreclosure and Mortgage granted by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County on April 10, 1990, was for $443,482.00 with accrued interest and late charges with an additional $2,800.00 in court costs and disbursements. Right after I obtained this Judgment, the 3 Porfiris' were able to obtain purchasers on Parcels Two and Three which I released from the Judgment of Foreclosure of the Mortgage upon receiving the sum of $196,808.06. Subsequently, an Amended Judgment of Foreclosure was entered in Suffolk County Supreme Court on October 9, 1990, representing the reduced amount owed to me of $249,473.94. It was after this that my problems really began as the Porfiris' then filed for bankruptcy which delayed everything. Because it was a retail commercial operation, the Trustee in Bankruptcy took possession of the premises in Woodside, Queens, and ultimately liquidated it and I received only $30,000.00 because of the high bankruptcy fees, Trustee's fees, and federal income taxes due which were paid out of the proceeds before I received one cent. At this point it left an unpaid balance due me of $219,473.94 not containing unpaid interest. After further protracted bankruptcy proceedings and other litigation, I was able to have a foreclosure sale on the 50 Rocky Point Road property. I received a Referee's Deed dated September 7, 1995. In fact, in September of 1995, when I went to the property, the Profiris' were still in possession of the property and living in the house facing the Main Road and had a tenant living in the house facing Rocky Point Road. 5. After I took title, I did not get possession. To get possession I had to pay $1,400 for Suffolk County Sheriff's fees and retain and pay William Moore, Esq. $1,000.00 to evict the Profiris' and tenants on the property. I then paid to the Town of Southold in back real estate taxes $52,000.00 and legal and referee's fees of $2,250.00. Since I obtained possession, I have expended $800.00 for insurance; $2,200.00 to LILCO for utilities in repairing gas leaks on the premises; $250.00 to repair the plumbing; $680.00 to clean out the debris in both houses on the property; $2,000.00 to fix up some of the damage and painting of the interiors of the houses for a grand total of $62,580.00. I 4 have also paid the Southold Building Department $25.00 to tell me officially the property is not legal, the filing fee of $600.00 to the Zoning Board of Appeals and $400.00 to Van Tuyl for a survey of the premises. 6. My costs attributed to the property total $283,078.94. The Zoning Board of Appeals should keep in mind that the above is out-of-pocket funds which I have spent, and does not include interest not received or lost opportunity loss on the use of the money. It is clear to me and should be obvious to anyone else that I am faced with taking a loss on this property, no matter what I do. The so-called option of pursuing a fraud claim against John and Niki Porfiris is worthless as they have been adjudged as bankrupt and have left the area. I know from my investigation and the bankruptcy proceedings, they do not have any assets. If I was in the landlord business, I could have continued the use of the property and rented the property to three families. I am not asking anyone to feel sorry for me as I have been in the mortgage business a long time. However, there was an outright fraud perpetuated on me, as well as the prior bank who previously issued a mortgage on this property. The various responsible officials in the Town of Southold were well aware of the two-family house constructed in 1983-1984 on this property and yet nothing was done to correct it. I, as an innocent mortgage lender and the subsequent owner as a result of a foreclosure, should not be forced to take a catastrophic loss when there is a perfectly acceptable alternative to alleviate the situation. 7. Considering limited options and the fact that I am a licensed lender, it is my belief that the subdivision of the property into two single-family lots is the best manner into which to solve this overall problem. Not only will I be able to 5 recoup the majority of my loss, but the Town will have the opportunity to formally legalize this property and preserve the residential zoning. Using Lynda Spangel's property evaluation dated May 7, 1996, as a yardstick, if the property is separated into two lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The lot on the Main Road would be worth approximately $125,000.00 and the house facing Rocky Point Road would be worth approximately $100,000.00 for a total of $225,000.00 minus selling costs, taxes and broker's commissions leaving me a loss of at least $58,000.00 to $74,000.00. If the property is sold with the house facing Rocky Point Road being non-habitable, then according to Ms. Spangle, the whole parcel would be worth $150,000.00 leaving me with a loss of between $133,000.00 and $143,000.00. I should not have to bear this additional loss. Further, if the Zoning Board of Appeals grants my request, I will have a chance to reduce my losses and thereby avoid other unnecessary litigation. WHEREFORE, I affirm my statements contained in my Appeal dated March 11, 1996, and I respectfully request that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant my application to allow subdivision into two single-family parcels of land. Dated: May 29, 1996 Cutchogue, New York Ronald J.X ayer Sworn to before me this 29th day of May, 1996 L / DAWN MARE Notary Public pNM 0006 00* cap wo.Bow kumha 97 6 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS c Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. °y P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold. New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 Lydia A. Tortora Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 22, 1996 Richard F. Lark, Esq. P.O. Box 973 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Application for Ronald J. Mayer Dear Mr. Lark: This is just a follow-up reminder (after our telephone call with Barbara today) that the Board Members are awaiting transmittal of copies of financial and other records pertaining to the mortgage on the subject property and other property which was acquired (or sold) by the applicant. Please furnish these items, if possible, by May 29, 1996 in order that the Board may commence deliberations, and render a determination on or before our June 26th Regular Meeting. If additional time is needed after May 29th for submissions, it is possible that the Board may prefer to reopen the hearing. Please let us know of the expected time schedule for the submissions. Very truly yours, /GERARD P. GOEHRINGj'.R-T CHAIRMAN lk ~o~~SpFFO~~ cOG JE P ,or ) 'Y y~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road CYWN- RNEY y = P.O. Box 1179 T O `F Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1889 Fax(516)765-1823 i OFFICE OF THE T TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 24, 1996 Ronald J. Mayer P.O. Box 2029 Bridgehampton N.Y. 11932 Re: Premises at 7735 Main Rd. E. Marion SCTM# 1000-31-2-26 Please be advised that a complaint has been received concerning the above mentioned property. A sign advertising the accessory structure as a "legal two family " is incorrect. This structure holds a C.O. for a "Two story non habitable accessory building Any use contrary to the permitted use will constitute a violation of the Town Zoning Code. A copy of the original C.O. is available at the Building Department. Please feel free to contact them or myself for further information. Sincerely, Edward Forrester Tel. 765-3690 HENRY J. SMITH & SON, Inc. V 94a3L 25 PLUMBING AND HEATING Main Road Southold, N. Y. 11971 M r_ ?hPVter Orlowski-Cenerol Contractor John Farfiris Job Fast P1ar•ion, NFw 'Cork _ I PLUMBING ESTII4ATF. FOR STUDIO/APT UPPER BATH (rer color) _ 1 Bremen Glas n n 3hower -tall 1 A ual n Lev #0476,028 1 Cadet Toilet #2122.448 EB&mL-Lever 1 Church i°540 Seat 1 1 A uarian Shower Valve #14q0.051 1 Foot Curtain Rod FIRST FLOOR BATi4 re color „ n Rhnwrr "'ball 1 A ual Lav #0476.028 'Aatar Salt- Cv 1.1 Church #/540 Seal` 1 Aquarian e I_ 1 P uarian Bnsin Valve 2379.018 1 3 foot Curtain Rod 1 Outside Sill Conk --1 G9 ".110p Rleatzi'le Ent jjApi-ep L I JeTnfp.~ Supply will he extra L Copper !eater Lines PVC Plastic Waste Lines f Cast Iron Waste Lines under Slab Cyst Iron House Trap Valves under Sinks & Toilets - - FI v I CL Y V cl.L..a .11--6- /VrL¢.C.. /lJlc. `fA c-i C. ,1U-~•~.F.?~.c.,~., vj'. mod. ~ Ct^-~ , R. CAS /t k]L- 0 r, c,4 -0 f~.'t.~+}il.Y l~l. V'"0.:1_~-5 ,,t,ti1...d.....C~G~ ~..~1. ~ ~l,l.M.~~. L:: n.' i~ . ~~'-~-~L,~ ~.CCa.G~.C. _ b l ( ~ /~knA- `4~T..,,f . 1U.~. .C.o Cu LLc , r ,lt n WSox ' r ^1 Np",\ X11\^ tl~, vt,,,Gi YY ~ pV, roe Ir F . I - 1 I r~ I ~ SOV - --x I S I I ~ h , 3yk 9a^d€~'b Wu~ Ile - - - -~~y' L--- ;ILI (p ' `PRQ seov s J ~ Y T r ~ 04 ~ 1r ~ r i_L'hl_RS a'F~++'~10E.~.>f,,~yy S - i 1 FORK NO. f TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) Na 12554 Z Date tJ.v~...th - 1~ .......1 19Y Permission is hereby granted \rto: Q I A ~j n.! YY:"l.............. too a ` .P. ..-......54X!r!t G~R4?.1 of premises located at ..ti,.v'! ~..1. l...P`t!..... ~.~...~...YII.C4!n, ..~.....St.........~.4<rdYl Cr County Tax Map No. 1000 Section a.j......... Block Lot No...•;4AO............ pursuant to application dated .........N*4, 1rA.....!47.1 ld.:., and approved by the Buildinngg Inspector. Fee $ ..,j.......... . ~ : d Bu Iding Inspector Rev. 6/30/80 ROBERT J. GUARRIELLO TEL. 765-1641 or 477-2082 dim ~rm~ f~~~Tnt?Ja 66S ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR P O BOX 215 C-41 SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 Dear Mr. le On-(0 , z " C I The New York Board of Fire Underwriters, Bureau of Electricity has issued a certificate of compliance for our installations. This certificate will be forwarded to you upon receipt of the final payment. - 00 Soo, Thank You. F)b L ~ s L!' V \ J~onafd ~ Mayzz JJ T_~_.-~ 1 .v. lr3ax zezq 1 ' Mmy i 1 _Z._., G/V.q/ 11932 516-537-384 1131-7 6- G_ 2 T , 10WN VO ~(nuc!tnxents • !~Cca~ Sitnte • _ ~~ottetnyc_ GEORGE A. HAMMER, JR. Real Estate Appraisals Property Tax Consultants Second House Road P.O. Box 639 Montauk, NY 11954 Telephone: 516-668-9262 Fax: 516-668-4623 QUALIFICATIONS- 1958 to present - Licensed Real Estate Broker. 1953 to 1958 - Licensed Real Estate Sales Agent. Has maintained general real estate and appraisal business in Montauk, New York since 1958. EMPLOYMENT: Recent, prior and intervening years 1989 to present: George A. Hammer, Jr. Real Estate. General Real Estate and Appraisals. Tax Assessment Service. 1988 to 1989: Hearing Officer - Small Claims Assessment Review. 1969 to 1970: Harris, Kerr & Forster. Prepared market surveys and economic feasibility studies for new hotels and motor imrs. Northeast region. 1968 to 1969: New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal. Staff appraiser and mortgage coordinator for multi-family construction. 1967: American Appraisal Company. Valued acquisition of rights of way for railroad grade crossings elimination. 1960 to 1961: East River Savings Bank - Mortgage Supervisor and Appraiser 1952 to 1958: Charles F. Noyes Co., Inc. - Sold income producing commercial and residential properties and assisted in preparation of large condemnation and tax certiorari appraisals in New York City. GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF APPRAISALS* Mainly east end of Suffolk county last 20 years. Prior years all boroughs of New York City; Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Ulster and Sullivan Counties, New York; Cape May, Salem and Burlington Counties, New Jersey; and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. APPRAISAL D 1 ATION: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. PROFESSIONAL. AFFILIATIONS: "Suffolk County Real Estate Board, Inc. (President 1977-1980) "Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors "National Association of Realtors - Appraisal Section "New York State Association of real Estate Appraisers "New York State Certified General Appraiser - License 97083 P# IAL I,~~ F APpRA~SAL A$S[('NMFN'rc Entire Block #44: Bank Parking Lot: Montauk Business District Nine Parcels: Montauk Business District Two Parcels: 103.4 Acres I Acre Zoned /,Sun Beach: 1,760 Acres Hither Woods Napeague Eleven Parcels 777 Acres Hither Woods Block Island Soun : Wood Lane: 17.6 Acres Retail Business Zone Montauk Port Royal Motel & Restaurant: 43 Acres Stephen Hands Path Ea Ham Maisonettes Motel: Fort Pond Bay East t Hampton Tarrah Inn: Oceanfront Montauk Pipe Dream Restaurant: Main Street Montauk Conservation Easement: Fireplace Road Westhampton Meet Woods East Hampton Erosion Loss: Racquet Club: Cole Estate Quogue Green Hollow Tennis Club: Buckskill Road Quogue Montauk Air Force Station: Green Hollow Road East Hampton 283 Acres East Hampton Fort Hill: Montauk Association House #32 '0 Acres Urban Renewal Map d Montauk Georgica Association: DeForest Re, Oceanfront Montauk I House: Ingraham Estate Oceanfront House: Sutter I Keiser East Hampton : Richard Johnson Sagaponack Twenty Deep Sea Four Club & Marina Star Island Montauk Unit Condo Site: West Lake Lodge & Marina: Fort Pond Bay Montauk Security Building: West Lake Drive Montauk Former Callahan Estate: The Plaza Montauk Commercial Lease Hold: Further Lane Montauk East Hampton Lease Hold: North Main Street East Hampton Eby Estate: Whites Drug & Department Store Montauk Suffolk County Water Authority: Oceanfront Hither Hills Breakers Motel & Cottages: 148 Acres Noyack Montauk Stone House: On the Bluffs Old Montauk Highwav Southampton Star Top Subdivision: Old Montauk Highway Montauk Star Top Ranch: East Lake Drive Montauk Montauk Maidstone Park Cottages: East Lake Drive Burcliffe Motel. Springs Montauk Erosion Loss: Old Montauk Highway East Hampton Montauk Commercial Building: Ashman Estate Schiavoni's IGA Market: S/W/C Bridge & Rose St. Sagaponack Residual Land Value. Main Street Sag Harbor Sag Harbor Farm Land Development Rights 85 Acres 140 [hut Proposed Motel Sag Harbor Lease Hold Three Farms East Hampton Mixed Use Commercial Building 3 Mile Harbor Marina 187 North Main Street East Hampton i East Hampton I it I i lore Wuxi ,Ils Trpo fl9Yngrc~nr I Nane i cn13St0Y 1 Fuel l 1 0'r Flrepleco s 11 I I1N Fila. p ;on ' UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT zip Untie 11939 5 East on ,dress 1000-31 7 7 3 5 Mai -2n-226 6 - city County Sur 101K cdpuon r~ Tex Vear93 99 R.E. Taxes 59 752.02 Special Assessments $ oes Parcel No. O cupenl n Owner I I Tenant M Vacant iNower current Owner ~1 IMa. Pro art if tits a T77 Fee Simple Leasehold _ Project Type Map Rolerencel ' Condominium (IIUDNA Cainsus Tra01 f Neighborhood or Project Name hergeslconcasslona to be paid by sal er / Sales Price S Dale .1 9.1, Ds~.Iplicfn and $ amount of loan c- Address Lehort ' GeOr e A I Address P O x 3 - Montauk p relse s 11954 Ap tier Urban7 Bo Single lemlly housing Present land use 96 Land use change AGE Location 6uburben x Rural Pra log inen' One lemlly 70 Ilal likely ? Likely Built th Over 6^k X S25 ig Is 0 Under 2596 oc rpncY PRICE $(000) (tits) In rocess Rapid 0 owner 25 Low 20 2.4 family 10 ? p Growth role Read X-~7I Sleble Declining Tenant 225 III h 90 '1p Multifamily 10 To: Property values ? Increasing t~~'~T Vacant to 6%) Pmdominanl u~lll commercial 1 0 Demendlsupply Shortage L._J In balance over supply ? ( IN ) Marketing lime Under 3 mos. 3-a mos. Over S MOS. Vacant (war 5%) Note: Race and Ill, racial compoelllon of ilia neighborhood are not appraisal factors. i SeWd Neighborhood boundaries and characteristic,: - Point av.. a nffic~ - ~ inu e Older horneal-Fix z Fedora that effect the marketability of the properties In the neighborhood (proximity to employment and amenities, employment slehlllly, aappeal to market, ale): ' a I rare and re -iremerl exclu i el to Sec^^ a- farming small rrinara=r pomlldtj on a _ . a r Main Road is used to and from orient Point Fer and State Park Market conditions In the subject neighborhood (Including support lot Ilse above conclusions related to ilia trend of property values, demand/supply, and marketing time such as data on competitive properties for sale in ilia neighborhood, description of the prevalence of safes and financing concessions, etc.): ew One f i PP13 and already built a tWePn 67d an Rnar3 and `;oath oL1QR8..-t~~auu-.~ Yea No Project Information for PUD9 (If applicable) - - Is the developedbufkler In control of the Items cumber s cla ion (HOA) 8 1071119 subject prejYe --at units for Approximate total number of units In the subject project atlonel lecllllle,: r 1 a Describe common elements and facts site r Topography Dimensions r Corner Lot ® Yee ? No Size 51 Acre area 7S DRR crt ft Shape Rectangle Adequate Zoniniczl egslllc and description Zoning compliance 0 Legal Legal epal nonconlorming (orendlalllered use) ? Illegal ? No zoning Drainage Neighborhood Highest S best use es Improved Present use other use (explain) View Neighborhood Utilities Public Other OlPelra Implovemenls Typa Public Private Landscaping Mature Electricity ® Street paved © ? Driveway Surface Tar & Gravel Water Curb/gutter -I~tOnP Apparent easement, None Gas ® PrOnan~_ FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area 0 Yes ~ tie Water ® TtOne__ O Sanitary sewer Street lights FEMA Zone Map Oele p Sent i n FEMA Map No. Storm sower Alley Commends (apparent adverse easements, encroachments, special Nntad assessments. slide areas, Illegal or legal nonconforming zoning use, etc.): BASEMENT INSULATION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION GENERAL DESCRIPTION Slab - Area Sq. Fl. 1..-nQD_ Root _ r No. of Units 1 Foundation Concrete qb Finished Ceiling wncd No. of Stories 2 Exterior W,IIS AllNllnillll Clewl space 0 YL'-Jl Type (De1.lA11) pet Boot Surface AS It S basement xx Wells Colling Wells Concrete Floor _ Design (Style) l n Gutters a Uwnsple. AlUminifll Sump Pump None A _ gIPrapoced ) j cta Window Type All I-j Outside Entry Cgncrete Unknown - X j Age a (Yra (Yrs) Storm/Screens All ml auDampness Floor n lm settlement Effective Age (Yrs.) Mamdeclured (louse - Integration _ e ROOMS Foyer LIvInB Dining Kitchen Deli Fondly But. Roc. Run. bedrooms Y Bettis Laundry Other Area Sq. Ft. Baseman) a Level I __N I L A_ -L E ' level 2 - Finished area above grade contains- Roms; g ----edr in(s): _ Baili(s1; Square Feet of Gross Living_ Area o-_ __oe_ -f I ATTICy^ a a INTERIOR MaledalslCondlllon IIEATIUO ~ I(ITCIIEN EgI11r. AMENITIES CAR STORAGE: Floors Wood Typo rJ!,Ioq"ruler I Pions Flmplecot) None _ Geroge Y of cars Walla Plaster Puol pil Rsngn/Quite Slobs Patio Attached TrImlFlnlsh UnknOWn Condlllon Deli Floor UrIk110WR f?lepns,al Built 6udr l l Dark ? Detached - Birth coot .illO DIStm.1shm - J S:tullo Porch Bath Wainscot Unknown _ ullhln Central None FmJl food ~j Floor Fence .j O pours URknOWt1 other MI•:rct+'avo 1J Ilealod Pool Carport Candltlon W Driveway ~hurlDpor Fbdshnd,-_ yes Additional features (special energy efficient Items, at,;): - a Condition of the bnPruveiasN s, deprncl nllon (Phyelcnl, Iunc1loorJ,r,m1 arlenml), ropnbe noeded, qunllly of consln¢Ilan, remndellnp/aJdll one, a a-:== Cglldition ApuL.ais itllillI31d Rear _ - r D t-_1 -i .h 3. 2_9nit_1A1-?:u. ~nQ11t_-9•-.- - , ('n9 nic.{ present in (tie improvements, on ilia alto or In the UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT Fue na. LUE . - $-_U40Q__ Comments on Cost Approach (such as, source of cost esllmele, RODUCTION COST-NEW OF IMPROVEMENTS: Bile value, square tool calculation and, for HUD, VA and FmIIA, file 264 Sq. Ft ® $ 70 - $ _1.r12s1j$.0__ estimated remaining economic Ills of Ills properly): 1 144 Sq. Ft @ $ 50 57.205_ rage/cerporl _ Sq. FI a s Patel Estimated Cost Now . - $ 217 OM _ Leas Pzyelost I Funilll6nel I Exxllamel Depreciation ~O „ S 86,800 _ Depreciated Value of Improvements - $ 1 SO~2QQ 'As.la' Velue or Silo Improvements - $ S Ono INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACHI . , . , , , , , , , , - S ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.i COMPARABLE NO,2 1000/31/2/26 1000/31/2/27 COMPARABLE N0.3 Address 7735 Main Road. 7835 Main Road 7970 1000/31 Main /6/32.1 Road 1000/31/3/17 'rT~~t~~~R11~ 8985 Main Rol, Road Proximitye 10 Subject llI1W1UHlluHlllllI111 ?Ad3?a~c~e?~nt Diagonal across s 1500 Fast sales Price $ [pIIlIIJR11111911 $ ~Il[IIIIIQQII[IIIID $ - 11fIDlli1111M1 ID Price/Gross Llv. Area $ » $ 66 ~IIIIIIIIIII~IIII~lllll $ IIII(ll~llllll~llll(> $ 63 0$ 220 000 Dell and/or ~~TRiIIiR m Inspection 2/94 2/94 7/94 U11111JN11 Verification sources _A3/A Public Records Public Records VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION Public Records Sales or Financing 2 -Story r 1-1 f Adhnimnn (I~~l~l(IIII~IIIf II 1 1 s Adlvumenl DESCRIPTION ((f Adlmtmenl DESCRIPTION Concessions and Attic 2 Story i + 1,500 2 Story 76818 of Sale/Time FQlial r -~,Jjnal ~F, Ual1-'-~--'~ Equa Location NF. Chrnpr N/G Main RrT I~ G /G Main Rrl i --T--- LeeaeholdlFeeSimple Fee GiinOlp Fps G__ I _L1a0l-' P GT rs-- ~'ON ~`/G stn Rc3 t• 10 Site e r =Pc'-.=~1121P_~ Si mot i view Neighbor h Acre 20 A_3,000 33,000 SF Design end Appeal 531 r F_9. ual ~F ual __T ual 120.000 Duality of Construction t~'---i- --ln - i n L+ 5 , 000 }]d Fair Age -Un I __Fgna 1 I one e' 1 Frn to 1 i Condition i _Far~ 1 I qua 1 r------- , 1 ~a I _Fair I+ S 000 Above Grade Told Brims 11.1h, TWO Bdrms Belhe -1 -Eal,~_411] 000 ~ a Room Count nt Tom-'-I Tobl BJrmT Ball's 701.1 Bdmu Belhs I Gross Living Area 2 264 Sq. Fl. F, ----i 2 914 Sq• FL r _ 5000 1,416 Sq. FL r +16 000 3 47-- ( Sq. FI 2q QQQ Basement 6 Finished Rooms Below Grade i 1 Functional Utility _Fair EnLial --i Part , + 5 000 Eql _1 I Heagng/Cooling _Oil-Adequat t Inferior 1+ 5,000 Equal ual Equal Equal Energy Efficient items -aT -a Garage/Carport --r t + r a Porch, Patio, Deck, 270 SF No-~_.r------- 1 ar d r _ 2, 000 n 977 SF Equal EcTUal l Flreplece(a), etc. FP FP FP i FP ~Ila Fence, Pool, etc. None t None r Non--e None A 1I ( None ~1 +30,000 Stn Cottage 1+25 000 None AdJualed Sales Price fIIIjlilflllf'11'Ilullljlll(Illflillllllflllf'IIfl11 IIu11 36 500 hll~+Ihl ~1 is 66000 + - I $ 25 000 Netste (total), I~llll1ll~~LS1IllUW + f ~lll , µ30 000 of comparable 196 500 191,000 $ 217,500 Comments on Sales Comparison (Including the subject property's compatibility to the neighborhood, etc.): 3 2 0 92 - All sales are similar in locati~ aooeal and firnrFiO;^1 sstilit 71Te 4 best most recent ca(maarraables are aSerl ITEM SUBJECT COMPAMOLE NO. 1 ~ - Ile Date, Price and Dale COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 Source for prior sales within yeeroleppiaisel N:7e Fbt7Yi1 None Known None Known Sold 8/92 $200,000 Analysis of any current agreement of sale, opllan, or listing of the subject properly end analysts of any prior sales of subject and comparables wlill one year of the date of appraisal: -1 *~°'arp rn c lpc or ip c of to aubj~': ~~~ble sales within 12, It as ntlted-ab~ for INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPAhISON APPROACH . . . . It . . INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH 11 A IlcabliIEstimated Merkat Flenl $ 1 NIA.. , .Ingo. x cross Rent Multi nor NIA . $ Tills eppraifal Is made 'es Is subject to the repair, alterations, Inspections, or conditions listed below Conditions al Appraisal; araiser was not able to enter subJecl to comptellon pper plans end specificallons. anoli ptalsel residential s not subject T raise. Income N3Xoiaoh is not ties are not tyaically sold based on income generation, Final Aeconclllallow, 1'~r1L12 approach is welcItited most hlaavJ I it des the most accurate e ielJisaticn O rlr~r1112 true aoorc>arh t vat ,p is dependant Upon an accurate s rrwae:nrparw t of rip ia~T rsr3 The pu rpms of Ihb apprebal b to esllmele the merkel value of the reel propedy Ibel Is the eublecl of Ih4 report, besad on the above condlllons and the certification, contingent and tiro ng condlllons, end merkel value definition that sre slelad In the attached Freddie Mao Fmm 100/Fennle Mee Form 10048 (Flevleed-ye-Q t ( (WE) ilic ESTIMATE T IE MARKET VALUE, A9 UEF).RED, OF TIIE f1EAL PROPERTY TIIAT IS TIIE 6UBJECT OF TIIIS REPORT, AS OF d/7A/s)1 I II IB T11~6ATE OF INSPEC710N AND T)I EFFECTIVE OAT OF TIIIS REPORT) TO BE S z05 000 APPRAISER; ~ SUPERVISOFlY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED): SI nature s Ge0 a A. H 6lgneluro 0 Old ® Did Not amner Jr. Karns Bale-t?4eg1LAB41 Aril 22 1995 uele ne or(e nag Inspect Property HIlliSitlllll>LUan4 460 nnnn7Da_ B p- g !B1!-~~-- 11141!_8411111geIIQR /L___--_.._,- maw n. 81814 License 0 U141 IiM RESIUE1411AL AIJIJIIAISA?L itLPUU t ,dear' ,,AIEO SIZE VALUE........... e E Conanord cost Approach (such as, source of coal estimate, ~TIMATED REPROOUC110N CO,SLNEW OF IMPNOVEMEIJTg; slle value, square tool calculation and, for IIUD. VA and FmIIA, ilia estimated remaining economic life of the properly): FI ® S ' E Dwelling Sq Sq. FI ® E - Garage/Cerporl _ Sq. F1 ®S ' Total E9lllnaled Cost Now $ Less Physical I Functional I External a -S Depreciation Depreciated Value of improvements - S 'As-is Value of Silo Improvements ' $ INDICATED VALUE Y CORT APPBD • . ` $ ITEM 1 SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 4 COMPARABLE NO. COMPARABLE NO. - - 1000/31/2/26 1000/31/5/3 Address 7735 Main Road. 11050 Main Road proximity to Subject llllllllllllWiWllllWll InI''t2t''i~/~R33~tTR~m~ipl~elIRReast ll[~lIIDI1llllli E Sales Price E Wll1lltIlWllWI1U S 153,000 IIlIIDllID11111I11ID $ PllcelOross Llv. Area E ra $ 112 ra I~l(Il11111111?~ID S IDIDllIDllll(Il~ S Illl[IIII111111IDI>IlI Dale endlor Inspection 1 99 Vedpcallon Sources _ Public Records _ ADJUSTMENTS DE cmPTION DESCRIPTION (-I It Adjufavud DESCRIPTION + a Adlunment DESCRIPTION I r I-) i Adimrmem VALUE N a Sales or Financing 2. story Concessions & attic •Dele of SeleRlme Equal . Location NF (nrn -r __NIS Main Rd t + 1 , 500_ Leasehold/Fee Simple F e ge ~i mDl e- Fee Simple 1 ' ' - r Silo 1 Equal Acr View Nei hborh Equal Design and Appeal Fair Fuual T i t ' Quality of Construction pa j r Fn~1,31 r l r- Ape -aa Equal Condition F /,A_,r rood - T Above Grade 7md Bdrmf Belhf Total Bdrmf Deihl I Total Bdrms Belin I Total Bdrmf Belhs r If Room Count Gross Living Area 2 269 Sq. Ff. 1 362 6q. Ff• ' ,1000 Sq. Ff. r Sq. Fl. r Basement & Finished Rooms BelowBrade 11 Part i + 5,000 Functional Utility Fair E4ual Healing/Cooling oil-AdequatE Equal Energy Efficient Items SUMn WLnJ3,S Equal Garage/Cerpod 2 me car c trl -10,000 t _ None ' Porch, Patio, Deck, 270 SF Flrepiace(s), etc. FP Equal Fence, Pool, etc. None None None t +30 000 Adjusted Safes Price Net Adj. (total) . ~ll~llllllllllllllllll~~l + III 1(II1= 207 50 l~ ~11111I~11 F $ of Comparable Comments on Sales Comparison (Including the subject property's compatibility to Ilse nelplsbotlrood, REM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.I COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 Dale, Price and Data Source for prior sales within year of apprslsel Analysis of any current agreement of sale, option, or Haling of the subject properly and analysis of any pilot sales of subject and comperables within one year of the dale of appraisal: INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 11- INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH It A licabls Esllmsled Markel Rent $Ohio. x Gross Rsnl Multiplier _ - S This appraisal Is made 'as Is. subject to lice repairs, Dilatations, Inspections, or conditions listed below subject to completion per plans and specifications. Conditions at Appraisal: Flnai Reconclllation: a The purpose of this appraisal Is to estimate the market value of the feel property that Is the subject of title report, based on the above conditions and the certification, contingent and kmiling conditions, and market value definition that ere staled In Ilia attached Freddie Mac Form 439/Famde Mae Form 10048 (nevised 1. 1 IWE) ESTIMATE TIIE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS WE SUBJECT OF 7111S REPORT, AS OF (WIIICII IS THE DATE OF INSPECTION AND TIIE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ntiponl) 70 BE Of VISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED): APPRAISER: Slanaluro Signature 0 Did Did Not Name Name Inspect Properly Dale Report Signed Dale Report Signed Stele Cerllncatlon a State state cerlincation a Stets 61a1 Ic nso Of Stale Of State Llcenee rT Stele rr'ddte Ren Fn,m m A-e9 m nu PME 7 111 a Feonte Mae Form 1004 a-9 S [LB ,L c r P Ii O Q~~1 P I~ J FRONT VIEW ^4l REAR VIEW ~y~n^ /1 a: a , e i ^ • • COMPARABLE SALES / RE: 1000/31/2/26 j rvANIE: John Porfiris SALE#1 scrMa1000/31/2/27 ADD, 7835 Main Rd. SALE PRICE:5 160,000 DATE OF SALE: 2/94 r SALE #2 ' II I SC mm 1000/31 /6/"17.1 - ADD: 7970 Main Rd. SALE PRICE: 5 125, 000 DATE OF SALE: 2/94 SALE #3 scrnaa 1000/31 /3/17 ADD: 8985 Main Rd. SALE PRIcE: s 220 , 000 DATEOFSALF: 7/94 I 1000131 /2/26 ) NAME.: J. Porfiris r \ f) SALE#4 WON 1000%31/5/3 "nrn I;~u ADD: 11050 Main Rd. ,SALF PRICE: S 153,000 DATE OF SAI,E: 1/94 1. Wit- 2qC ' ~ •y~. , .I- Aw lam, E ~V ~ ~P ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ \ \?W ~ ~ a r°°'•. \ > a ~ I._ \ .t \ y... ~ ComP..f • o•~f Y a ~ !,I ~ 3 +-y i01 Y c\~ \ a ~ r , . \ ~F' Imo' ~ ~ - ' ~ e ' / ~I . ~ y\' ? •JC+ , \\.WW \ a.>? W LOWt `v.\ 16 S • y \ ~ \ ~ 111 \ ~ t \ ~ a ar.m ou a Como 3 , •Y ~ ~ sse ss .c ~ \ - _ i 7T t 10 CExCTEei / MARION L<Kf 4 /N12 r\.•• e~~G1p ~f~\` TOWN OF S.,ourr~ccc ESUELJE MARION LAKE 16 / t _ ~y~ f t + y, . ~ yob ` / - C c SUFFOLK >c.. or SOUTHOLD b_ l7- I~ _ -.=1~ • _.u• Y O r ~ !Real Properv ? Service Agency ~•+•ssen o._.~ w. , .eu o.~. ~.,..K.w IOOO 03 . I ~ .ua a •.a DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best inter- est; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in temts of cash in U. S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions' granted by anyone associated with the sale. "Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or transaction. Any adjustment should not be cal- culated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment. STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification that appears in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions: 1. The appraiser will not be responsible for natters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title to it. The appraiser assumes that the title is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render any opinions about the title. The property is appraised on the basis of it being under responsible ownership. 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch is included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size. 3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject site is located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area. Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination. 4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the property in ques- tion, unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand. 5. The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improve- merits at their contributory value. These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunc- tion with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used. 6. The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depreciation, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) that would make the property more or less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or war- ranties, express or implied, regarding the condition of the property. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because the appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be con- sidered as an environmental assessment of the property. 7. The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions that were expressed in the appraisal report from sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be true and correct. The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties. 8. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal i-raciice. 9. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that is subject to satis- factory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a workmanlike manner. 10. The appraiser must provide his or lieu prior written consent before the lender/client specified in the appraisal report can distribute the appraisal report (including conclusions about the property value, the appraiser's identity and profes- sional designations, and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser is associated) to anyone other than the borrower; the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; the mortgage insurer; con- sultants; professional appraisal organizations; any state or federally approved financial institution; or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia; except that the lender/client may distribute the property description section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s) without hav- ing to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent. The appraiser's written consent and approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media. Freddie Mac Form 439 6-93 page I of 2 Fannie Mae Form 1004B 6-93 XPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that: 1. 1 have researched the subject market area and have selected a minimum of three recent sales of properties most simi- lar and proximate to the subject property for consideration in the sales comparison analysis and have made a dollar adjustment when appropriate to reflect the market reaction to those items of significant variation. If a significant item in a comparable properly is superior to, or more favorable than, the subject property, I have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales price of the comparable and, if a significant item in a comparable properly is inferior to, or less favorable than the subject property, I have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable. 2. 1 have taken into consideration the factors ilia( have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in the appraisal report. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the appraisal report are true and correct. 3. 1 stated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opinions, and conclu- sions, which are subject only to the contingent and limiting conditions specified in this form. 4. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is (lie subject to this report, and I have no present or prospective personal interest or Was with respect to the participants in the transaction. I did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of tie subject properly. 5. 1 have no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property, and neither my current or future employ- ment nor my compensation for performing this appraisal is contingent on the appraised 'value of the properly. 6. I was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of file value estimate, the attainment of a specific result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal. 1 did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan. 7. I performed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective dale of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply. I acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market is a condition in (he defini- tion of market value and the estimate I developed is consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood sec- tion of this report, unless I have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section. 8. I have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties listed as comparables in the appraisal report. I further certify that I have noted any apparent or known adverse condi- tions in the subject improvements, on the subject site, or on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject prop- erty of which l am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of (lie property value to the extent that I had market evidence to support them. I have also commented about the effect of the adverse condi- tions on the marketability of the subject property. 9. I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the appraisal report. If I relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals in lire performance of the appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report, I have trained such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by (Item in the reconciliation section of this appraisal report. I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in the report; therefore, if an unauthorized change is made to the appraisal report, I will lake no responsibility for it. SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: If a supervisory appraiser signed the appraisal report, he or she certifies and agrees that: I directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certi- fications numbered 4 through 7 above, and am taking full responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: _ _ APPRAISIT l / SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only if required): Signanme:~~~ Signature: Name: Geo A. Ileniner. Jr. Name: Date Signed: April 22, 1995 Dale Signed: State Certification _ AkQ00007083 _Slate Certification # or Slate License ---or State License Slate: New York State: Expiration Date of Certification or License: 01 /19/97-_Exphation Date of Cetification or License: ® Did O Did Not Inspect Property Freddie Mac Forin 439 6-93 Pape 2 of? Fannie Mile Form 100411 6-9; O `Hahn Realty 120 Front Street Garde?t J = Greenport, NY 11944 P.O. Box 744 (516) 477-0551 F 1 Kq 1310 May 7,1996 Fax (516) 477-2416 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals, Town of Southold Southold Town Halt P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re.: Application No. 4373 - Variances (Ronald J. Mayer) Premises: 50 Rocky Point Road (AKA 7735 Main Road) East Marion, New York 11939 SCTM# 1000-31-2-26 State of New York County of Suffolk Dear Mr. Goehringer: Pursuant to your request of May 1, 1996, please accept this correspondence as written confirmation of my Opinion of Value of the above captioned property. Further, I depose and state, I have No Ownership Interest in the subject property. My credentials are some twenty plus years experience as Mortgage Officer at Southold Savings Bank and subsequently, North Fork Bancorporation. Since my retirement in 1992, I have been actively engaged as a Licensed Real Estate Broker in the evaluation and analysis of residential and commercial real estate for both the resale and rental markets in the Township of Southold. In my opinion, as addressed in my May 1st presentation to you and your fellow Board of Appeals members, the three scenarios of current market value are as follows: 1. "As Is" Condition of house facing Main Road is Non-Habitable. This classification is assigned because at present there is neither a working bathroom or kitchen and the rest of the dwelling is in a state of general disrepair, because of the condition it was left in by prior owners. The price range would be $125,000 to $139,000. If basic r i refurbishing including kitchen and bath is accomplished the price range of $139,000 to $150,000 would be applicable. 2. The rear dwelling facing Rocky Point Road at present has a minimal estimated value of $10,000 with no practical legal use. As you know legally it is a non-habitable accessory structure. However, this dwelling as constructed is a usable 2 family house. If the Board of Appeals allows this past 2 family use to continue, my estimated value would be $100,000 added to the value of the front house and property. 3. Board of Appeals approves Ronald J. Mayer's application for a variance to the code to subdivide into two parcels each with a single family C.O. A. Parcel 1 - 97735 Main Road, East Marion with improvements, the fair market value would be in the range of $120,000 to $125,000. B. Parcel 2 - 50 Rocky Point Road with conforming 1 family layout - the fair market value would be in the range of $85,000 to $99,000. My opinions as set forth would only be appropriate for the resale market for a period of 90 to 180 days from the date of this letter. Should you have any additional questions that are within the sphere of my professional expertise, it would be my privilege to be of assistance. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, Ly da Lee Spangel Licensed Real Estate Broker cc: Richard F. Lark, Attorney At Law r~ 17 1, 1 Barbara Pfanz & Robin Imandt i 7835 Main Rd. APR 3 0 W East Marion, NY 11939 am. April 27, 1996 Gerard P. Goehringer, Chair Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold, NY Dear Mr. Goehringer, We are aware of application 4373 to subdivide the property west of our house on the NE corner of Rocky Pont Road and the main road. We have no objection to sub dividing the property as long as the houses are zoned as one family houses. Sincerely,, d' A 4-11 Barbara Pfanz r+ APR 3 i April 25, 1996 Board of Appeals Town of Southold, N.Y. To Whom It May Concern: On the subject of the residence at 50 Rocky Point Road, East Marion, N.Y.-- I have no objection to the land being made into a one family home, nor do I object to the piece of land that it is on, being sub-divided. I was unaware that when Mr Porfiris rebuilt the old garage area into an upper and lower, that it was illegal. We had no problems with anyone that he had rented it out to. So, as mentioned above, I have no objection to the future plans of that piece of property. Thank you, Sin Orly, II eor /o ton 320 Rocky Point Road East Marion, N.Y. 11939 GEORGE M. SIDERAIQS ~n~a r 230 in Road W" N.Y. 11939 i jil ppg 29M April 23, 1996 VIA FACSIMILE (516) 765-1823 and REGULAR MAIL Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attn: Mr. Jerry Goehringer Re: In the Matter of the Petition of RONALD 1. MAYER Dear Mr. Goehringer: This letter is written in opposition to the Petition by Mr. Mayer requesting an area variance to subdivide his property into two residential lots. I understand that a hearing on this Petition will be held before the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold on Wednesday, May 1, 1996 at 8:05 pm. I have been an adjacent property owner for many years and knew the prior owner of the lot. It is my understanding that Mr. Mayer purchased this lot at auction and had put the homes up for sale immediately. I strongly believe that Mr. Mayer purchased this lot to take advantage of a potentially significant return on his initial investment, if permitted to usurp the mandates of the Town Zoning Code. Granting a variance so that the property could be used more profitably is of concern to me for various reasons. First of all, I believe that the proposed use will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. This is a neighborhood consisting of single family homes on somewhat substantial lots. I, as a property and homeowner in this neighborhood, pay taxes and have a value assessed on my home and property. I am of the opinion that the granting of this area variance will have a detrimental effect on these factors. Second, the granting of this area variance will permit Mr. Mayer to sell his single piece of property to two families whereas before the property was owned by one family. As a result, the original layout of the neighborhood changes thereby altering it aesthetically and perhaps increasing traffic. Lastly, I am seriously concerned of the practical effect that the granting of this area variance will have on future requests by new or existing neighbors. I believe that if Mr. Mayer is granted a variance, this decision may set a precedence encouraging the part and parceling of other lots in the neighborhood for the economic advantage of the seller/investor and to the detriment of neighboring owners. I strongly urge the Board to consider whether Mr. Mayer's difficulties or hardships are self-imposed in order to take advantage of a good deal for a "quick turnaround" and to balance that consideration against the significant adverse effects this variance may have on adjoining property owners such as myself. Thank you for your courtesy in considering my objection. 4VVege uly you rs, M. Siderakis s ~ April 16, 1996 Richard F. Lark, Esq_ P.O. Box 973 Main Road Cutchogne, NY 11935 Re: Appl. No. 9373 - Variances (Mayer) Dear Mr. Lark: Please substitute the attached Agenda of Hearings which was slightly expanded from the version mailed to you early yesterday. (As usual, we have added copies of the building permit file for information and board member information.) Also as a reminder, the Affidavit of Posting should be signed and returned for our file not later than the date of the hearing. Please feel free to stop by call our office a day or two before the hearing for updates or review of the complete file. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski MaryAnn Cybulski Noreen Frey Enclosure ~~~gOFFOC,~C ~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS hZ` Oy~F c Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman yy am 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio. Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 Lydia A. Tortora Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 15, 1996 Richard F. Lark, Esq. Main Road, Box 973 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re: Appl. No. 4373 - Ronald J. Mayer (Variances) Dear Mr. Lark: Please find enclosed a copy of our Agenda of Hearings for our upcoming meeting on Wednesday, May 1, 1996. The hearing is scheduled for 8:05 p.m. and has been forwarded for publication by our department in this week's issue of the Long Island Traveler newspaper. Two Poster signs are also enclosed. These signs should be displayed as soon as possible on a post, tree, fence, or front of a building within 10 feet of both front property lines and remain displayed for at least seven days. Please feel free to call us if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Linda Kowalski Enclosures 0 0 BOARD OF APPEALS:TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -----------------------------------x In the Matter of -the Application of ------------------------------------x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, , residing at New York, being duly sworn, depose and say: That on the day of April, 1996, I personally posted property known as by placing the Town's official poster sign ten (10) feet, or closer, from the front property lines where it can easily be seen from the streets, and that. I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the public hearing (date of hearing noted thereon to be held May 1, 1996.) Dated: April 1996. (signature) Sworn to before me this day of April, 1996. Notary Public APR 3 p M I L% BOARD OF APPEALS:TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -----------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of CONFIRMATION OF POSTING I,' .tnclc SCl,nc~~ residing at\ .~~n l pZ { `(e1II, V ~~~c4y , being duty sworn, depose and say: That on then, day of 19* , I personally posted the property known as y o;n~12~Ntcv.~c{L NY" by placing the Town's official poster Notice on either a stake, fence, or other post near the driveway entrance into the property, on the applicant's property where it can be easily seen by passersby, and that the poster has remained in place at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public hearing (date of hearing noted thereon to be held Nan 1 1996.) c Dated: 1996 c (nature) Sworn to before me this 29th day of April, 1996 F~" Lzj Notary Public No.9 Pobio, of New York No. X836190, Sulfa9c county Cam~Mbn E mkee Oct 31,1'999 ^r APR 2 21996 7:30 p.m. Appl. #4374 - FRANK AND LOUISE 7:50 p.m. Appl. #4377- PALUMBO. This is an ap- DANIELE DUPUIS. This is 8:05 p.m. Appl: #4373- plication under the Southold an application requesting a RONALD J. MAYER. This is Town Zoning Code Article Waiver under Section 100-26 an application for a variance XXIV, Section 100-244 as of the Zoning Ordinance, based based upon the Building amended 11-28-95 (which re- upon the Building Inspector's Inspector's March 19, 1996 moved former subsection C March 21, 1996 Notice ofDis- Notice of Disapproval issued thereof pertaining to former approval, in which applicant under Article IIIA, Section code setbacks for former sub- was denied a building permit 100-30A.2 whereby applicant divisions), for a variance based to construct a one-family applied for a building permit upon the issuance of the Build- dwelling. Under Article II, Sec- for permission to convert ex- ing Inspector's March 22, 1996 tion 100-25A enacted l/I/96, istingseparate building for one- Notice of Disapproval to con- the subject lot is substandard in family dwelling occupancy, struct a new dwelling with in- size and has been held in com- and/or to create a separate par- sufficient side yard setbacks. mon ownership with an adjoin- cel containing less than the re- Location of Property: 3200 ing lot, 1000-137-1-14, re- quired lot area, width and depth Sound Drive, Eastern Shores ferred to as M.S. Hand Com- in this R-40 Zone District. Subdivision Lot #108, bined Lots# 105, 106, 107, 108 Building permit #12554Z is- Greenport, NY; County Tax (improved with a single-fam- sued 8/27/83 indicates the Map Parcel No. 1000-33-1-7. ily dwelling). Applicant alter- building inspector granted per- The requirements are for total natively will provide a more mission "to construct two-story side yards of 15 and 20, with a equal lot size by enlarging the non-habitable accessory build- total of 35 feet on this 27,400 dwelling lot (adding M.S. Hand ing." Location of Property: s.f parcel. Lot #105 to the lot now con- 7735 Main Road, East Marion, 7:35 p.m. Appl. #4375 sisting of #104 and #103). The County Tax Map Parcel 1000- BRUNO AND FELICE subject property for which a 31-2-26, a corner lot, contain- SEMON. This is an applica- waiver is requested is identified ing a total area as exists of tion for a variance under Ar- as County Tax Map Parcel No. 25,210 square feet. Addition- ticle XXIV, Section 100-244B 1000-137-1-15, located along ally, the building as exists will of the Southold Town Zoning Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, not conform to yard setbacks Code, based upon the issuance NY; also referred to as M.S. for a principal dwelling and of the Building Inspector's No- Hand Combined Lot Nos. 103 additional variances are neces- tice of Disapproval dated and 104. Zone district: R-40 sary for approval as a principal j March 22, 1996 regarding a Residential. dwelling conversion. permit to construct addition to 7;55 p.m. Appl. #4376- The Board of Appeals will existing dwelling with insuffi- SCOTT A. RUSSELL & at said time and place hear any cient front yard setbacks. The AND. This is an application and all persons or representa- present code requires 40 ft. for requesting a Waiver under Sec- tives desiring to be heard in the both front yards. tion 100-26 of the Zoning Or- above applications. Written Location of Property: 3665 dinance, based upon the Build- comments may also be submit- Parkview Lane, Orient, NY; ing Inspector's March 14, 1996 ted prior to the conclusion of County Tax Map Parcel No. Notice of Disapproval, in the subject hearing. The above 1000-15-1-35. Green Acres which applicant was denied a hearings will not start before BOARD OF APPEALS Subdivision Lot #7 containing building permit to construct a the times designated, and are TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 22,000+-s.f one-family dwelling. Under in addition to other hearings. It 7:45 p.m. Appl. #4378-JO- Article II, Section 100-25A is recommended that the file(s) NOTICE OF HEARINGS SEPH CORRETTI. This is an enacted I /l/96, the subject lot be reviewed before the sched- application for a variance un- 1000-136-1-19 is substandard uled date of the hearing for up- NOTICE IS HEREBY der the Southold Town Zoning in size, is referred to as Eugene dates or new information. If GIVEN, pursuant to Section Code, Article XXIV, Section Heights Lots 78 & 79 fronting you have questions, please also 267 of the Town Law and the 100-244B for permission to re- along Oak Street, and has been do not hesitate to call 765- Code of the Town of Southold, duce front and rear yard set- held in common ownership at- 1809. the following applg' ations will backs for a new dwelling on ter 1983 with an adjoining lot, Dated: April 15, 1996. be held for pubpic hearings be- which was deemed to have 1000-136-1-29, referred to as BY ORDER OF THE fore the SOUTHOLD TOWN more than one front yard. The Eugene Heights Lots 4111 and SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS, at the code requires a 40 ft. front, 50 # 112 fronting along Harbor BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall, 53095 ft. rear and 15 and 20 side yard GERARD P. setbacks on this 21,200+- s.f. Lane, at Cutchogue, NY. The Main Road, Southold, New total combined ined lot lot area a is less GOEHR[NGER, Chairman York 11971, on WEDNES- parcel located at 2285 than 40,000 s.f. and less than By Linda Kowalski DAY, MAY 1, 1996, com- Westview Drive, Mattituck, IX-4/18/96(72) NY; County Tax Map Parcel 150 lot width. Zone District: R- mencing at the times specified below: No. 1000-107-7-1.1. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ss: Joey Mac Lellan, being duly sworn, says that he is the Editor, of the TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suf- folk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Traveler-Watchman once each week for weeks successively, commencing on the ...,19.~ day of ...............yC~.............. Z Sworn to before mme' this If day of ,19.9.. Notary Public BARBAPA A. SCHNEIDER NOTARY PU4LIC, State of Nevi York Nc. ^845346 Qu if'e.i in Su,ialk County ComuJssiun Expires 8/8r/9b FORM NO. I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N. Y. BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) N° 12554 Z Date ~~liw.......~... 19. Permission is hereby granted~ .........~..Q-........~.....f................ ~ lR. . . at remises located at p County Tax Map No. 1000 Section .:...Z. j......... Block ...,2......... Lot No... .4V pursuant to application dated .........441Y~n ....°L~ 19?. and approved by the Building Inspector. QQ L Fee 3... .....i.......... Ll Building Inspector Rev. 6/30/80 A( uednooo osn Pue' P2PUa;uI'`q ; Aousdnooo pue osn Eu[lstxg •e ubt;brit ~ttd5 06s6ddld'jd'K6ui:doSac6, p"uy'ash papuayut'pua sastwwd,Jo, Cduednooo'-pue asn 8uilsixo a;e1S 'Z OUPIN): ldjI............ .6N dt+W polt.q , , • , • uotstn[ PqnS '31ddtg,l.: ubtldaS 0001 roN•:duW xey,¢lunoD 1d1 ~f1 laail$`. zaqumN asno H FL, t- ~Clt auopibq,gtm )IIOAx,posod6id~goigm uo puet3o uo11eoo7 .t CL C/ . . . . .ON asuaorI s,apeiy I9til0 T--D -eyl r S ? L S 'ON asuao[Z s,uetotzloalg . .G.E. S . •oN.asuaoq s,iagwnld V Z 'ON asu=,i s,.[aplmg 00o1136'alelodto0 Jo 01111 Pue MN) •166UJ6 pa3[16ipne',itnp'3o oinleugm `uotleiodioo a st lueottdde •lt (poop" i~aiut'[d 1161 xei:agj Lio. se)' . :;,i,cA-+ • •~•vvx,t sastwaid jo iaumo 3o auieN rapliriq ~b'[5gi8Htlt"d~tbi11b2j~'`ifilbsiitio6'tesava8 `laautSua'yba)nt51e `)uoft"`24ssa(i`taumo)sl:lueotldde laglagm,olelS (stiu'6gah~ jws9blppt titu'ik)I (UiSijt3ibd4bb'u~',lt'`ailtf?if' [H``jititbttdtl~ 3b'alhlu'itEtt;+) sub[jbad§ut, S[essaoaU'[b3 ssutpttnq.ut pue sostwaid'uo sioloadsut pazuoglne ltwpe 40uL `stiHi}p~N9a3'~u?i `a~itib 9titfrtibq `ajfbd'8u[ptthq,`sabUUUtptb sM'el'aigebtldd~ I1e gltm`Aldiuoo of saai8e:lueogdde aqt; pagildsa~~ d~b.[bi},sq `d84kjbwb 1l6,1~ebwbl' aOJ sd 'siiMILilbli ib subt;tppe `sSutpltnq: jw a tlonilsuoa agl, joy Isuo grInSmd [o sabu~ut~iiij l01191(yL~1~lt jb4jb'tiitf# *b t Matt `~lUUb~+~tib33nS` `pibglnbg: to ume ll aql' do, aoueutp.[0, auoZ gutPltng ayj oi'luilrl~t ihltli}ia~2Ui ith iti'3d'a6dL+ti5s5 0113 ~o; lUaui)YedbQi eittpltYlg atil' dl[ gavw. Cgi32IdI3 3I1 AIOIJdOI IddV •iolbod§ur autpgngl oqj, Aq, polueig uoaq aneq' IPTJS Aouedn9'lt1UH'ib'A2jhi{;tii•as6ditid'6uitioylaud'ut!ro,oloq w ut'p0sn'io,poulhabo oq;Itags Sutptmq ON - a •itibm aitl' lnogeho[gl' ubtloadsUt! [bg atget[ene s0s[wa.[d aq; uo 4da3t: aq [tells ;iu[:[ad' gbhi •jtii b}tddio ql' 6j' ltiu4b~f 9uiol ft a ahssv IIt'M`.[o)bodSur 8u[pling, oqj! `uoi aogddb stgli 3o tenoidde uodjl •p •;Y[klibd 9iit&'fi 3'6' obfttnsst' oio3'aq paoUotiulbb aq, lou, Cew; uotlebtld'de styy Cq pazanoo- itaom aq I o •uo11eo -tjdda sl'gj' jo;Yi'd st t{oit{9 uiu[ >;ip' atj'; ub umeip oq lsmu Al'x'adoid 3'olnoAel 3o' uo4dirosop pop ape 8arn18 pue `sea.[i: .10 slaazjs oilit4t'd Yo sos. oid &Yr&6(pi<' 6'l' d!t W640j'ar `Sastutaid uo'sgu[ptMq 3o pue' lol, 3o uo[leoor Butmogs ueld lold'q' a1rti1Sa1to5 6l Eirtpio6ou aa•d -oleos of utrd lord alemooe"suerd jo slos. g trltm'ioloadsul du.p6d ail' 61 o' ibYl'&4 iq p'aY'l4u qM pu'f > ul ut i6 saipmodil Aq. ur pQMj Ajol'atdiuoo aq, lsnw uot;eotrdde stttL e SmO't.LOn',alsNf r DW94415NMIflit[ 90:1 NOI-LVJf iddd (ioloodsul 8utpling) 'Y ale pano.tddes[Q ' SSj~1 'bN ltuuad •tg6I l e ..1~ etyY~ Panoiddd i• : JS~ST ~::yii ti8tt diiidt+ ~~61 Pautwexg LLM WN'010HIMS IIVH NMOI 1NJWllibddlj €iNltl` M9 MOHAOS AO NMO1 l `bN WN6d • 3. Nature of work (check which applicab: New Building Addition........ Alter ion . Repair Removal , Demolition Other Work J4C~~h~l S G (Description) 4. Estimated Cost .:`3S r P710............................ Fee (to be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units Number of dwelling units on each floor - If garage, number of cars - . 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use ' . . r 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front /.G Rear (P Depth AS Height Off . L Number of Stories ..Z Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front /.4 Rear y S . Height .....?A Number of Stories ...Z.-,CTA~rq).......... Depth W Jr.- .6 . 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stories .........7 . 9. Size of lot: Front ......9. } Rear 9./.. 7 l...... Depth .4 10. Date of Purchase . LSD; c.. `p (o. • • • • • • • • • Name of Former Owner . 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated . R_L4 ~cQ-. ..kQ. G . 4 1 • ' • • . • • . • • • • . • • • • . • . 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation: f V_. 7 13. Will lot be regraded Will excess fill be removed from premises: Yes X No 14. Name of Owner of pre ises Address r . H:XPhone No Name of Architect Address Phone No............... . Name of Contractor ~,Rp. ~CASLn. 6 K- Address h: ` • Phone No. 7j `Y..- (P JF? 3.... . PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and, indicate all set-back dimensions from property lines. Give street and black number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or corner lot. STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF Sc1.FU 4 lC . S.S being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named. He is the (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this Gl~ . ..........dayof..... .......,19. Notary Public, LINDA F. KOWALSKI ` NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Yor1 No. 52-4524771 (Signature of applicant) Qualified in Suffolk County Commission ind ExAires March 30, 19& _ - f. a. ~L~d-i_~` -_~-,ti~.t•~ .t.c.v~clt.W `F#-Y~}..~ n_ ~ e.~.~.r.-~~..~~•..;31~t '~-v.~y~... p..a t~ .#-.t~~,.~..n.•..cl ~s ~ ;~T9~! i+-.,,~w~• (~..a,~~•~,,,.c.,~(.c. t,{.. ~iJ,,, n a~ ~IJti.c*",~~ d-~t•.c-.e(w.. ,,k1..itwE,-~q ~t,.d,t••-~ /?t iw~ .R,. ~G. a t .4.' j~.c•+1 \_..l~t- i?'L - 4 . If..4 ~..d. •y~ ~rG1.tir~ ~,y„~j.~? If 0~ Qr `...rY'~ 1-~l. ({/j~~Lt: n A..tl..l...nn /f~~ ~ /L M"•~ C-Gi.GLvi ~i AL ~h^'Cr ~45.. ~ ~+V'~")?-{~.t 11 ~1 .vow. " f ` i lVJ j V x +1 ~-q r cdz S v- u-c +A a LLk rAAA '~o C n5..4M +n+1 kt ~n `1 a " •'r J x., 13 ID ~-A _ CD,_,INSPECTION ATE COMME• y; _ y FOUNDATION (1st)1 FOUNDATION (2nd) SIC 2. I =-.S ~ ~ ~ rte- z ~ w ROUGH FRAME PLUMBING / SS Q N cn a y 3. INSULATION PER N. Y. / 1 STATE ENERGY j CODE x n a 3 C' V 4. y FINAL U' lir uic E ~ z ~ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: G Z ro , H H O ^ s ca a y s 0 T FORM NO. 6 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Building Department Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY Instructions A. This application must be filled in typewriter OR ink, and submitte tor for with the following; for new buildings or new use: d+ieeto the Building Inspec- Final survey of property with accurate location of all buildings, property lines, streets, and unusual natural or topographic features. 2. Final approval of Health Dept. of water supply and sewerage disposal-(S-9 form or equal). 3. Approval of electrical installation from Board of Fire Underwriters. 4. Commercial buildings, Industrial buildings, Multiple Residences and similar buildings and installa- tions, a certificate of Code compliance from the Architect or Engineer responsible for the building. 5. Submit Planning Board approval of completed site plan requirements where applicable. S. For existing buildings (prior to April 1957), Non-conforming uses, or buildings and "pre-existing" land uses: 1. Accurate survey of peoperty showing all property lines, streets, buildings and unusual natural or topographic features. 2. Sworn statement of owner or previous owner as to use, occupancy and condition of buildings. 3. Date of any housing code or safety inspection of buildings or premises, or other pertinent informa- tion required to prepare a certificate. C. Fees: 1. Certificate of occupancy $5.00 2. Certificate of occupancy on pre-existing dwelling / land use --Pre-Existing C.O. $15 .00 3. Copy of certificate of occupancy $1.00 Vacant land C .G. $ 5.00 Date ..-S T •-A / / ;1..... . New Building A(e Y• . • .....Old or Pre-existing Building Vacant Land 1. (7 .-~~h, 5'd Location of Property . • • , ~R ~,Vi of • ! L FCC( YI~• ~!~c v~ House No. I Street Hamlet Owner or Owners of Property , „pf County Tax Map No. 1000 Section , , , , , Block z Lot Subdivision Filed Map No. ..........Lot No. Permit No.`~. Date of Permitt (.?Ilk3.Applicant ~ ~~I' QQ C Health Dept. Approval , , . , , , , .Labor Dept. Approval Underwriters Approval Kkv_ ~'I) , , • • , . , , .Planning Board Approval Request for Temporary Certificate .....................Final Certificate ; ) ; ; • , , , • • • , , • iG0 Fee Submitted $ Construction oabove described building and Permit meets all applicable codes and regulations. ' C 9 ~~t u a 12~ ~ J Rw- io-10-7e FORM NO.4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. Certificate Of Occupancy No..Z A]:5......... Date SePt-.....?....... 1984. THIS CERTIFIES that the building ..AOCessory, .Bldg, Location of Property . 50. , , , , ,Rocky Pt. Rd. East Marion House No. Street t County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ..037 . , , ...Block Q. .........Lot , 026 Subdivision X ..........................Filed Map No. ........Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated June , , 27, , . , , . , 19 $ 3. pursuant to which Building Permit No. _ 12 554Z dated Aug r ?7.......... 19 $ 3. , was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is Two. .Story..NoxxXabhtel. Acgessory, Building The certificate is issued to $ORFIRIS,,,JOHN (owner, leseea~ teRenFJ of the aforesaid building. Suffolk County Department of Health Approval 13-S0- 15.3 UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO t 465A675.,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,.,.,.... ..CLs ~ . . . . . . _ Building Inspector R". 1/81 Jx,1~L~f1 THE NEW YORK BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS BUREAU OF ELECTRICITY 85 JOHN STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038 Date o:.f}FbU'dit , alt 1yk'4 THIS CERTIFIES THAT AI)Plicatiort AN. on fife N (3606 7a only fire electricol equipment as described below and introduced 6y the applicant named on the ,hove application number in the premises of '1""' k'tU'.L'1T1S, WU !tt-C:_" J0,).I11 i ~-j~ ~ 4 I'tillf n,u., 1, in the following location{ L J F~ I Basemen[ (sf FL L 1lnrl Fl. WoseranrinedoFL .Serlion Blork Lot :'J.ILty(y,IUP le, j.voi nndfounrl to he in ron.plia,,,, .i,h the requi,...en fsof this Board. FIXTURE FIXTURES OUTLETS ECEPTACLES SWITCHES RANGES COOKINGDECKS INCANDESCENT fLuoaeuENT - ^~~r OVENS T - DISH WASHERS EXHAUST FANS K W. AMT. K. W. AML K.W. _ AML K_W. AMT. 13 HP _DRYERS _ FURNACE MOTORS FUTURE APPLIANCE FEEDERS SPECIAL REC'PT TIME CLOCKS--- AMT, K. W. OIL __"_P GAS H.P. Na BEII UNIT HEATERS MULTI -OUTLET AMI A.W.G. AMi AMP AMT. AMPS. TRANS. DIMMERS SYSTEMS AMi. H.P. NO. OF FEET AML WATTS SERVICE DISCONNECT NO.OF AMT AMP. ttPE METER S E R V I C E EQUIP. 10 TW 10 3W 3 e 3W 3 0 <W NO. of OC.COND. - A. W G ____PER H OF CC. COND. NO OF HL LEG A W G O . ryO. Of NEUTRALS A. W G f NbIEG OF NEUTRAL l ,.t)U l.~i X I OTHER APPARATUS: It •(.ri,t; rl~xn tuR~:Lcr l..Jriq,, IKA evaLw' heater f.,..1.Uhly., L-tz.F.F.A. iJN/hf: Cite I,t'C Lt.r,Gy L)UX Glu c,JUt.uu1.L1, N.Y. 1I.V71 - 1, LCS#;ty.i GENERAL MANAGER This certificate must not be altered in any manner; return to the office Per- - of the Board if incorrect. Inspectors may be identified by their credentials. COPY FOR BUILDING DEPARTMENT. THIS COPY OF CERTIFICATE MUST NOT BE ALTERED IN ANY MANNER. I`i `izocim337J7 ' ~lV 1 Utlz~ri3ii -I ;~;i? 3U :u3~snang ~~G~ t7 a ;AVS ClOrttn05 9r l01 ~~y rd ansni s ;L1t tvv~ta~vvv • r. v) srrl of aa3invavn~7 did noai =o 1Newnri0vi=0 N GS N . 00 "n'u-10rtino, ~o nneol r C14 x!Z N 'n as,l5 %zinc~, N o ~o N 1 O ..11y'Z IIc 11.•;6 o y~ava YN~ L may}~_ ~{UQ® AIT~tNI(.YI OE gu M CB`QCN MM it A OP IN NEW YTIOM Of LIA* Rq" Oi TMS-SIMVEY MAR NOT RARE r ON LARD RURVEYOR•S Rm TEAL OR In. VA~jtto vD Kam{ 7 /1 $q UpOsim SEAL SNA4 NOT ME CONIIDR~ ' N S'T~ C [O 9 A VALID TRUE copy. } }.r ~ ' PWLRAMEES RiDICATFD NNEON SNAIL MJy H DMt7 TO THE PERSON FOR WNOM TNF OVA x ~ O F LS PREPARED' AND ON HIS EEHALi TO ft ~`7 Y PTLR COMPANY, MOM INSTITUTION LISTED HMO, AMDG CKRSSA'Nl5 t + GOv T~ TO JW AXIOM OE THE LEIDRTO W, V . WJIO* 00ARAMI11% ARE NOT TRAIwI ERAME i , U w MOM Afi d G ~ ta cjuavGyr.0, P702 N CA J> IN P020 W- .5, fi~ ~ A a A13T MIAQ?aQ a TOWU OF 4OUYuOLD,u.Y. N w 6CA 4;- 50' a.r I llutw}OUT EA r~tou E*P', ;k Atytt~B¢ 1. iuttea cQ~+pauY dun F Lke 1415in' LAQ P yUa"Yo¢5 .441 77 1 for water distributing ppprlC?uED AS NOTED I system; piping shall be of types K or L only DATE~. FEE: `I BY: /Lr F _ -i Y(9ar. NOTIFY BUILDING DEPARTMENT AT G 765-1802 9 AM TO 4 PM FOR THE - = FOLLOWING INSPECTIONS: pfyi I r 1. FOUNDATION -TWO REQUIRED } FOR POURED CONCRETE n ! V 2. ROUGH - FRAMING & PLUMBING I { I - 3. INcULAT!ON j + 4. F!t\'AL - CONSTRUCTION MUST I BE r~xAW.'TE FOR C. 0. i I J ALL CI)NISTRUCTION SHALL MEET THE RE0,111REMENTS OF THE N.Y. STATE CONSTRUCTION & ENERGY CODES. NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION ERRORS. - ! , . j y 1 I ¦ (fir P~a.w~ . ~¦t - Iii ~ ~ I i 3 I ~ 1 h ! /J ! f 1. 1: S1: 3° ° J 3~X s 3~3R, 3 She 4 t4 ~o~ p L t~ rr O 4J Cp . 3 ° j 1 r I ) fp y \YI r V ~ J 1 ~yV '1 I ° _~.~a,,, f~-_ 3 ~ = -x:.71 .-2.__-'~___~_~ ,:~.t.;~•-'._^'~_ . - 7'~ E i ILI s II , II ~ ,a d r. i ~ t 71 e Q1 N ~ ~iY1 04 Y l.r v ~ 77 ,.9 v I D ' _AV ~ f! f J ~I Coj - (a--- - C7 4y~4 ! cry I ~ 44~ ) s a I I - I 'i I ~ I I 4~ ~ l i I I~ a I i I: 6 I ~ I !I ! I _ 1: c - F-- o a e I p 1 .9 I ~ • + I Ili s a L i I f I 1 ,S 04 1 I n I ` O I /10 -L~~-1.1[-~ ~1Y.S~IIl1~. G.flI~L_1111 5-- ~ ~ 1 1~ f-A 10 II f 1 4 ~ ti I N 1 y i y `c ry Ll v I 1 t `u i j'. I' 'I I I o N 4! i `i I~1 e`i t r y 4d - - 1_G~.~. - tn_If i i { oS ~ 'j~_ 1 i , ~ ~r o ti V o a r1k 0 ~J ~ F r- ~J V 0 9 • gUFFO(~ C • APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS h~O ~Gy cz Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman y„ 53095 Main Road Serge Doyen, Jr. P.O. Box 1179 James Dinizio, Jr. Southold, New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Fax (516) 765-1823 Lydia A. Tortora Telephone(516)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 1, 1996 S.E. Q.R.A. TYPE II ACTION DECLARATION Appeal No. 4373 Project/Applicants: Ronald J. Mayer County Tax Map No. 1000- 31-2-26 Location of Project: 7735 Main Road, East Marion, NY Relief Requested/Jurisdiction Before This Board in this Project: Convert existing separate building for one-family occupancy and/or to create a separate parcel contauning less than required lot area, width and depth. This Notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. An Environmental Assessment (Short) Form has been submitted; however, Section 617.13 of 6 NYCRR Part 616, and Section 8-0113 of the Environmental Conservation Law, this variance application falls under the Type II classification as established by law. Further, this Department may not be an involved agency under SEQRA {Section 617.13(a) as amended February 14, 1990). Although this action is classified as Type II for this variance application under SEQRA {specifically 617.13, 616.3(j), and 617.2(jj)), this determination shall have no affect upon any other agency's interest or SEQRA determination as an involved agency. For further information, please contact the Office of the Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 at (516) 765-1809. Original posted on Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Town Hall Copies to applicant or his agent and individual board members. Copy placed in ZBA project file for record purposes. gUFFO(~- C~Gy G~ JUDITH T. TERRY = Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK C) z P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Fax (516) 765-1823 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER Oj ~Y Telephone (516) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER ~R0 R~ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK F TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 2 7 i' TO: SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: JUDITH T. TERRY, SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK RE: ZONING APPEAL APPLICATION #4373 OF RAYMOND J. MAYER DATED: MARCH 26, 1996 Transmitted is an application of Ronald J. Mayer, together with Southold Town Building Department Notice of Disapproval, Application for Building Permit, Notice to Adjacent Property Owner, Short Environmental Assessment Form, Questionnaire for filing with ZBA application, Deed dated September 7, 1995, Map of survey, Southold Town Building Department Certificates of Occupancy dated September 27, 1984, and May 22, 1989. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk LARK & FOLTS ATTORNEYS AT LAW MAIN ROAD - P. O. BOX 973 CUTCHOOUE, NY 11935-0973 (518) 734-8807 RICHARD F. LARK MARY LOU FOLTS March 25, 1996 Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Ronald J. Mayer (SCTM #1000-31.00-02.00-026.000) Gentlemen: In connection with the above-captioned matter, I am enclosing the following: 1. Notice of Disapproval from Thomas J. Fisher, Building Inspector, dated 3/19/96 together with copies of the Application for Building Permit and map. 2. Application signed by Ronald J. Mayer, sworn to on March 11, 1996. 3. Notice to Adjacent Property Owners with proof of mailing. 4. Short Environmental Assessment Form. 5. Z.B.A. Questionnaire. 6. Seven prints of the "Map of Minor Subdivision Made for Ronald J. Mayer" prepared by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. dated March 22, 1996. 7. Check No. 2478 of Ronald J. Mayer payable to Southold Town Clerk in the amount of $600.00. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- March 25, 1996 If all is in order, kindly place this matter on the next available Board of Appeals agenda and notify me of the date and time. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Rjfchard F. Lar RFL/bd Enclosures N •3 0 w' !;l l o ° v l M; b jL i t ya K ~I l)I W a7 I 6' v l ail r""), , ~ p Y r ri,~.. I) ~I 1 i VH r ~ Z ,W ~sr i v • e /,;,-yip ~ ~ ~ _ iCp yr^ ~l/ : - ZT ~l ,ti. • N p' o •s I 1 RECEAD MAR 2 6 1996 3/30P l Town Clerk -Soethold TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. DATE March llt 1996 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y, .,,,,(no #_)-,-Little,,.NOxac Path............... I, ( RONALD J. MAYER Naamm.. . e o I A Pp . ellont Street and Number Water Mill ..New York hfEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO. ......N/A DATED ........March 19,. . WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO _Ronald J. Maker Nome of Applicant for permit of (no Little Noyac Path Water Mill New York Street and Number Municipolity State ( ) PERMIT TO USE (X) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY ON LOT SIZE LESS TNAN 40,000 SQUARE FEET (X) PERMIT FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY 50 RockX Point Road East Marion Low Density Residential R-40 . on Zoning ..Map District . rict Street /Hamlet / U . se Dist . District 1000 Section 31 Block 2 Lot 26 .........._.-Current Owner Ronald J. Mayer P r i o r Ow n e r John Porf iris and Niki Porf iris 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article IIIA Section 100-30A.3. and Article IIIA Section 100-30A.2. A.(1) 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropriate box) (X) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chop. 62 Cons. Lows Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal fbtx4 (has not) been mode with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for o special permit ( ) request for a variance and was mode in Appeal No.......... I: A Doted .................N/A.....,............................ REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (X) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Is requested for the reason that Petitioner has discovered that the subject property obtained at a foreclosure sale has an illegal two-family dwelling constructed on it. Petitioner wants to "legalize" the property by subdividing it into two parcels both containing 12,605 sq. ft. and each having a single family dwelling, with setbacks as shown on Exhibit 7 which is attached hereto. Forin ZBt (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued alit t 1..i - I. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because your Petitioner received title to the subject property by a Referee's Deed in Foreclosure dated September 7, 1995, which was recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on September 26, 1995 in Liber 11743 Page 273, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Originally, your Petitioner was a principal shareholder and President of American Mortgage and Loan Corp. who granted the prior owners, John Porfiris and Niki Porfiris a mortgage on September 7, 1989 which mortgage was recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on October 5, 1989 in Liber 15468 Page 472. This mortgage covered the subject parcel as well as other lands owned by John and Niki Porfiris. (CONTINUED ON ATTACHED RIDER) 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shored by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because Petitioner has inherited a very bad situation due to misrepresentations by the prior owners; John Porfiris and Niki Porfiris. Petitioner cannot sell the property in its present state to a legitimate purchaser because building #2 which is a two-family dwelling cannot be legally used as such. The only practical solution is to subdivide the property into two parcels and convert building #2 into a single family house so that both parcels will contain single family dwellings, as 'shown on Exhibit 7 which is attached hereto. 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the proposed division of this. property is in an established residential neighborhood and virtually all of the existing lots are non-conforming as far as lot area is concerned. The proposed variance requested will allow two building lots which are in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood without any adverse or negative impact. FLORIDpP- STATE OF 698944CX~HK ) ) ss ~`4.f........... COUNTY OF -S Et 1thO~e) Signoture . Ronald J. Mayer . Sworn to this day of............,. M arch............................. 19 96 ~oriA\3, ~ • Mtj~s~~so~t\l~ t~ know n{ ~v rn~„ , C COURSON t+t1 frN1YJ14Vligl CfA8Z72Y ~t ,it l +ne~~ 9 BondiodbyKAJ N~ 60022-1666 i 1 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter or the Petition of NOTICE RONALD J. MAYER TO to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold ADJACENT TO: George H. Morton, Jr. and Thelma M. Morton PROPERTY OWNER Barbara Pfanz George M. Siderakis Antone P. Sepenoski, Jr. YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a Variance (~gnxaek~~ffi~se6el$xeamixKkTic) [circle choice] 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: 25,210 sg ft parcel of land at the inter ect;nn of the n r>1pside of Main Road _(N.Y.S Route 25) and the easterly side of Rocky Point Road East Marion. New York (Suffolk Co. Tax Map No. Dist. 1000, Sec. 31, Block 2, Lot 26). _ 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: Low Density Residential R-40 District 4 that hi such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: An area variance to -subdivide the property into two residential lots each with its own dwelling. 5. Th.u the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are Article IIIA Section 100-30A.3. and Article IIIA Section 100-90A.2. A.(1) [ ] Section 280-A, New York Town Law for approval of access over right(s)-of-way. 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a writ ten Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. (516) 7~5-1809. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Board of Appeals; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: March 11, 1996 Petitioner Owners ~Names : Ronald J.-Ma er v Post Office Address P. 0. Box 2029 Bridgehampton, New York 11932 Tel. No. ( 516 ) 537-3842 [Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal to be attached for convenience purposes.] i • PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS NAME ADDRESS George H. Morton, Jr. and 320 Rocky Point Road, Box 313 Thelma M. Morton East Marion, New York 11939 Barbara Pfanz 7835 Main Road East Marion, New York 11939 George M. Siderakis Main Road, P. 0. Box 513 East Marion, New York 11939 Antone P.Sepenoski, Jr. Main Road Orient, New York 11957 a (SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS) STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss.: BARBARA DIACHUN residing at 875 School House Road Cutchogue, New York being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 26th day of March 19 96 deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at Cutchoeue, New York ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) ktrgiziad) mail. Barbara Diachun Sworn to before me this 26th day of March '119 96 1A o o "Z ~ Notary Public N 0lk cmum t, E,,.,A,rclt 7t 1Z~ 7 (This side does not have to be completed on form transmitted to adjoining property owners.) In the Matter of the Petition of Ronald J. Mayer P 393 888 157 P 393 888 158 US Postal Service US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail Receipt for Certified Mail No insurance coverage Provided. No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail See reverse Do not use for International Mail See reverse F no eorge H. Morton, Jr, Seotto nd Thelma M. Morton etB Number 320 Rocky Point Rd treet&Number ox 313 Post Office, State, & ZIP Code Post Office, State, & ZIP Code East Marion NY 11 939 East Marion NY 11939 Postage $ Z Postage $ Certified Fee lJ0 Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee co Return Receipt Showing to m Return Receipt Showing to l U Whom & Dat livered - . t) Whom & Date Delivered a Rehm Rec' p5liowirg to V7nttn, $ Rehm Receipt Showirr~~991~6 Whdn, Dale, 8 dre5see's ¢ Date, & Addressee's Alldless 0 TOTA4 Postage & F $ TOTAL Postagd S fees -M I co I E Postmarkor Date Postmark or Data E 0 LL LL N U) a a I P 393 811111 159 P a43 888 160 US Postal Service us costal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Receipt for Certified Mail Do not use for International Mail See reverse No Insurance Coverage Provided. Sentto Do not use for International Mail See reverse Sent to Street & Number George Street & Number Main Rd Post Office, State, & ZIP Code P. 0. Box 513 Orient- NY 119 7 Post Office, State, & ZIP Code East Marion NY 11939 Postage $ 3 Postage $ 2 Certified Fee f Certified Fee [ V Special Delivery Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee rn Realm Rec 9 wjn0a.. IU Whom& tali Daversd M Return Receipt Showin to ii Rehm eMwi"tp ho WhomBD type 1l, [c) Q Date, AfWassee's Add" n Return R ow* to Wfgm, O TOT kP - ge& s _ 14frr4 -a a Date, & sy6e's s co C - M Postm rk 7paa,1_~I• , 0o TOT +t .ge 8 s 2 E Post ~ro Date { ti 1gGC LL 1 a k • BOARD OF HEALTH FWIVI NO.1 SETS of PLANS . TOWN OF SOIJTHOLD URVEY . . . . BUILDING DEPARTMENT CIIGCR . . . . TOWN HALL SEPTIC FOtttl _ _ , . SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 / TEL.: 765-1302 t:OT I FY ; Examined ,Fi' CALL • • 19 HA I L TO- . . . . . . . . Approved 19 Perm it o.......... . Disapproved a/c`:3 (Building Inspector) APPLICATION FOR BUII DING pr-rgn1!T Date . Mareh 1996 INSTRUCTIONS a. This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector, with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this appli- cation. c. The Work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issued a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall have been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or alterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessa rnsp)ctio "r DAMENE IN NW .t MY DDMMOIDN / DD 422999 • . • • . • . . Dvlats: Nmembx77, te(IB (Signature of a lIcap~rt, or n e, if a corporation) ^ eaXIMaNaoim er27, ax~ttan Ronald J. INaydY P. O: Box 2029, BridgattQton, New York 11932 (Mailing address of applicant) State whetlie a'(iplicant is `owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder. Owner Name of owner of premises Ro.nald. J... Mayer (as on the tax roll or latest deed) 11 applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) to Builder's License No . . Plumber's License No . L•lectrician's License No. r •qV Other Trade's License No . I. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. 7735 Main Road East Marion Ouse Number Street Ilamlet County Tax Nlap No. 1000 Section ; • , 031: 00, , , , . Block ....02.00.... , , • , Lot ,026: Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot (Name) State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of propos d construction a. Existing use and occupancy , .1 one-fatni,ly, ,clvtel.l.i,rlq • two-family dwelling an > 3 t T b. Intended use and occupancy . 3. Nature of work (check which al)&ble): New Building' • Repair • • AddTon Alteration Removal Demolition Other Work 4. Estimated Cost (Description) (t applica 5. if dwelling, number of dwelling units o be paid on filing this tion) Number of dwelling units on each floor . If garage, number of cars 6. If business, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use . 7. Dimensions of existing stnictures, if any: Front Rear • . • . • • • • . Height Depth .........Number of Stories . Dimensions of same stntcture with alterations or additions: Front . , . , , • • • ' • ' • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . Depth ......................Height Rear.................. 6 Number of Stories 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front . Height Rear Depth ••••...Number ofStories . 9. Size of lot: Front . . . . Rear . . . . • • • • • • Depth • • • 10. Date of Purchase .$~ptember- ,7 a 19,95 , • . Depth 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated • .Name of Former OwnerJO . $orfiris • § ,N lei ,Pgrfi ris , Dues pruposed construction violate an • .c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. Will lot be regraded , , , Y zoning law, ordinance or regulation: Mayer ' ' . Addr Will ex g fi r ~~~~pp,ved from premises: Yes No 14. Name of Owner a premises Ronald. Phone No. 537-3892 essr Q qP[id NY Name of Architect . Address Name of Contractor , ' ' ' • ' • • • Phone No. 15. Is this property within 300 feet of a tidaldwetland? * Phone No. *If yes, Southold Town Trustees Permit may be required. No........ PLOT DIAGRAM Locate clearly and distinctly all buildings, whether existing or proposed, and. indicate all set-back dimi..nsions from property lines. Give street and block number or description according to deed, and show street names and indicate whether interior or corner lot. (Spe attached survey of property) ;TATE OF PQX FLORIDA 'OUNfY OF..SEN1N0LE , , , S'S I20NAT,D J. MAYER • . • • ' • ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • being duly sworn, deposes and says that lie is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) bove named. 'e is the ~eY (Contractor, agent, corporate officer, etc.) and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this placation; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the ork will be pcrfonncd in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. worn to before me this k'...:. Ty of March... 199.6 . ~ I ' ' I 3tary Public, (I , ' DAgLENEMCWN t MY COMMISSION / Cc4228W ` t EXPIRES: IRE3: NwxNis Zr, 1885 1 . -l~ t ThFU N" POW Sanaaovembw 7.10%m Ronald J. Mayer (Signature of applicant) 1A-16+177871-~axt :2 PROJECT La. NUMBER I 6Y71~ SEAR Appendix C State Environmentai Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I-PROJECT INFORMATION TO be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) I. APPLICANT ISPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME RONALD J. MAYERMinor Subdivision for Ronald J. Mayer 1. PROJECT LOCATION: MWMIcarity Town of Southold cmFny of Suffolk A. PRECISE LOCATION (Street uIcress and road intmeelons. Prominent lancrnw. etc- w Provide ma.) 50 Rocky Point Road and 7735 Main Road (N.Y.S. Route 25), East Marion, New York IS~Jffolk County Tax Map No. District 1000, Section Q31.00, Block 02.00,0i(126.000) 5. IS P~~ROOOIIPOSED ACTON: Cp N. C Exoa nnan C MddNlntlaNUtsratlan 3. DESCRIBE PROJECT 3RIEFLY. Application for two area variances of 12,605 sq. ft. each and subdivide property into two residential lots. 7. AMOUNT OF 1,11,10 AFFeCED: Inrtlanv 25,210 sq. ft Ultlmaterv25,210 sq. ft. A. WILL PROPOSED AC-.CN COMPLY WITH MISTING ZONING OR OTHER E)IISTING LANG USE RESTRICTIONS? yes ? N. It Na secants. anafly - 3. WMAT IS PRESE14T LANG USE IN VICINITY OF PROJC?-'. UI Restaer l inclusul21 r CPmmereaal I~ ASnGI[grc L_: Pancis.n s rClaan !dace : Cttser Oestrnm 1G. ODES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNOING..NOW OR ULTIMATELY FRCM ANY OTHER GCVERNMENTAL AGFNC. (FEDERAL STATE OR LOCAU? LQyea L: Nd It yes. list agenaylal and oetmluacP am Southold Town Planning Peard - Minor Subdivision approval Suffolk County Department of Health Services - Article 6 approval It. =E5 ANY ASPECT OF THE Ar.T:GN HAVE A =SRENTLY VAUD PERMIT OR APPROVAL? II~~! I-: Yea 2N' II yet :ul awxy naPle add PermlUaPdrayal 2. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE .M tFICATION? C Yes M. I C=,7T1FY THAT'}fE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE 15 TRUE TO THE BEST OF my XNCwl EDGE Due: SI'~//L nyJ. Maver Aaoriaandsconear name: Ronald Signature. it the action is in the Coastal Area. and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER I (Continued on reverse side) The N--'•S. environmental Qualitl Review act raauires submission of this form, and an environmental review will 'we made Ly this part before anv action is taken. SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ?0(LN INS-,RU-IONS: (a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preasrer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not evoected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be under-taken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be sig- ai-;cant and completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that the project is not significant. - (d) Environmental Assessment 1_ Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or ohysically-alter more than 10 aces of Land? Yes a x Na 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form on the sit22 - Yes X No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on an PY`sting body of water? -Yes X No 4., Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? X Yes ~ yo 5. Will project significantly effect drainage flew on adjacent sites? - - _Yes X No o• Will project affect any threatened or endangerea plant or animal species? _Yes X No 7. Will project result in a major adverse e£-°ect on air quality? _Yes IL-No 8. Will project have a major effect on visual char- - dcter of the cammani.tl or scenic views or vistas known to be lmport,-ant to the community? -Yes X No 9. Will pmject adversely impact.any site or st:act- ura Or historic, pre-historic, or peleantologicnL importance or any site designated as a critical envi.re.'smental area by a local agency? _Yes X No 10. Will project have a major effect on existing Or futare receational oomortunities? _Yes X No - 11. Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation svstams? Yes X -.10 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odor _ noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturb- ance as a result of the project's operation? Tea X NO L2. Will project have any impact an public health or safety? _Yes X No 14. Will project affect the e_,cistinq common; by directly causing a growth in permanent popula- tion of more than 5 percent over a one-year v period or have a major negative effect on the -•es X No character of the community or neighbarhood? 15. Is there oublic cantraoersv concerning the project, y t` / _Yes x NO ?raparer's signature: ~=T0¢7C~ - Ronald J. ayer 0ace- 416 23A g~.75 ' 1 , V• 10 ,O t-i O C) III d a n 4) 41 E M Hro I.1 w m N . 7J C: rl At M N (D H, 0 • ID ti , M O m 0 ; o rl it qI p la• t7 on pn Nt4n n Nd io Oqu.A O Q (J to to (D d It O to C7 0' y t-~ O H P w N H H DI (D C rd in r H (D 1-^ O rt ~ O rr tl w In In IC ~j 74 O In D' H n H. t- r al, G J n i {i to Inn. 1J t0 N•.4 1((1f. N N to N O H Pt rt P• to ~4n I70•pO p gyp' P,t4 HrF1141 rF y~y w art pIn ,a 1~. N p rr FG ,q G W tn• (p~pp' z n N N O IN G tl rl p' (p N L4 to ry j (Op to (D z O IJ 14 v ft H °I (D to G 14 N IN' (rUt rNr ID . t+y. VI (p Ll < In ° H n, 0 4 to I F a -IJ (D Pu ' tix,, N IW to m p ft I WW FHp' ti (D z p cP~ pW 4.0 H 'tl to l1 pm in u . rD It In ry1u In ri O p H LA p C t (u td td ~{yy (U p n F+1 H H 'C to b It W O ry 'Q n m ID rd P H E (D O w ID lir to (D n H VI P. U Sd P ri I rt n rn n p ~1Nt1 Iyo tq m N ro ft•1h t cHi P' n rt rv { ~n rt a( p PI. N N In (D N 4 0 H• n w H o to o ~o ro IS N W H p r7 d C j prr rnp ln pP N gry~}(uC dd rtH b rt ri In rn r~ p fD O N N p `a • O O I' H• rt N• ty ((44 t~ • " a r'•_' rt w E - rt N pp rt 0 p pi H[A C) Lr . o t r H',1 0 P• O 0 N N It P - p w DI H w ° rr w N G N td t fl, w, ft p to fn~,• to' N o Ht ~r p ° o (Fn, rtN' ~IA p O a N H10 H top. tr o w. np Diu °~n rrw H n IDN N n o n g Pi 11 t°I F1r°p~rc a W~5 Nn f W rl~r t t fil, N p, rot In In N N o It N npn 1 N w N rt jp z to ppE t N m u C w ri r to O. d p o li H , n N M. w H• p ~j K In - fl 14. C~ o In ( m p (D p to n H O H• (D d N A IT It .11 Ft id to Mt rf N ff t 0 In 11 n tr tY t1' N •n R7 O n 10 1 Jt pE pN i ft H W In Y H Ht p t-'• H, E 11. o I7' ? rt rt I III O (D 'ad th r rt to tl' to C N•,n 0 N 0' 13 ° 1py p rrz(D 0 p Q4 H, HN, t to ~ 1'. 1- rt t~ ~ ro h I1 to N N ,Q P' I rt ~ rt p rt ~ t p O 0 r r tr E Y to p to O w H I'• rt 1'h (D N p k ~r (ti•1 fq w E11 C-10 Nti(D 14(D 4 Hp. to .r p MN to to pN R N H fu to III ft tow 0 w p to N I r N pH~ P.'d N w tC It) (D ft rt z£ s I-t - J H E 11 1- ro 11 1-0 p UW N N 0 > H Gt d N If n N N w ,d W Ii N t~~r p F H V P P• C ' p 1 ,to tl N In b Z I~ to p { w - n It ti I Ir to rt rtt r C p 1tI.1 0 E w I'1 (F~-, t+•x ID N p p H `l (w N N w ft ID IT S - N (D rt n, to P• p i.4 ~j to 10 P' I-1 O Pt t7' 14 III r"• D r7 tj to 1f(uu rW1 t1, 3 lC to IA 11 N 0 a F3 p N In 0 rl- P. to In P (t Iu Ilddnn lNn ttoo lq W 14 Z P n H rr IA N 0 tC ~y to pp tt In I(1] n O I ft rt p 0 N H, W UI ID In p rr O rr II. .(D Ill pp In O In N ti O I'• ft . r 0 ~r 1'• N d , r1 N p~ tt - ( 14 Il H, 1 p ,..t• i O a' It N W 1A JA E o to w gyn. PI to Ili N f• I N I, R a n C t0 i, N P ~0 D 0 ti'l § 97-13 WETLANDS § 97-13 TOWN - The Town of Soutbal3 TRTJS',zP-S - The Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold. (Added 6-0$4 by L.L_ No. 6-19841 W =_-UMS (Amended 8-26-76 by " No. 2-19-4 6: 3-25- 85 by i.I. -No.6-1285j: A 1tDAL WETLAA NTDS: (1) All lands generally covered or intermittently cov- ered with. or which border on. tidal waters or lands lying beneath tidal waters, which at mean low tide are covered by tidal waters to a maximum depth of five (5) feet including but act limited to banks. bogs. salt marsh. swamps. meadows. flats or other low lying lands subject to tidal action; (2) All banks. ham meadows. flats and tidal marsh subject to such tides and upon which grows or may grow some or any of the following: salt hay. black gra= saltwors, sea lavender. tall corcigrass high bush. cattails,~..~g~raundseL rmrsi...ITnvr and low •nv card.~er.`fir^/nr - (3) All land immediate., adjacent to a tidal wa*-land as defined in Subsection A(2) and lying within seven- ty-five (75) feet landward of the mosr landward edge of such a tidal wetland. B. FRESci:rATE-LzwzTL.A:tDS. (1) " Frshwater wetlands- as defined in Article 24. Ti- tle 1• § 24-0107. Subdivisions 1(a) to l(d) inclusive. of Zhu Environmental Conservation lrcv of the State of \e.v York: and All tand immediately adjacent to a " freshwater wet- land.- as defined in Subsection B(1) and lying %vith- in seventy-five (75) feet landward of the most land- `vare edge of a "freshwater wetland:' 9705 1 a1.as El ?2 6271 n 117411273 R EIVED r7p r r; ~ Number of pages $ '600 ~ i 1 TORRENS REAL ESTATE eco ;Gb 1"5 Serial # TRANSFER TAX Certificate # SUFFOLK COUNTY Prior CU. # • 62r11 Deed / Mortgage Instrument Deed/ Mortgage Tax Stamp Recording / Filing Stamps 4 FEES Page/ Filing Fee v Mortgage Amt. _ Handling 1. Basic Tax _ TP-584 2. Additional Tax _ Notation - /J v Sub Total EA-5217 (County) Sub Total Spec./Assn. - EA-5217 (Slate) _ or Spec. /Add. _ R.P.T.S.A. TOT. MTG. TAX - Comm. of Ed. 5 .00 o Dual Town Dual County Held for Apportionment Affidavit + Transfer Tax --boo. ~ Certified Copy Mansion Tax _ Re C The Property covered by this mortgage is or B.opy r will be improved by a one or two family Sub Total L - dwelling only. Other / YES or NO GRAND TOTAL / If NO, see apptgxiale tax clause on page # of this ittWumem a r5: Real Properly Tax Service Agency Verification 6 Title Company Information Dist. Section Block Lot First American Title Ins. ,wlr Company of New York p 1000 031.00 02.00 026.000 Company Name CR# 03101307 Title Number Xs Anthony T. Conforti, Esq. FEE PAID BY: 140 Fell Court Cash Check X Charge Suite 303 Payer same asR&R Hauppauge, NY 11788 (or if different) NAME:Firct American Ti+1 7 S CO WF1 ADDRESS: 889 Ha con A nip RECORD & RETURN TO u tieacl, 7 (ADDRESS) NY 11901 9 Suffolk Count Recording & Endorsement Page This page forms part of the attached Deed made by: (SPECIFY TYPE OF INSTRUMENT) Chris Ann Kelley Referee The premises herein is situated in SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. TO In the Township of Southold Ronald J- Mayer In the VILLAGE E. Marion or HAMLET of BOXES 5 THRU 9 MUST BE TYPED OR PRINI'F:D IN BLACK INK ONLY PRIOR TO RECORDING OR FILING. ~ioia.aneac. 5~ ...pry ~ .efcee's~rheJ in Fweclorwe: • TNIE If A LEGAL INSTRUMENT AND SHOULD aE EXECUTED UNDER SUPERVISION Of AN AnORNEV - THIS DEED, made the 7th day of September nineteen hundred and ninety-five BETWEEN CHRIS ANN KELLEY with office at 131 West Plain St., Riverhead, NY 11901 referee duly appointed in the action hereinafter mentioned, grantor and RONALD J. MAYER IJp/j residing at no# Little Noyac Path ,,q Water Mill, NY 11976 grantee WITNESSETH, that the grantor, the referee appointed in an action between American Mortgage and Loan Corp. plaintiff, and John Porfiris and Niki Porfiris defendants, foreclosing a mortgage recorded on the 7th day of September 19 89 in the of floe of the Clerk oftheCountyof Suffolk In (Liber) -(Rec}-(Reel} 15468 of mortgages, at page 472 in pursuance of a judgment entered at a IAS 1Part XIV term of the Supreme Court onthe 13thdayof November 19 92 and in consideration of Dollars paid by the grantee, being the highest sum bid at the sale under said judgment does hereby grant and convey unto the grantee, ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, being more particularly bounded and described on Schedule A annexed hereto-and incorporated herein by reference. CtIWWIP?rOlt T'~ndf84.: p:n9i~t1~13'~ Vii rlyuul IU v...' If l: .uu.'MMZ ` MrripA 1,^vl~c' ~rnr of yla~IrA Ace{ 't iWiPHM Vtidvn2Kl TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the grantee Ronald J . Mayer and assigns forever, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal -the to first above writte/n. I.: C i . fn pnrence of. ...................................C C..... L S. Chris Ann Kelley Rejcnr STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK. as,: On the 7th day of September 1795 before me came CHRIS ANN KELLEY to me known and known to me to be the individual described in, and who executed, the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that She executed the same. N ary Public JDSEPH W. ABRAMSKI 14@WYN~Oie. State of No Moth Oualffied in Suffolk Co" Cemmktofon Expires February 114.11916 Referee's Deed in Foreclosure SECTION TITLE NO. !LOCK LOT CHRIS ANN KELLEY COUNTYQ(t3(RWtt Of Suffolk TO Recorded Al Request of RONALD J . bIAYER First Amman Title Insurance Company of New Yak RETURN BY AWL TO: STMDAID row or NEW roes wAso OF nne uwaawunn ANTHONY T. CONFORTI, ESQ . Dis&"taar 140 Fell Court First American Tille Insurance Company . Suite 303 of New York Hauppauge, NY 11788 x~s~Nax 11743PC273 , Title No. SCHEDULE A ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the point formed by the intersection of the northerly line of Main State Road with the easterly line of Rocky Point Road (also known as Sound Avenue) which point is 9.42 feet northerly along said easterly line of Rocky Point Road from a concrete monument; RUNNING THENCE along the easterly line of Rocky Point Road, North 12 degrees 52 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 223.55 feet to a point marked by a monument; THENCE along said easterly line of Rocky Point Road, North 9 degrees 43 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 62.20 feet to a point marked by an iron pipe and land now or formerly of Morton; THENCE along said land now or formerly of Morton. North 66 degrees 54 minutes 20 seconds East and passing' hrough a monument, a distance of 91.71 feet to land of Rackett;' THENCE along said land of Rackett, South 12 degrees 14 minutes 10 seconds East a distance of 264.92 feet to the northwesterly line of Main State; THENCE along said northwesterly line of Main State Road, South 54 degrees 55 minutes 50 seconds West a distance of 98 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. T? Qi) 0 N6 ~ 2 9/ I_r-v 2C o \1 V ".~F2STy 3j ~ p W ,e9ic,r a Dy'F!I EHT°c~ (,f,„ 3j9 V rl) 4 \0 /V ti O t4 0 O ~ ~h o~0 0~ ry ,`y0 9~1J 263 F2 SSTY R N 1 ? p ry o~ 25.4 159 r~ C M C ~ S5~°5560",w 98.00 MA /N R 04 D (5. R. 2 S) G!/,.q.QA/VTEEO ONG YTG NOTE ' PECON/C' ABST.PACT - Ai77ER/CA,V AIOA'TGAGE ~LOArV ASSOC. ~/rc BX/STENCE off' 2iGNT ?ONN f N/K/ PO.PFiR/S OF !T/i9YS ~9ivo 0,2 EASE~fEn~Ts OF .2ECO.QO AN y NOT .Sfi'OGV^/ ARE N07 G UA,QANTEEO. c , / OF NEW Y V //V.=.I~ 9 H04 0 ~mP ;/STQ/CT/ODO SECT/ON 031 BZOCe 2 LoT" 26 Z; SuFFOL.K CO41YV ;rY T.9 X /ylAp L I 4SNI JQ EAST A14AJOAl TOWNOF FOUTNOLO S!/FFOG e cO.,,vy, LA N S .E'OBE~T B. /~lOG ZILIAN G/G6NSEG G 4,v0 SU2/~EY0,2, N Y. 5. G /G ° 49/76 ~2o5lvgL /V!/7 VE,14ro XA//7/G F10.NEti1/.Q ~5/6J SB9-026/ oATE Ef F;> ScgGE= -¢p" F/GEc/000-03/-2 26 A!Lil . FORM NO. 4 . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No Z-18045 Date MAY 22, 1989 THIS CERTIFIES that the building REPAIR Location of Property 7735 MAIN RD.& 50 ROCKY POINT RD. EAST MARION N.Y. House No. Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 31 Block 2 Lot 26 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated MARCH 1, 1988 pursuant to which Building Permit No. 16784-Z dated MARCH 10, 1988 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is, REPAIR DAMAGE FROM FIRE ONLY TO EXISTING ONE FAMILY DWELLING The certificate is issued to JOHN 6 NIKI PORFIRIS (owners) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. PENDING - MAY 18 1989 PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED_ N/A Building Inspector Rev. 1/81 l EXtlIBiril" 3 1 101ON bK WUMOL1i nillf-D1NO DtPARiMENf Ulflee of the nulldhim I?tepeelor t own llall Snulhold, N.Y. Ce?lilicale 01 Occupancy fl.I Z17n1'; hnIr . . IIlls ('Fi1111111?S flint fhr huilllb,R . ,J1r•/7n 1Gt Y.y O1tlq, Locaflonof Properly Vtwky. I.1 . . . . . . . . (rd. NmrarNo. RARE Marion ('ounly Tax Map No. IOU() Sccllm, !t 1 I ......muck rhml~f A? 026 .........Lot..... 9,rbtllvl+lort X . ..............I-fled Afnp No. ........Lot No. conforms arbatanllalfy to Ills Apl+llcallon for U1111J1nR peel,,,, helelofdte riled in litla office doled JIrfi9, , ~7 , 1 1q ~,1. (,r,t„ennl to which 11111ldhop Pennll No. 12554z dated M - q ..11.......... 198 3. , will IHSr,ed. and cobfotm! to all of me fequltemenU j' of the applicable prorbloua of the law. 1 he orrupnncy for width thlq certineale is lalued la . Two.Story.Ooe.Eamily.Buildiug........., fhe ceflincale b I+aued to 4 t~1lf l R J f. a4911N JO N'111f, of the aforiteld bulldlll r lluffolk Courtly blp~flnlenl bf Ileahh Appntvnl , l 3-,Gr?-1,5.3, , . , urlul?avva . r: 11EIt9C I1-r1i"CA1hNo 06FRri75. .f Building Impeelot Rev. vat ;r ±r j . I r r jof L/ FORM NO. 4 t--~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. Certificate Of Occupancy No..Z12815 Date Se t. 27 84 ...P ................19... THIS CERTIFIES that the building ..AOCessory .Bldg. Location of Property . 50.. , . , . , .Rocky Pt. Rd. East Marion House No. ...Street . County Tax Map No. 1000 Section Hamlet 0.31 ......Block 0.? .........Lot 026 Subdivision X ..........................Filed Map No. ........Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated . June , . 27, , 1983, pursuant to which Building Permit No. . .1. ...25542 dated Aug,.... ~ 7.......... 19 $ 3. , was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is ...Two. .Stor.y LioA .&dba-.t al. AcGf~ssory. Building . . . The certificate is issued to .....$9RFIRIS,,,JOHN (owner, kssess,- terra AH of the aforesaid building. Suffolk County Department of Health Approval 13-. .......50-153 UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO N¢ 6.Q6 7 5... . ~).1e / ; Building Inspector Rw. 1/81 EXHIBIT s 41%. 1 =MW ALIiAEpN w yMaxw 1! w ? MOM mm OF Tews~r • rfl ~Seb VM;AX EUW, 1 P ce5 Fd 5Y raolw «mi'sutv~v Mir ,ar ~,n,~ z aG o n b m um OR ==ALL NOT r 41 N 16L M 1.01E A VAIb Telfficorr. CGT~e~Y1q -64 N~j[V1 pit to) QOKA?BP HUM, Sxnu Ilyg w• v x ro nt ruso„ roe w,ql, To 12 0 M Iw ue1sANW,uaar,xlseruuTO *A 1 MW AWAW. CAY9NM NTAL AGOM AM NO O QEISII M I MOM Mftg'ON LIST® MOON, AM eh;, U • SQ M AMOMM Or THE LacoG MINI ' ` OWN OVAP TM ARE NOT AAIp~ARg N N O~ ^ L KTNIR,(I!~ M CI MGIAUfM to ~Wmft A1C ~ isiayi a ~ ~ c Z:~ Sueo w PDr yURVcYgn F0Q- ' ~7 w cyLSt 2 ° 1, 10 f- _ ~r 3 N IJ POF~fR15 ~ AT . _4 a 0 TOWU OF 40UTUOLD. W.y. ! 1 re vroi W 1 a`. 3= m0uum left MOW rijai .N 9 Ai2A = 0.5787 ACRE 4UAIZ&UTSAM TO TuCr C,u"AUTecn TITLE DIV. - am MICAM ITIorc IUS.tt2AklG6 GOMP&IJY &LID To '[LIE SuS~~~itjY~Ct7:5Arrs~ ~ MALJV- vk VA-W TUYL & 5.0# LI e. ..~pTr-x.•... ..~~...>-.sw.. .v-r.- r;.,~ ...mac. .a .,.;q.- ..T -...r..w _ G 17 177 ^ ZO -6- 94 9% n~aeE ~orz 10 wpb .3GAtE 40"_E_ . 't f e,. e+r r 4 SurfoEE CO. rfx Farct/~ tOd0-3r-z -24 y~ +~b~8, / OCN 4' ~»¢mrDB~ M adr"i'En9 Zonf 2- }6 ~ ~1r ~ "Q_t_ai Arsa ~ as.zro s~' ~ - - C / - - Rvs'ccg a.'vvat:on 3S',ff.'~r .'Jd .fir--~ ~ _~a ~ _ H s"a~' ~ ~ 4 • x ~ess~oo.' -coat ~ar~- ~ ~ ti ~b• --f ` ti ~ ` r y lZ.64S2lC / ~ 1 i ~ Arnerrded Mar_ 22,t9idb X f N, 4 r n M,, f .x~-.. UMMaaWI ~r 3 1 4' " bRYaaAY..Ww va t W"'`~°o* '""r;`7 ::k +G a.as~~oai.rr.rar sHrVYyed.. MOY_ w~, 1946 AiU~ dYM.b eod& zx vary ~ v. c. - I 777«L r• x., ° k:'.' wrr.wrrare.y A2_._~-ti` o m...N.e.N.A ~icerfac6 Lcgd Bvrvtyora , r. ' o 6 bbq nwam W~wwN '~(S 256ry a _ NWivW ~ MbmYp~M4bK MnYL SIZES OF PARCELS SURROUNDING AND CLOSE TO SUBJECT MAYER PARCEL: To the North and East: „u 31-2-27 .40 acre Pfanz (preexisting of R-40 zoning) 31-2-25 .25 acre Morton sb ouse uilding urmg during minimum 1/4-acre zoning requirement) 31-2-24 - vacant preexisting parcel (preexists R-40 size requirement) . ~0 acre 31-2-23 - .375 acre Akoumianakis one house 31-2-28 - .57 acre Jacobs - one single-family house yo p, ~p To the West: l 31-1-5.9 = 7.9 acre farm To the South: Co,MaQs 31-6-11 -'q~ (Siderakis) one single-family house (~'^s ev ` 'xim~ 31-6-12.1 - .34 (Peterson) one house 31-6-30 .537 acre (Papastefaneou)~ 3_ ~tX7'rT- , to ZBA:Ik~~ y~ . a ~~6yj SEE SEC. NO. bJ'Ar 011 .01.Olt.l Y' 1 I l A;. . ~ ~'f` i 'I . ~ iJ- 1, III y q?, ! ",i ~ ~ ~ . ~S~ 'r; ~ ' 11.1 4 ~ r f ~ t.~ Z. ~ V r ' J 7 11 t ,'a'r't ~P M ~ ~ 1 't `j1; &lal J t t ~•l y: . 'i 11 Il1L t~ a pOM 11.3 ,00 I~,L t.l ~t 1111 ~I ' • 11J1 „ ! ' ? t1+t 015 V w r , ; Odi 0 Not t t[ 'S 0I1 o 1V:, , I I tt o t ! t~ 4' iM j r~ r` S'IVd i ,M ~ , ,F0004 LO Al/1 a - u~ - t V 1t t.E r` . 1 1 ~ + • 10.)1111 10 IVs !t !S ! S t ~ t- A u ?u'. J UAUI to p a( _ tI)?'"' n j MAIN t0. •L. d i VV 11 to It V is 'w 1PA t F J• iw uJ 13 } d I i ~r - ,~k 10.4 tt } 1r' 10 riy 1t 41' Ia+ t ~ \0 1 i. 1 11. Y , ~ ~ 10.1 • fi • A ,r c u.. 1N S• , t , 4shta1 .2 . ' ti.. II . 1~ tsA 1.4 t9 •4 , r a+ 11~'' ~ ? + Of 13 y a~o? 40 i l " l 1, j.~ ?Y ? ,~i~~ y ~ yh4.6 NEW , • tug y f ~ , •on nnctL NO ,1 ale )1e , i +L o ~ o CE St" NO. +S P ` I t EAS I MARIOa• t W I I ti~Y i Z r u ~ 'r y CEMETERY ? ? + 1?Mal / " h.f , t, t .uiri '•^M1. ..e, > 1.11 11? 4{' 5.1 t' a o. ) . LEA , • ),'~o OTP A rp A fill C, x •-.~~~k~., l„ ~ r ~ L ' I L Ad V 19.0 A W s h _ TOWN OF SOUTNOlD y IIIr ~ v~ Ile , ' + ? • ' '~I x, N w 'r, lO.NaMf[A IIMp ~ f7 F ~ Ir i 'S .a "777"' * 'p ~ , u y~ ~1R#,9 "•~:h ~ tit r11 9 1 tie ± ti4br Jit ?1 ~ ' `til 1r A' ' C+ ' ? ,V v Q s off' # ~ ?n'a a. ~4 ,tit' ~ 181 e e , ~ e Air `p ~ , lit f • MARION LAX£ 6 ~S~ / Bql r Y r 00 a 1', l) oil 1 41 Nil TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~0 , IC i ? ' by ~ t,?Ilt 16 ro o. v ,,fir,, . . tx~a 31 scimi 1 i}7y ~'I V J tel. Y i. 1 ~r r~' ~ ,iii X .'r FLA nrA I z ' n J. vow 71911it 1p :1~ t1 11 t pan t, I 1 oA dW t Q4 * ~GLO , C6%0 ' w 4~w V A.1A, afti . A 1% .1. a - 6 6. am Am al ne in r, Amw~ Aw11 SOL a M (6w ` s N I oir *i Ale ti SCOOT 16 ~w !rte ' _ P11- M fit b . f ~e 1 fill IL 1r 9 x j e K ' v. r1o t..- Fv • ~ 4i JIM M. _ I agg )m 3 dW 42 CO t ' . 3r ~ r