HomeMy WebLinkAbout3234
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE: ROAD 25 SOLJTHOLD, L.I.. N.Y. 119'71
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
Appeal No. 3234
Application Dated March 22, ]984
TO: Howard E. Pachman, Esq. as Attorney
for ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT, ET AL.
Pachman, Oshrin & Block, P.C.
366 Veterans Memorial Highway,
Commack, NY 11725
Box 273
[Appellant(s)]
At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on January 26, 1985,
the above appeal was considered, and the action indicated below was taken
on your [ ] Request for Variance Due to Lack of Access to Property
New York Town Law, Section 280-a
[ ] Request for Special Exception under the Zoning Ordinance
Article , Section
[×] Request for Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
Article XII, Section 100-121(D)[l]
[ ] Request for
Application of ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT, ET AL., Private Road, Orient,
NY for a reversal of the interpretation of the building inspector concern-
ing a Certificate of Occupancy No. Zl1736 issued June 21, 1983 to
E. Loucopoulos and H. Damianos for a one-family dwelling and four
accessory cottage structures at Private Road No. 7 (a/k/a Diedericks
Road), Orient; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-18-03-005 [Current Owners:
D.I. Abbott and J.T. Swanson].
This is an appeal for an interpretation of the provisions of the
Zoning Code pursuant to the provisions of Section lO0-121(D)[1] of the
Zoning Code, with respect to certain determinations of the Building
Inspector.
The Appellants, Arthur R. Truckenbrodt, et al., are the several
owners of properties adjacent to or in the vicinity of property owned
by Dorothy Abbott and Janet T. Swanson. The subject property contains
12½ acres of land adjacent to Long Island Sound at Orient and is shown
on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 018, Block 03,
Lot 005. The subject property is located in the "A" Residential and
Agricultural Zoning District.
As stated in their appeal, the Appellants
various provisions of the Code as they relate
Building Inspector, to wit:
seek interpretations of
to certain actionsof the
The issuance of Building Permit No. 12828Z dated November 15,
1983, for the erection of a fence alleged to have been issued
contrary to the provisions of Section 100.119.1 of the Zoning
Code.
That the owners of the subject property are operating a
tourist camp/cottage colony without a permit, in violation
of Article X of the Zoning Code.
That the owners of the subject property are violating Section
100-23(A) of the Zoning Code by utilizing buildings which are
being restored, altered, or rebuilt, without a permit, in
violation of Section 100-141 of the Zoning Code.
(CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO)
DATED: January 28, 1985.
Form ZB4 (rev. 12/81)
CHAIRMAN, SOUTHOLD TOW~N ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS
Page 2 ~ Appeal No.
.Matter of ARTHUR R.
3234
TRUCKENBRODT, ET AL.
Decision Rendered January 26, 1985
The issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy dated June 21,
1983 (Zl1736), alleged to have been issued in violation of
Section lO0-118(D) of the Zoning Code.
The Board conducted hearings on June 21, 1984, July 26, 1984,
and August 23, 1984, at which time extensive oral and written evi-
dence was received and numerous witnesses testified on behalf of the
Appellants and the present owners of the subject property. The
Hearing was concluded on December 13, 1984.
The four issues upon which interpretations are sought will be
considered in the order set forth above.
1. The Appellants assert that the Building Inspector issued
Permit No. 12828Z to erect a fence on the subject property within
one foot of the boundary line of the property in violation of Sec-
tion 100-119.1 of the Zoning Code. The first paragraph of this
section provides as follows:
"Subject to the provisions of
hedges or other live plantings
property lines may be erected
following height limitations:"
Section lO0-119, fences, walls,
within five (5) feet of the
and maintained, subject to the
The Appellant contends that this provision prohibits a fence within
one foot of the property line unless a variance is obtained. The
Board interprets this provision to mean that fences may be erected
along property lines as a matter of right, provided that they are
located within five feet of such line. No evidence was presented
by Appellants on this question, and thus the Board must conclude that
they have abandoned this issue. Therefore, the permit issued by the
Building Inspector must be deemed valid, and the interpretation urged
by Appellants is rejected.
2. The second request is for
to the effect that the owners of the
a "tourist camp/camp cottage" on the
violation of Article X of the Zoning
Section lO0-100 of Article X of
follows:
an interpretation of the Town Code
subject premises are operating
premises without a permit in
Code.
the Zoning Code provides as
"Section lO0-100. Permits Required.
No tourist camp shall be established, maintained or operated in
any district, nor shall any tent, tent house, camp cottage,
house car or trailer to be used or occupied as a place for liv-
ing, sleeping or eating, whether charge is or is not made, be
erected or placed therein, unless authorized by the Town Board
pursuant to the provisions of the Trailer Camp Ordinance, dated
June 30, 1953."
Section lO0-13 of the Zoning Code defines a "Tourist Camp" as
follows:
"TOURIST CAMP
or more tents,
trailers used
located, said
- Any lot, piece or parcel of ground where two (2)
tent houses, camp cottages, house cars or house
as living or sleeping quarters are or may be
camp being operated for or without compensation."
Section lO0-13 of the Zoning Code defines a "Tourist Cottage" as
follows:
Page 3 Appeal No. 3234
Matter of ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT, ET
Decision Rendered January 26, 1985
AL.
"TOURIST COTTAGE - A detached building having less than three
hundred fifty (350) square feet of cross-sectional area,
designed for or occupied as living and sleeping quarters for
seasonal occupancy."
The testimony of one of the present owners was that she measured each
of the four cottages on the premises and that two of the cottages each
have a cross-sectional area of more than 500 sq. ft., and the other
two cottages each have an area in excess of 600 sq. ft. No evidence
as to the size of the cottages was introduced by Appellants.
It is apparent, that, since the four cottages each exceed 350
sq. ft. in cross-sectional area, they are not "tourist cottages"
under the definitions in the Zoning Code. The Board, accordingly,
finds that no permit is required under Section 100-100 of the Zoning
Code, and the interpretation urged by the Appellants is rejected and
the appeal on this issue is dismissed.
3. In their third appeal for an interpretation, Appellants
assert that the buildings "are being restored, altered or rebuilt"
without first obtaining a building permit pursuant to Section 100-141
of the Zoning Code.
Section lO0-141 of the Zoning Code provides in part that:
"No building in any district shall be erected, reconstructed,
restored or structurally altered without a building permit
duly issued upon application to the Building Inspector."
Section lO0-13 of the Zoning Code defines the terms "Alteration"
and "Structural Alteration" as follows:
"ALTERATION - As applied to a building or structure, a change or
rearrangement in the structural parts or in the exit facilities,
or an enlargement, whether extending on a side or by increasing
in height, or the moving from one location or position to another."
"STRUCTURAL ALTERATION - Any change
a building, such as beams, columns,
or bearing walls."
in the supporting
girders, footings,
members of
foundations
No claim is asserted that buildings were being "erected," but Appellants
allege that buildings were being ~'restored, altered or rebuilt." How-
ever, no evidence was presented to this Board with respect to the
restoration, alteration or rebuilding of the buildings and, therefore,
the appeal with respect to the requirement of a building permit is
dismissed.
4. The fourth claim of Appellants, and upon which both they and
the owners of the premises focused most of their attention, is the
assertion that a Certificate of Occupancy was erroneously issued by
the Building Inspector on June 21, 1983,
It is the Appellants' position that the use of the subject premises
was a nonconforming use; that such use was discontinued for a period
of two years, and that pursuant to Section lO0-118(D) of the Zoning
Code, the nonconforming use can no longer be permitted unless a variance
therefore is granted by this Board.
Section lO0-13 of the Zoning Code defines a nonconforming use as
follows:
Page 4 Appeal No. 3234
Matter of ART~LUR R. TRUCKENBRODT, ET
Decision Rendered January 26, 1985
AL.
"NONCONFORMING
land, or both,
which does not
in which it is
USE - Any use, whether or a building or tract of
existing on the effective date of this chapter,
conform to the use regulations of the district
located."
Section lO0-118 of the Zoning Code deals with nonconforming uses
and provides as follows:
"Section lO0-118. Nonconforming Uses.
Unless otherwise authorized as a special exception by the Board
of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, the following provisions
shall apply to nonconforming uses:
The lawful use of a building or premises existing on the
effective date of this chapter or authorized by a building
permit issued prior thereto may be continued although such
use may be extended throughout the building lawfully acquired
to said date.
A nonconforming use of a building or premises may be changed
to a use of the same or h~gher classification according to
the provisions of this chapter.
Whenever a district shall hereafter be changed, any then
existing nonconforming use of a building or premises in such
changed district may be continued or changed to a use of a
similar or higher classification, provided that all other
regulations governing the use are complied with.
Whenever a nonconforming use of a building or premises has
been discontinued for a period of more than two (2) years or
has been changed to a higher classification or to a conform-
ing use, anything in this section to the contrary notwith-
standing, the nonconforming use of such building or premises
shall no longer be permitted unless a variance therefor shall
have been granted by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter
provided.
A nonconforming building may not be reconstructed or struc-
turally altered during its life to an extent exceeding in
aggregate cost fifty percent (50%) of the fair value of the
building, unless the use of such building is changed to a
conforming use.
A nonconforming building which has been damaged by fire or
other causes to the extent of more than fifty percent (50%)
of its fair value shall not be repaired or rebuilt unless
the use of such building is changed to a conforming use.
It is this Board's view that in order for Appellant to prevail in its
position, there must be proof that (1) the uses conducted on the
premises are nonconforming uses, and (2) that such use was discon-
tinued for more than two years.
Viewing this case from a different aspect, if there
a discontinuance of the present uses for two years,
cannot prevail, regardless of whether the uses are
conforming or nonconforming.
is no proof of
the Appellants
determined to be
On the question of the discontinuance of use, the evidence presented
by Appellants consisted of oral testimony, affidavits and written
statements of the Appellants that on various occasions they viewed
the premises and observed no indications that the cottages were
Page 5 - Appeal No. 3234
Matter of ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT,
ET AL.
Decision Rendered January 26, 1985
occupied. They also presented evidence of the discontinuance of
electric and gas services to the premises. The owners of the
premises produced evidence from all of the previous owners of
the premises from 1956 to 1983, all of whom stated that the premises
and cottages thereon had been continuously used and occupied during
their ownership of the property. Dr. Damianos, the owner of the
property from 1973 to 1984, testified that the cottages on the
property were used continuously during his ownership, as recrea-
tional facilities for his nursing home and vineyard employees to
spend vacations and weekends at the cottages during the summer
months. He also testified that during some of the period of his
ownership, the electric and gas facilities were discontinued and
that the occupants of the cabins brought in drinking water in jerry
cans; used sea water to flush the toilets, coleman lanterns for
illumination and charcoal grills for cooking purposes.
From a review of all of the evidence in the record, and visits to
the premises on three occasions by Board members, the Board finds
that there was no discontinuance of the existing uses of the
premises for a period of more than two years during all of the
period from 1956 to and including the date of the acquisition of
the premises by the present owners.
By reason of the above findings, it is not necessary for the Board
to make a determination as to whether the use of the cottages on
the premises from 1956 to 1984 was a nonconforming use. However,
it is the position of the Board that the "use" of the cottages
for single-family occupancy is not a nonconforming use in the
district in which located. The Board agrees with the interpreta-
tion of the Building Inspector that the nonconformity exists by
reason of the existence of five residential structures on the
premises, and not the "use" of such buildings for seasonal resi-
dential purposes.
On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, by reason of
the foregoing, the interpretation urged by Appellants on the issue
of nonconforming use is rejected and Certificate of Occupancy
No. Zl1736 issued by the Building Inspector on June 21, 1983 is
deemed valid; and the appeal with respect thereto is dismissed.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer,
(Members Sawicki and Doyen were absent.) This
adopted with a quorum of the members.
Grigonis and Douglass.
resolution was duly
lk
GERARD P. GOEHRI'NGER, C~RMAN
January 28, 1985
BOARD OF APPEALS[
TOWN HALL
NIAfN ROAD - S.R.
$OUTHOLD, N.Y..1197_~,
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Law and the Provisions of the Amended Code of the Town of
Southold, the following matters will be held for Public Hearings
by the Southold Town Board of Appeals to be held on THURSDAY,
JULY 26, 1984 commencing at 7:30 p.m., at the Southold Town Hall, Main
Road, Southold, NY, and as follows:
7:35 p.m. AppTication of SOUTHOLD EQUITIES, INC., 195
Youngs Avenue, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article VII, Section 100-71 for approval of insufficient area of
two proposed lots which contain existing buildings, the
northerly lot having frontage along Traveler Street, and the
southerly lot having frontage along Main Road, in the Hamlet of
Southold; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-061-1-15.1 (15).
7:40 p.m. Application of JOHN SIMICICH, by Charles R. ~
Cuddy, Esq., 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, NY for Variances to-
(a) the.Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk
Schedule, for approval of insufficient area and width of parcel
in this proposed two-lot subdivision (b) New York Town Law,
Section 280-A for ap~proval of access over a private right-of-way
known as "Camp Mineola Road" extending northerly from Kraus~Road.
Location of Property: West Side of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck;
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-122-05-3.3.
7:45 p.m. Application of JOSEPH A. WANAT, by A. A. Wick-
ham, Esq., Main Road, Mattituck, NY for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for
approval of insufficient width of parcel to be set-off located
on a private right-of-way at the north side of Bergen Avenue,
Mattituck; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-112-01-016.
~:50 p.m. R~Cessed Hearin§: HENRY P. SMITH. Variance
for approval of two parcels with insufficient area and width in
this B-1 Business Zoning District, West Side of Peconic Lane, Pe~onic.
1000-74-5-2 and 3 (9.2).
7:55 p.m. Application of JOHN GIANNARIS AND OTHERS, by
Db Kapell, 400 Front Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article XI, Section lO0-112(H) for permission
easterly
to use adjacent/premises of the Village of Greenport of .765 acreage
for parking accessory to the snack bar use existing on the p~rcel
presently owned by the applicants also located at the north side
of Main Road, East Marion; County Tax Map Parcel No..1000-35-2-14
and No. 1000-35-2-15.1; see Site Plan revised 5/4/84 and 5/30/84.
PAge 2 of 2
Legal Notice of Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Regular Meeting of July 26, 1984
8:00 p.m. Application of VINCENT GRIFFO, by I.L. Price, Esq.
828 Front Street, Greenport, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct
tennis court and pavillion, both accessory to a proposed one-family
dwelling and both accessory buildings to be located in an area
other than the required rearyard, at premises known as 3765 Robinson
Road (West Side of Bridge or Briar Lane), Paradise Point Subdivision
Lot 12 and part of parcel known as County Tax Map 1-000-81-1-16.1.
8:05 p.m. Application of NICHOLAS ALIANO, 3800 Duck Pond
Road, Cutchogue, NY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article VI, Section lO0-60(B)[1](b), Article V, Section 100-50(B)[4],
for permission to establish and build four two-story motel buildings
containing 10 motel units for transient use, and an office building
of 2,500 sq. ft. in area on this 3.721-acre parcel located on the
South Side of Main Road, Greenport, NY. Zoning District: B-Light
Business. County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-46-01-002.1.
8:10 p.m. Application of THOMAS HIGGINS, 48 Kenwood Road,
Garden City, NY 11530, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct deck addition
to dwelling with reduction of frontyard setback from Cedar ~int
Drive E'ast. ~dentification of Property: 80 Lakeside Drive (a/k/a
675 Cedar Point Drive East), Southold; Cedar Beach Park S~bdivision
Lot No. 81; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-90-03-014.
p.m. RecesS: ARTHUR R.. TR.UC.K.ENBRODT, et al )
al of interpretation of Building Inspector concerning ~
D.I. Abbott and J.T. Swanso'n, Private Road No. 7 (a/k/a?
Road), Orient; 1000-18-03-005.
8:35
for a revers
property of
Diedericks
Those desiring to be heard may do so in person,
or by attorney or other representative. For additional
please contact our office, 765-1809 (or 1-802).
in writing,
information,
Dated: July 3, 1984. BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. ~OEHRINGER
_CHAIRMAN
NOTICE TO NEWSPAPERS: Please publis~ Thursday, July 19, 1984, an~
forward nine affidavits of publication on or before July 24th to
Board of Appeals, Main Road, Southold, NY ~1971. Thank you.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town
Law and the ?rovisio~s of the Amended Code o.f the Town of Southold,
a Regular Meeting and the fallowing public hearings will be held by
the Southold Town Board of Appeals at the Town Hall, Hain Road,
Southold, NY on THURSDAY, JUNE 21, i984, commencing at 7:30 p.m. and
as follows:
7:35 p.m. Application for JOHN DENNY, 333 Warwick Avenue, Tea
Neck, NJ 07666 for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinances Article III,
Section 100-32 for permission to construct accessory garage building
in the frontyard area at premises, 1255 Private Road #1 (Goose Creek
Lane), Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. I000-078-08-009~
7:40 p.m. Application of GEORGE ~. TUTHILL, Box 7i9, Cutchogue,
NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article II!, Section
100-31 for approval of ~nsufficient area and width of parcels located
at the north side of Bay Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; Nassau Farms Subdivi-
sion, part of Lot 140; County Tax Map Parcel No~ 1000-!04-04-33o
7:45 p.m. Application for DAVID AND JEANNE BRAWNER, Main Road=
Orient, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,
Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area of parcel to be
set-off from an 4.066 acre parcel at the South Side of Main Road,
Orient; County Tax Map Parcel No. lO00-20-3-28~and part of 11.2.
7:55 p.mo Application of ERNEST AND JEAN STUMPF, 207 Roxbury
Road South, Garden City, NY 11530, for a Variance to the Zoning
Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 (and/or Section 100-31) for
permission to construct raised deck with an insufficient setback
in the side and rear yards at the West Side of S. Oakwood Drive,
Laurel; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-145-03-005.
8:05 p,m. Application ~r EUSTACE C. ERIKSEN,'lO85~estview
Drive, Mattituck,'NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,
appealin§~the December ~2.,.1983 decision of the building inspector
in order to permit the conversion and renovation of a "guest
cottage" or second dwelling structure at premises k~own as I085
West View Drive, Mattituck; County Tax Map Parcel No..1000-139-1-3.
8:15 p.m.. Application of
Southold, NY for a Variance to
Section 100-31 for approval of
JOHN GRIGONIS, 950 Bayview Road,
the Zoning Ordinance~ Article IIi,
the construction of ne~ dwelling
with reduction o~ sideyard setback, at premises located at 860 Hain
Bayview Road, Southoid; County Tax Map Parcel No. I000~070~07-016.2.
Page 2 - Notice of Hearings
Southold Town Board of APpeals
Regular Meeting of June 21, 1984
8:20 p.m. Application for-PATRICK CARRIG and MARK S. McDONAlD,
(Owners: Eric and Nancy Malm), Richmond Road, Southold, NY for a
Variance for approval of access, Mew York~ToWn Law~CSection 280-A,
over a private right-of-way located at the north side of Bergen
Avenue, Mattituck, to pre~i~es .identified as County Tax Map Parcel
No. lO00-112-1-18, containing ~pproximately 3.9 acres.
8:40 p.m. Application for DOUGLAS M~LLER, Montauk Highway,
Quogue, NY for a Variance for approval of accesses, New York Town
Law, Section 280-A, over two private rights-of-way~one known as
"Kirkup Lane" and one as '~Laurel Way" located at the South Side of
Sound Avenue, Mattituck, '(near Laurel), to premises identified as
County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~121~4-10 containing approximately 7.2
acres.
8:55 p.m. Application for BERTRAM ~ND MARGERY'WALKER recessed
from May 17, 1984 for Variances for (a) interpretation, (b)
approval of deck in sideyard, (c) approval of reduction of livable
floor area and insufficient sideyards of dwelling conversion. Peconic
Bay Blvd.~ Laurel; 1000,145-4-014.
9:15 p.m. Application of~i~RTHUR R~ TRUCKENBROD?, et ~1.~ Private
Road, Orient, NY for a~eversal of the interpretation of the building
inspector concerning a Certificate of Occupancy No. Zl1736 issued
June 21, 1983 to E. Loucopoulos and H. Damianos for an one-family
dwelling and four accessory cottage structures at Private Road No. 7,
(a/k/a Diedericks Road)~ Orient; County Tax Map Parcel No.
1000-18-03-005 [Current Owners: D.I. Abbott and J~T. Swanson].
Persons having an interest in any
heard at the time and place specified above.
tion, please contact our office,
Dated: June 5, 1984. ~ BY ORDER
BOARD OF
For additional
765-t809 (or 1802)o
of the above mat~ers may be
informa-
GERARD P. GOEHRtNGER
CHAIRMAN
NOTICE TO NEWSPAPERS: Please publish once, to wit: ~,
June 7, 1984 and forward 10 affidavits of publication to:
Mrs. L. Kowalski, Secretary, Board of Appeals, Main Road,
Southold, NY 11971, on or before Junm llth. Thank you.
OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
APPEALS
ToWN OF ~sOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
APPEAL NO,
DATE 3/15/84
TO THEZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OFSOUTHOLD, N.Y.
et al (See Ex. A)
L(we).Ar~b~r..~...~g~.9~ ........ of...~.ri~..~QA~.~...g~ .........................
Name o( AppelLant Street and Number
............... Tawr~..of...S.ou~thD. lal ......................................... N~.~....~.Qr~....HEREBY AFPEAL TO
Municipality State
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON
APPLICATION DATED: 3/16/84FQR: An interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance
of the Town of Southold
WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR:I~'~}0,'¢i3~ GRANTED TO
(x)
( )
Dorothy Abbott and Janet T. Swanson
Nome of Applicant for permit
of .. e.. ,... .............................. i .............................
Street and Number Municipohty State
PERMIT TO USE (Non-Conforming) No. Zl1736 dated 6/21/83
PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
(x) PERMIT TO ~{~ Erect Fence
LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ?..r..~:~.a`t..e..~.~.a~.`..(~gi.e~..~.?..k.~...~.~.a~.!~..~.~.i~5~.~...~ ....
Street and Hamlet 7.one A
Dist. 1000, Sec. 018, Block 3, OWNER(S): A%%9~A.%.~g~gA .......
....................................................... No, Z'G7
11 3/83 .......
DATE PURCHASED: .~ ...........
2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Artic!e Section, Sub-
sect;nn and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number, Do not quote the Ordinance )
See Exhibit g attached hereto
3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for
( ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Mop
( ) A VARIANCE due to [ack of access (State of New York Town Law Chop,~
Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 /
(X) Interpretation pursuant to Sec. 100-121(D)(!)
62 Cans Law%
4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous o~peal ~ (has not) been mode with respect to this decis,on
of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property.
Such cppeal was ( ) request for o special permn
( ) request for o variance
and was mode in Appeal No ................................. Doted ......................................................................
REASON FOR APPEAL
( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3
( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
(X) Interpretation of Zoning Ordinance
is requested for the reason that we would like to obtain a reversal of the inter-
pretation of the Building Inspector, as more particularly set forth in
Exhibit B hereto.
~rm
(Continue on other side)
REASON FOR APPEAL
Con tinu~,~J
l, STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practica difficulties or unneces-
sary HARDSHIP because
2 The hardship crer~re~ ~s UNIQUE and is not shared by ail properties olik~ in the immediate
v~cm~tt of this propervy and in this use district because
3 The variance wou~d ooserve the/spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NO~T CHANGE THE
Ct IARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because
Nih
4. Interpretation of Town Zoning Ordinance (See Exhibit B)
STATE OF NEW YORK )
)
COUNTY OF
Sworn to this ............. ./. ............................. day of .............................. 79 0~
Notary Public
: OWNER, ~' STREET
VILLAGE SUB. LOT
AGE '
NOPdvb~L
N Z
W
ACR.
TYPE OF BUILDING
COMM. CB." MISC. Mkt. Value
REMARKS/?~..~~%~~ / ~
NEW
FARM Acre :
Tillable 1
BUILDING CONDITION
ABOVE
Value Per Value
Acre, .
FRONTAGE ON WATER
FRONTAGE ON ROAD
Tillable 2
T~lJable 3
Woodland
Swampland
Brus*hland
House Plot ~
Totc~ ' ' ~
DEPTH
DOCK
?
Extension
PorCh
Porch
Breezeway
' Garage
Potio
Ext. Walls
Fire Place
ecreation
Driveway
3~
Bath
Floors
Interior Finish
Dinettel
Heat d/'b ,
Rooms ]st Floor BR.
Rooms 2nd F~ool FIN.
ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS
TOWN HAIl.
MAIN ROAD-S.R.25
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
NOTICE IS HEREBy GIV-
EN, pursuant to Section 267 of
the Town Law and the Provi-
11530, for a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article IH.
Section 100-31 for permission
to construct deck addition to
dwelling with reduction of
frontyard setback from Cedar
Point Drive East. Identifica-
tion of Property: 80 Lakeside
Drive (a/k/a 675 Cedar Point
Drive EasO, Southold; Cedar
Beach Park Subdivision Lot
No. 81; County Tax Map
Parcel No. 1000-90-03-014.
/ 8:35 p.m. Recessed Hear-\
'BRODT, et al for a reversal of]
mterp~'~-"~tatiou of Building In-~
spector concerning, property of(
D.L Abbott and J.T. SwanSOn,
Private Road No. 7 (a/k/a ~
Diedericks Road), Orient; ,~
1000-18-03-00S.
Those desiring to be heard
may do so in person, in
writing, or by attorney or other
representative. For additional
information, please contact
our office, 765-1809 (or 1802).
Dated: July 3, 1984.
BY ORDER OF'THE
SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
IT-7/19/84(23)
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ss:
STATE OF NEW YORK
Potricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the
Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN,
a public newspaper printed at Southold, in. Suffolk County;
and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch-
man once each week for .......................... ./.. .......... weeks
successively, commencing on the /9 ~r
Swam to before me this .......... ?.~.~...~..~. .......... day of
19..~..
Notary Public
BARBARA FORBES
Not~ry Public, State of New York
No. 4806&16
Qualified in Suffolk Gounty
Commission Expires Marei~ 30, 19
. ~ . . ...;. . (_b) ..New___Y.o.r.k To?n; I~?; ~ ~ ~ ~.a ~ ~. l~t~ on the ~.th S~de of
L~ N~CE . - ~ ~A t~ a~v~ ~ ~1 ~n~ b" ~ Mare R~d, G~e~:~rt NY
--NOTICE ~' ,~y . a~0~ra~va~t~-~; 'a~H~l~t~ ~o~g Dis~ict: B-Lighi
GIVEN pu~uan/toS~tion ~Y~"~ ~P~ ~sMe~ ' ~us'n~ Cowry Tax Ma
- R~d" t ,. ~ ~ ~t } · . P
~ of ~e Town ~w ~d ~e ~ ~. no~erl~ ~in -' P~ N
.... n, ~ty T~ Map o. 1~1~.1.
~owsm~ of ~ Amended - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P-~{ ~ -~ ....... 8'11 - -- /n~l- ~- ·
......... _.. _ ~,~ ~_~ ....... ~' . 1~3~2-15.I; s~ Site Plan THOM~ HIGGINS
~ld for Pubhc H~gs by . ~Tax Map p~ No... '- $.~ a-- ' i ..... ~ 11~ ..... ~,
l~ls. ~-. ~ . ~M an ' ~'~ p.m- Apphca~0n of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~* : ~ 1~3~ ~ ~
~URSDAY, JULY ~, 1~ ~ W~AT, b~ A. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ ~t d~ ~dd;~.
~ atT~ re,at Wt~m,~q,MamR~d~ d ' ' ' ·
.. ~J ' _ ~: :~ . . ~.~ ~ ~ ...... __~. ~. ~-~mng 0r~ance . we~ ~ reduction of
....... ~ ~c.e ~, ~ 1~ for. - . ~ ~ ~
g~d, ~ut~ld, ~, andas ~ ~e ~ni~ 0r~ance~., ~i~ ~t~' ~ Po~ t '- ~ ~ -.-
follows ~- . ~hde HI ~on 1~I, ..........
.............. co~t and ~v~on . ~th . . i~6~ d ·
· · - ~ . . . a~o ~a on~ . ~i eD ~a-675'
SOOT.OLO EQUITIES, ~t~~ ram'l ~ . ~. . o .....
. . i y ~weH and ~th . ~Smt Drive
INC. 1~ Yo~gs Argue m ~ mt~ ~ a ~va~ a ~s~ h~,~i~e' ~ ~ - ~ d-'~.. ~-~o
. ,, . . _ , . cc___: ~-o .... . ~ .......... r.-
- . . ~~ .. .
~I, ~on '1~71 for mn~y Tax Map Parcel No. ' nr~m~~C ' ~ta - ~--- ':-: "~
of two pro~ lots wMch :~ p.m, ~ecessed Br~ .......... ~'Hea~-- ~.u,m
~erly~g~n~ge ~ ~rapp~valof~o ~t ii d ~rt nf ~.~.1 / ~eve~Iof*
~u~erly la ~ fron~ge ' a~ ~d~ m ~ Dl ~m 1~ .... ~. , ~ ~o~; ~. .....
along Mare Roa~, m ~e ~ g~ct, W~tSided - 8:~ P.m. Application of ~'~.T. Swanson,~ivate~ag
Hamlet of ~uthold; County P~ic ~ne, P~c. 1~ ~OLAS ALIANO, ~ / No. 7 .(a/k/a ~eric~
~x Map P~ No. I~- 75~1~d 3 (9.2). Pond R~d, ~t~h~e, ~ ~d),~ent; 1~1~. ',,
1-15.1(15). 7:~ p.m. A~licatinn of ~f~aS~al~pti~ ~e~to~h~
7:~ p.m. Ap~ication of JOHN GIANN~IS AND ~g~din~,~cle may do so in ~rson,
JOHN SIMICI~, by C~rl~ OTHERS, by D. Kapell, 4~ VI, ~tinn l~(B)[l](b), writing, 'or by attorney or
R.~y,~.,l~t~ ~S~t, Gr~n~rt, ~ ~cleV,~onl~(B)[4], other repr~entative. For
Street, Riverhead, ~ for ' for a Valance ~ ~e ~ning for ~rmission to establish a~o~l iMo~a5o~ pl~e
Varianc~ to (a) ~ Zoning ~df~s~m~l ~n~ct ~offi~, 7~1~ (or /
~nce, ~de HI, ~fion ouu~ con~ 10 mo~l 1~),
~ for ~i~t ~, ~ an Dat~: J~y a, 1~, '
100-31, Bulk Schedule, for
approval of insufficient area
and width of parcel in this
Ordinance, Article XI, Section
· 100-112(H) for permission to
use adjacent easterly
premises of the Village of
Grea?pert of ,765 acreage for
office building of 2,50o sq. ft. in
area ~n thks 3.721-acre parcel.
BY ORDER OF
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) SS:
:SUFFOLK )
of Greenport, in
==~u v,..,-,.,r, being duly sworn, says that he/she is
Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly
Newspaper. published at Greenport. in the Town
of Southold. County of Suffolk and State of New
York. and that the Notice of which the annexed is
a printed copy. has been regularly published in
said Newspaper once each week for one
weeks successively, commencing on the ] 9th
dayof July 19 84
Principal Clerk
Sworn to before me this 19th
dayof July 19 84
SMITH, FINKELSTEINi LUNDBERG, ISLER AND YAKABOSKI
May 7, 1987
Linda Kowalski, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town Hall
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Truckenbrodt v. Town of Southold
Dear Linda:
Enclosed please find copies of the following:
1. Decision and order of the Appellate
Division, dated April 6, 1987 which
affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal
of the proceedings on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction over the Zoning Board.
2. The order of Justice Lama, dated
December 6, 1985;
3. decision of Justice Lama, dated
August 22, ]985.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call.
FRA}IK A. ISLER
FAI:knm
enclosures
SUPREM OF NEW YQRK
APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND DEPARTMENT
AD2d
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.p.,
CHARLES B. LAWRENCE
JOSEPH J. KUNZEMAN
ARTHUR D. SPATT. JJ.
Argued
0443P
Z/hu
- Ma~ch 5, 1987
3912E
Arthu£ R. Truckenbrodt. et al..
appellants, v Town of Southold.
et al. respondents-respondents.
Janet T. Swanson. et al..
intervenors-respondents.
DECISION & ORDER
Pachman & Oshrin, P.C., Commack, N.Y. (Howard E.
of counsel; Kathleen B. Mean¥ on the brief) for
appellants. ' '
Pachman
Smith. Finkelstein, Lundberg, Crimmins and yakaboski,
Riverhead, N.Y. (Frank A. Islet of counsel), for
respondents-repondents.
Esieks. Hefte£. Cuddy & Angel, ~iverheado N.Y. (William
Power ,alon.y of couns.l), fo, ,nt.,venors_rosp ndents.,,,; ,:,i i,j:,:,:i
In a proceeding pu£suant to CPLR article 78 to review a
determination of the respondent Board of Appeals of the Town of
$outhold, dated January 28, 1985, which upheld certain
determinations of the Building Inspector. the Petitioners appeal.
as limited by their brief, from ag much of an order of the Supreme'..
Court. Suffolk County (Lama. J.). dated December &. 1985. aa. upon
reargument, adhered to its original dete~mination, granting the
board,s motion to dismiss the proceeding as against it igc lack of
personal Jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed
from. without costs ot disbuEsements (see. Matte= of Heinisc~ v
BRACKEN. J.p.. LAWRENCE. KUNZEMAN and SPATT. Jj.. concur.
ENTER:
MARTIN H. BROh~STEIN
Clerk
April 6, 1987
TRUCKENBRODT V TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
3912E
ORDER APPEALED FROM
SHORT FORM ORD£R
INDEX
NO. 85-3685~x__x
SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK
~PECIALTERM,PART [ SUFFOLK COUNTY
Present;
Hon ALFRED M. LAMA
ARTHUR R. TRUCK~NBRODT, PATRICK E. LYON~
RICHARD E. LESLIE and others similiarly
situated,
Petitioners,
For a Judgment Under Article 78 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules
-a~inst-
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, BOARD OF APPEALS OF
THE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD,
Respondents.
Upon the following pa~rs numbered 1 to ll
for reargument
MOTION DATE
MOTION NO.
October 24,198__5
12,029
PLTF'S/PET'$ATTY:
PACHMAN & OSHRIN, P.C-
366 Veterans Memorial Hwy.
P.O. Box 273
Commack, New York 11725
DEFT'S/RESP'$ATTY:
SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG,
CRiK~iNS and YAKABOSKI
456 Griffing Ave., PO Box 389
Riverhead, New York 11901
read on this motion
Notice of Motion/~r~-to-GhowFxetr~ and supporting ~rs [ - 7 ; l%~t~e~'~%'rr, J~;~'u~'~
.e~d~el~wt.~m~.lrapees--- ; ~swering Affidavits and supporting papers ' x ' ' );
~Aff~~p~g~r-- - Other 11 (letter) ; ~d~-
' 9 Brief
~~~_~e~o~he~itis,
ORDERED that this motion seeking an order of this Court pursuant to CPLR
~2221 granting leave to reargue the motion of respondent Board of zoning
appeals, which resulted in an order of this court, dated August 22, 1985
(Lama, J.) is dete~ined as follows:
The motion seeking leave to reargue is granted. Upon rearg~ent
the court accepts for consideration the Memorand~ of law submitted on
behalf of respondents/intervenors, Swanson and Abbott. Upon reconsidera-
tion of all of the submitted affidavits this Court must adhere to its
original decision in this matter. The Court has not overlooked or mis-
apprehended the facts or law on the original application, nor has the
court for some reason mistakenly arrived at its decision (Delcorte Corp
v. Kling, 67 A.D.2d 4099, 415 N.Y.S.2d 148). Strict compliance with the
statutory procedures for the litigation of claims against governmental
subdivisions is a necessity. Reliance upon alleged representations in
the Town Clerk's office are irrelevant (see Franz v. Board of Ed. of
Elwood Union Free School District, A.D.2d , N.Y.L.J. 8/8/85, p. 12,
col. 5).
Dated: December 6; 1985
Order entered August 29, 1985
No. ~5-3685 x~x__
SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK
7~RI'/t'L/SPECIAL TERM, PART [ SUFFOLK COUNTY
Hen ALFRED M. [,AMA
Motion ~ 2,998
MOTION DATE A:)ril 23~
Motion Date: May 20, 1985
MOT[ONNO. 4.239
ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT, PATRICK ~. LYONS,
R£CHARD E. LESLIE and others similarly
situated, Petitioners,
For a Judgment under Article 78 of the
CPLR
-against-
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, BOARD OF APPEALS OF TIiE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,
Respondents
and
JANET T. SWANSON & DOROTHY ABBOTT,
PLTF'S/PET'SATTY:
PACHMAN & OSIiRiN, P.C.
366 Veterans Memorial hwy.
PO Box 273
Commack, New York 11725
DEFT'S/RESP'SATTY:
SMITH, FINKELSTEIN, LUNDBERG,
CRIMMINS and YAKABOSKI, ESQS.
456 Grilling Avenue- PO Box 389
Riverhead, New York 11901 **
Resoondents/Intervenors.25
Upon the following ~pers numbered 1 to read on this motion ~2~998 for an
Article 78 Proceeding and cross motion to dismiss; motion F4,239 for leave to
incerevene
Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and supporting papers ],-4 ; Notice of Cross Motion
and supporting papers 5-7 ; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 8-14; brief 19; ;
Replying-'~k~-~:)~r¥~'p'~t~r~"lJ~(~ ]~,~-~-r,? ?g ; Other 20 - 24 ;--~d-M~-
hea"ng'~eem~sel-m-~T, Pe~t-ef-e~f~ppo~ed-t'o-the-enofi~ it is,
ORDERED that this ~¥~¥ unopposed motion by respondents/intervenors
seeking an order of this court directing that Janet T. Swanson and
Dorothy Abbott be brought in by proper amendment as party respondents to
this proceeding pursuant to CPLR ~1012 is granted, It is further
ORDERED that the motion by respondents seeking an order of this
court dismissing the Petition as to respondent Board of Appeals Of the
Town of Southold upon the ground that the court did not acquire jut'is-
diction of said respondent in accordance with CPLR §312 is granted. On
the Court's own motion the petition is dismissed in its entirety.
The respondent does not dispute petitioners version of the facts.
On i"cb~uary 25, 1985, an associatc with the law firm
th.~ l)ctiti,m~;rs, WL, llL L() L]li2 '['()WII ()J ~;ouLlu,Jd 'FOWl{ Il,ill with c~q,i,:c;
thc Noticu ~)f PctLLiou ~tnd Petition COmlHel]cing all Article 78
,19ainst thu Town el GuuLhoLd Uoard el ZonLmj Appc,J]5. Upoii ~t~'y to Lhc
Town Clerk's offic(~ thc associate handed two (2) copLes of the moving
pd[~crs to Judith T. 'l'crr'y, Lhc: 'F~)wn C[~rk, ~skin9 whctbcl; 5lu: w~,uld
service for the Town of Southold .ind the Board of Zoning Aj¢peals. Ms. TL, rry
stated that she would accept service, for both the Town of Southold, and
for thc Town of Southold Ho4~rd of Z*~ntng Appeals. Ms. Terry then
the ori(ji~hl] ,ts having bt~cn ¢(,ce[vud by hut at 12.15 L;.m. on tJldt
Order entered August 29, 1985
TRUCKENBRODT,
LYONS v. TOWN c)l.' SOUTIIOLD
index No. 85-3685
Motion No. 2,998 - 4/23/85
4,239 - 5/20/85
The associate left the Clerk's office. Shortly thereafter, she
returned, having determined that, tile official stamp showed only the name
of the Town Clerk's Office, but no indication showing service upon the
Board of Appeals. Ms. Terry stated that she could not return the Board
of Zoning Appeals copy; it already had been given to the Clerk of the Board
of Appeals. Thus, she could not take back a copy and serve it personally
upon the Clerk of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
At this time, thc thirty (30) day limitation in which to commence
the Article 78 proceeding pursuant to Town Law 267,267(7) had not run.
There were still two additional days in which the parties might have been
served. The petitioners state that due to the assurances of the Town Clerk
no further service upon the Board of Zoning Appeals was attempted.
In determining this motion the Court finds that the applicable
statute is CPLR S312 which states in pertinent part:
"S312. Personal service upon a court, board
or commission
* * * Personal service upon a board of com-
mission having a chairman or other presid-
ing officer, secretary or clerk, by what-
ever official title he is called, may be
made by delivering the summons to him.
Personal service upon any other board or
commission shall be made by delivering
the summons to any one of the members."
The respondents have offered affidavits from the Chairman of the
Zoning Board of Appeals and the Secretary of the Board of Appeals which
~uate that they were "not served by the petitioners with a copy of the
Notice of Petition and Petition in this proceeding". Nor have petitioner's
served any other member of the Board.
Where a petitioner serves the notice and petition on a board member,
sui ficicnt wilhin thc t,crmissiw~ lanqua{]c ol thc st~iutc (see Croi!;sant v.
N.Y ...... ] 28; litll?ke v. O'Colll/or
215; ];vans v. (;ardncr, ?1 Misc.2d 283, 336 ' 9
53 .~lis-~)J 159, 278 N.Y.S.2d 40). llowever, asidc from tt~e above ~e'--n-~ionod
permitted individuals, service upon any olhcl' individu.~] has been helot to
be improper.
Service upon the Attorney General did not give rise to jurisdiction
over a State Air Pollution Control Board (?~_j~t_c__ho~ue ._gc_ra_jl Iron and Metal
C_'?_. v. Ingrah.~m, Supreme,Surf. Geller J., 57 Misc.2d 290,292 N.' .S.2d
Order entered August 29, 1985
TRUCKENBRODT, LYONS v. TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD
index No. 85-3685
Motion No. 2,998 - 4/23/85
4,239 - 5/20/85
Additionally, service of tile petition upon thc Town Attorn(~y
was held to be insufficient to give tho court jurisdiction over a
Zoning Board of Appeals (Pearl v. ~_~l_l_.~e__r~, ]91 N.Y.S.2d 44).
The matter of Francis Rose Homes, £nc. v. Commerdinqer, supra.,
Supreme, Suffolk, Cohalan, J., 44 Misc.2d 985, 255 N.Y.S.2d 453, appears
to be directly on point. Upon identical facts, Justice Cohalan held
that service of a notice and petition upon a deputy clerk of the Town
of Smithtown did not constitute service upon the Board of Zoning Appeals.
More recently in Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Planning Board of
of City of Albany, 101 Misc.2d 1062, 422 N.Y.S.2d 608; aff'd 83 A.D.2d
698, 442 N.Y.S.2d 600, aff'd 54 N.Y.2d 609, 445 N.Y.S.2d 1028, petitioners
had served copies of the pleadings on the son of the chairman of the
Planning Board and had mailed a copy to the chairman at his home.
Special Term held and the Appellate Division, Third Department agreed
that:
"The personal delivery to Raymond F.
Joyce's son does not constitute valid
personal service even though the plead-
ings subsequently came into the pos-
session of the person to be served
(see McDonald v. Ames Supply Co.{ Inc..,
22 N.Y.2d 111, 291 N.Y.S.2d 328, 238
N.E.2d 726). The petitioners failed
to avail themselves of any "due dili-
gence'' doctrine by attempting to serve
other members of the Board who were
easily accessible, nor did they show
that Raymond F. Joyco tried to evade
service (see Buscher v. Ehrich, 12
A.D.2d 887, 209 N.Y.S.2d 941).
The petition was dismissed.
I[o~lsill~ ........ L'~[: 1'_-, [3 Misc.2d 124, [77 N.Y.S.2d 76[ aLl'd, 7 A.I).Zd
~].'*'.S.2d 10.1, where redelivery by the person wrongfully served w.,f; upheld
whc~'e it w~:; "so close both in time and space that it c~m bo classified
as a ~:,art et' the same act." (See Belofatto v. Marscn l{ca~ty ~$?_}JlL~, 62
Misc.2d 922, 310 N.Y.S.2d 19[-, Sullivan Realty Organization_ : .......... Inc:a v. S2'art ....
~a~t?~t'2~~, 68 A.D.2d 756, 417 N.Y.S.2d 976; Fashion Pa~! v.
50 N.Y.2d 265 428 N.Y.S.2d 890; Conroy v. International Tormina]
C~., 87 A.D.2d 858, 449 N.Y.S.2d 294; DeVore v. Osborne, 78 A.D.2d 915,
87
Order entered August 29, 1985
TRUCKENBROD']', I,YONS v. 'F()W,~ OF SOI. 1TlfOI,I)
Index No.
85-3685
2,998 4/23/85
4,239 5/20/85
432 N.Y.S.2d 919; Central Savannah River v. White Eagle International,
Inc., 117 Misc.2d 338, 458 N.Y.S.2d 167; Von Thaden v. S.J. Groves &
Sons Compan_~v, 97 A.D.2d 677, 469 N.Y.S.2d 172). However all of the
above cited cases, including Green v. Morningside Heights Housing Corp.,
supra., involve service of process upon a corporation pursuant to the
dictates of CPLR 5311. In pertinent part, CPLR 311(1) provides that
personal service upon a corporation, foreign or domestic, shall be made
by delivering the summons "to an officer, director, managing or general
agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or to any other agent authorized
b_~ appointment or by law to receive service". (Emphasis added). The
citations above repeatedly state that when service upon a corporation Js
purportedly made through redelivery of the summons, CPLR ~311(i) is to
be liberally construed and applied. One of tho main redsons appears to
be the process server's lack of knowledge as to the corporation's inter-
hal practices.
However, as stated earlier the statute in question is CPLR ~312
not ~311.
Concededly, the Appellate Division, Second Department has utilized
the rationale found in Green, supra., in holding valid personal service,
pursuant to CPLR 308 (subd. 1) where a process server delivers a summons
to another individual in the presence of the defendant Bradle~ v.
Musacchio, 94 A.D.2d 783, 463 N.Y.S.2d 28) and the summons is redelivered
to the defendant (Daniels v. Eastman, 87 A.D.2d 882, 449 N.Y.S.2d 538).
These holdings apparently rest upon the principle found in McDonald v.
Ames Supply Co., supra., that "the process server has acted reasonably and
diligently in attempting to fulfill the statutory mandate and under the cir-
cumstances bringing the questioned process within the purview of the person
to be served:, (291 N.Y.S.2d at 332); emphasis added. The statutory man-
date found in CPLR ~312 requires personal service upon the chairman, the
secretary or board member. The matter of Shedlin v. State Tax Commission,
62 A.D.2d 806, 406 N.Y.S.2d 596 is instructing as to the degree of reason-
ableness and diligence necessary on the part of the process server in at-
tempting to fulfill the statutory mandate. The court formulated three
criteria (1) a good faith attempt to serve the respondent personally; (2)
upon the failure of number (1) the petitioner should utilize a method of
In Shedlin, supra. , a process server went to thc respondcnt's
with the necessary paper~;, but found the office closed at 4:50 p.m. A
telephone call to another of the respondent's offices produced a secretary
who stated th.it, while: the office was closed and she was unauthorized to
accept service, she would takc the papers and redeliver them to thc
person thc next (]ay. She kept her word.
Order entered August 29, 1985
TRUCKENBRODT, LYONS v. TOWN OF SCUTIIOLD
Index No. 85-3685
Motion No. 2,998 - 4/23/85
4,239 - 5/20/85
It appears that the only real distinction between the holding in
:.~cDonald, supra and Shedlin, supra., is the fact that respondent's office
was closed before 5:00 p.m. on a business day. However there is a vast
d~stinction between the facts of the instant case and those found in
Shedlin. In the instant case the very office to which the process ~erver
went was unlikely to have a board member or appropriate authority to~-
ceive process (see Isif v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 32 A.D.2d 578,
299 N.Y.S.2d 231). The process server herein did not first appear at the
office of the Zoning Board of Appeals, nor is there any allegation that
said office was closed at 12:15 p.m. of that day. Upcn the facts as
stated by petitioner, it can not be said that the first criteria as enum-
erated by the Court in Shedlin, of a good faith attempt to serve the re-
spondent personally, was ever made or even contemplated.
CPLR 312 requires service upon a board having a chairman by delivery
of the summons to him (Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Plannin~ Board, supra.,
83 A.D.2d 698). No good faith attempt was ever made to serve the chairman,
secretary or any board member individually. The process server merely
asked the Town Clerk to accept service on behalf of the Board of Zoning
Appeals. There is no allegation that the chairman was in the presence of
the individually wrongfully served who in turn immediately turned the
petition over to him. Therefore such cases as Bradley, supra, and Daniels,
supra, are Of no help to the respondent. While this Court will not cate-
gorize this case as one in which the process server acted so carelessly
that sustaining service would open the door to grave abuse (see McDonald
v. Ames Supply Co., supra.), various distinctions may arise that might en-
courage less than diligent service pursuant to CPLR 312.1 It is of no
consequence that the petitions later came into the possession of the party
to be served. "Notice received by means other than those authorized by
statute cannot serve to bring a defendant within the jurisdiction of the
Court (Feinstein v. Berqer, 48 N.Y.2d 234, 241, 422 N~Y.S.2d 356, 397 N.E.
2d 1161) "Haak v. Town of Wheatland, 86 A.D.2d 305, 448 N.¥.S.2d 305.
The final argument found in petitioner's letter to this court dated
April 22, 1985, to the effect that respondent's appearance for the purpose
of an adjournment negates their ability to raise the jurisdictional
~uestion is without merit (Colbert v. International Security Bureau Inc.,
79 A.D.2d 448, 437 N.Y.S.2d 360; Conforti v. Beekman Downtown Hospital,
A.D.2d , 435 N.Y.S.2d 284.
Acc~,rdil~gly, the motion to dismis:; ds to the r~,:Un~iid(:n~, Hoard
A~Hcais of Ihe Town of Southold is qrantcd.
i. This Court notes that various factual distinctions quickly come to
re:nd as to whether or not the Town Clerk herself redelivered the
to the Zoning Board of Appeals or did she direct some other party LO r¢~-
deliver; and was the petition redelivered to the Chairman or board mumbc:r
or to an employee found in the office of the Zoning Board of Aleph, als,
w,~re thc [.~aper~ just left on someone's desk. Adhoranc~ to th~. st.~tutc
would avoid these potential conflicts.
Order entered August 29, ~985
TRUCKENBRODT, LYONS v. TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD
Index No. 85-3685
Motion No. 2,998 - 4/23/85
4,239 - 5/20/85
This Court notes that the petition in this action seeks to review,
reverse, vacate, dismiss and annul a determination of the rcspo~dent
Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, dated January 28, 1985, in its
ruling on an interpretation of the Code of the Town of Southold. The
petitioners sought an interpretation under the Zoning Code of the Town of
Southold with regard to an alleged non-conforming use.
It is clear that the Town of Southold cannot be substituted for the
Board whose determination is sought to be reviewed (People ex rel.
Vickerman v. Contracting Board, 46 Barb. 254). For the purposes of this
proceeding the respondents are not interchangeable, the Town and the
Zoning Board are not one and the same. With the failure of jurisdiction
over the Zoning Board of Appeals, this action should be dismissed since
it's determination cannot now be disturbed.
Dated: August 22, 1985 ~~ ~ ~
ALFRED M. LAMA,TM J.S.C.
/
**TO: ESSEKS, HEFTER, CUDDY & ANGEL, ESQS.
Attorneys for Respondents/Intervenors
P.O. Box 279
108 East Main Street
Riverhead, New York 11901
~MITH, FINHELSTEIN~ LUNDBERG~ CRIMMINS AND YAKABOSKI
Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer,
Southold Board of Appeals
Main Road, Route 25
Southold, New York
11971
Re:
September 13, 1985
Chairman
Truckenbrodt v. Town of Southold
Dear Gerry:
I write to report that,
matter of Truckenbrodt v. the Board,
dismiss was determined by Mr. Justice Lama on
of August, 1985, in which decision, his Honor
our position and dismissed the petition.
FJY:mo
in connection with the
ruly yours,
the motion made to
the 22nd day
agreed with
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN RnAD- STATE RnAD 25 SnUTHnLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEBRtNGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, .IR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH FI. SAV~ICKI
January 28, 1985
To:
Re:
Howard E. Pachman, Esq.
Pachman, Oshrin & Block, P.C.
366 Veterans Memorial Highway,
Commack, NY 11725
Box 273
William W. Esseks, Esq.
Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel
108 East Main Street, Box 279
.Riverhead, NY ll901
Appeal No. 3234 Truckenbrodt/Abbott and Swanson
Gentlemen:
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the recent findings
and determination in the above matter which was rendered at
a Special Meeting held January 26, 1985.
Yours very truly,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
By Linda Kowalski
Enclosure
cc: Building Department
~¢uthold Town Board ppeals -42- June 21, Regular Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3234.
Application of ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT, et al., Private Road,
Orient, NY for a reversal of the interpretation of the building
inspector concerning a Certificate of Occupancy No. Zl1736 issued
June 21, 1983 to E. Loucopoulos and H. Damianos for an one-family
dwelling and four accessory cottage structures at Private Road
No. 7 (a/k/a Diedericks Road), Orient; County Tax Map Parcel NO.
1000-18-03-005. [Current Owners: D.I. Abbott and J.T. Swanson.]
The Chairman opened the hearing at approximately 10:09 p.m.
and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask you to allow me to dispense with
read everything here. The board has red this and I want to
briefly sketch Exhibit B so that everybody is aware of what is
going on here, but I would rather not read every bit or piece
that's here.
HOWARD E. PACHMAN, ESQ.: We'll expedite it as long as your
record is appropriate, I will have no objection.
MR. cHAIRMAN: Thank you. I(The Chairman read Exhibit B of
the application.) I have a copy Of the survey map indicating
the nature and placement of the cottages in question dated Octo-~
ber 31, 1983; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties_in the area~ Mr.
Pachman.
HOWARD E. PACHMAN, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman. I hope I can bring
this close enough and I hope I speak loudly enough that I don't
need any microphone and you be able to heQ.r me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If ~nybod~ ha's problems hearing in the back
of the room, please let us know.
MR. PACHMAN: At the outset--my name is Howard Pachman. I'm
an attorney. My office is at 366 Veterans Memorial Highway,
Commack, New York; and I represent Mr. Truckenbrodt and the adja-
cent owners of all the properties abutting the Abbott and Swanson,
say for one or tWo which I will explain in a second. Before I
start, I think it's fair for the record that I indicate that I
have been in the past been consulted by a Mr. Burke Liburt, who
is a neighbor to one of the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
I think I want that to be on the record. I'm not asking nor my
clients asking for that member, Mr. Douglass, to disqualify ~imself
Southold Town Board Appeals -43- June 21,~984 Regular Meetin~ ~
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
from this board. That'sla choice that he would want to make. I'm not
asking him to do it, but for the record, I want it to be understood
that I have been'in consultation with Mr. Liburt about the problem
with the two neighbors, and I want the'record to show this statement.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready to take the oath?
MR. PACHMAN: Yes, I'm ready to take the oath.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your right hand?
MR. PACHMAN raised his right hand.
MR. 'CHAIRMAN:
are about to give
truth?
Do you solemnly swear
is the truth, the whole
that the testimony that you
truth, and nothing but the
MR. PACHMAN: I do.
MR.'CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. PACHMAN: That's the first time I've been sworn in as an
attorney. I would also like to take something out of order. I
subpoenaed the Long Island Lighting Company, the record--he has
appeared with the record, would you mind ~f I take him out of
order so he wouldn't have to.stay? Would the gentleman from the
Lighting Company please stand up and s~ate your name, and if the
Chairman would like you to be sworn in--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Use the mike, if you would, Sir, please.
JOHN WAHLERS: My name is John Wahlers, W-A-H-L-E-R-S.
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Wahlers, are you an employee of ~he Long
Lighting Company?
Island
~: ~ MR. WAHLERS: I am.
MR. PACHMAN: And was the Long Island Lighting Company served
with a subpoena by my office?
MR. WAHLERS: It was delivered to Mineola. Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: And was it so ordered su~poen~ bY the Honorable
Justice ~eLuca of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. And
did it ask you to bring tonight before this board certain books,
statements, and records that you have relating to premises sometimes
known as Green Acres, Tax Map Number 100, Section 081, Block 03,
Lot 005, located in Private Road, Diedericks Road,, East Marion, New
York, in the name of Dorothy I. Abbott and Janet T. Swanson, or, and
~uthold Town
(Appeal No.
MR. PACHMAN
Board ppeals -44- June 21, Regular Meeting
3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
(continued):
I hope I pronounce this name correctly, and if I don't, please forgive
me, Eurydice Loucopoulos, L-O-U-L-O-P-O-U-L-O-S, or Herodotos Damianos.
Did you bring those records, Sir?
MR. WAHLERS: I believe I have those records.
MR. PACHMAN: Do those records indicate when electrical service
serviced that particular parcel of property?
MR. WAHLERS: In what name, Sir?
MR. PACHMAN: In the name of Loucopoulos and Damianos.
MR. WAHLERS: Service was in that name between May the lOth, 1974
and August 28, 1978.
MR. PACHMAN: Do you have any record on those premises--is that
for the main house?
MR. WAHLERS: It's for the main house.
MR. PACHMAN: What about the cottages?
MR. WAHLERS: The cottages have the same, so the record is the
same for the cottages.
MR. PACHMAN: All right. You may have some new service in the
name of Swanson and Abbott, do you?
MR. WAHLERS: We do.
MR. PACHMAN: And when was that service applied for?
MR. WAHLERS: I have two applications dated February 13, 1984.
One application dated March 27, .1.984 in the name of Abbott and Swanson.
MR. PACHMAN: Are they for the main house and the cottages?
MR. WAHLERS: These applications are not complete. One is
Cottage Two. Another for Cottage Two. Cottage One. Cottage Three.
Cottage Four. Those are just applications.
MR. PACHMAN: Has service been installed in those cottages yet?
MR. WAHLERS: No meters have been set in these two that we--the
four that I just referred to.
MR. PACHMAN: So, Sir, do I understand your testimony, between
1978 and the new applications, there was no electrical service
servicing the main building or the cottages on this particular loca-
tion?
MR. WAHLERS: After 1978, the services were abandoned, removed.
MR. PACHMAN: I have no further questions.
Southold Town Board
ppeals -45- June 21,e984 Regular Meeting'
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to permit the other side to--
MR. PACHMAN: It's up to you. You run the slhow here, Sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to ask Mr. Esseks, do you have any
questions of this--
MR. ESSEKS: Over here, I don't.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I didn't see you over there, Sir.
you were hiding on the other side of the--
I thought
MR. ESSEKS: I couldn't see the easel.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I see.
Thank you very much, Sr.
MR. WAHLERS: May I be excused?
MR. PACHMAN: Yes. I have the--he doesn't have copies of those
records, but I think his testimony would suffice in lieu of supplying--
MR. CHAIRMAN: How would we get Copies of thosE?
MR. WAILERS: I can supply them if you need them.
MR. PACHMAN: Would you'~end copies to the Board of Appeals?
MR. WAHLERS: Board of Appeals.
MR. PACHMAN: Right.' And send a copy to me please? Howard Pachman.
MR. WAHLERS: All right.
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Esseks, would you like to sit a little closer
so that you could see the easel? I'm not trying to block Hour.view.
The parcel of property of Abbott and Swanson consists of some 12
acres in Orient, New York, and it fronts about 435 feet on Long Island
Sound. Access to that property is off the Main Road on a right-of-way
which traverses land of Lyons on two sides who is also one of the
objectants and one of my clients, it passes through land of Rose
Ohaniah (spelling?), Smith, Chouinard, and Caufield and then passes
through Leslie, another client, passes Singerman, Hess, Gullackson
and Mearns. Gullackson is the predecessor in title to Truckenbrodt.
Mr. Truckenbrodt is the recent purchaser of that property. On the
easterly side, or northerly side really, is Dr. Pung, Bayles, Bayles,
Kulpa, Gold. (Mr. Pachman referred to map on easel which was placed
in the front portion of the audience.)
The people who are concerned and who are objecting are Mr. Lyons,
who is at the foot of the right-of-way--you have Leslie, Singerman,
Hess, Truckenbrodt, Mearns, Pung, Bayles, Bayles, Kulpa. Now you have
~o'uthold Town Board of Appeals -46- June 21,
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
some statements from some of these owners indicating during the years
that they have been in ownership of this property during the time that
Damianos--we'll use that name for sake of ease rather than repeating
both names--were in possession of that property which I think was
19~6. ~During that time the cottages were used as indicated by the
Lighting Company for some period of time in 1975 and 1976, and then
was abandoned and the service was cut off in '78. Your letters, which
you already have in the file which I will not repeat, indicating the
people who testified or sent statements as to the use of the property
would be redundant to restate them at this time.
I have witnesses present--some people who have testified as to
the actual use of the property during this period of time. But as a
predicate, before I introduce said testimony, I think it behooves me
not to remind you but to once again draw your attention to your
ordinance, which obviously sets forth the purposes of the health,
welfare and safety, and also requires that the residences be pre-
served.
One of the the most important statements in your ordinance,
lO0-10, which sets forth purposes says that it should be, under "F,"
the gradual elimination of nonconforming uses. And this a stated
purpose in your ordinance.
It is clearly without a doubt that today the use of cottages,
motels, tourist camps, are not proper uses in the zoning as it
presently exists on that particular property. And if that
property is to be used in the fashion that Swanson and Abbott
intend to use, it would have to be based upon the fact that they've
had a continuing nonconforming use.
We next look to the statement as to definition of cottages
and motels--I won't repeat them to you at this time, but if you're
going to operate today a tourist camp or a tourist cottage under
Article X, you must make application to get permits to do that.
I've checked with the Building Department, and the Clerk's Office,
and there is no record, to the best of my ability to find any
application on file or any applications be filed to operate under
Article X as a tourist colony or a camp.
Now we get to the issue of what is a nonconforming use. A
nonconforming use is defined specifically in the ordinance as
what it is. And it says that a nonconforming use is any use
whether of a building or a tract of land, or both, existing on
the effective date of this chapter which does not conform to the
use regulations of the district for which it is located. That
clearly is the case now. The district does not permit that kind
of use.
The ordinance under Section lO0-118 talks about nonconforming
Southold Town Board ppeals -47- June 21,~'984 Regular Meeting' ~
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
uses and makes a statement. The statement is, "Unless authorized as
a Special Exception by the Board of Appeals," which is not the case
here, "as hereinafter provided, the following provisions shall apply
to nonconforming uses." Obviously "A" says, and ~'ll just summarize
that, if the building continues to be used for that purpose, it can
remain as a nonconforming use.
"...A nonconforming use of a building or premises may be changed
to a use ...or higher classification according to...this chapter...~
provided you go for the necessary variances.
"Whenever," and this is "D"--this is what we"re talking about
for the interpretation why we believe the building inspector erred
in not, although based on the affidavit which he did issue the
Certificate, when he was put on notice--put on notice that the
information contained in that affidavit which supported that Certi-
ficate was inaccurate or in doubt, he should have put a Stop Order
or revoke that Certificate and directed the applicant, or the then
owner, because the applicants were Damianos at the time and then
Swanson and Abbott took title; to Section D, which says:
And
"...Whenever a nonconforming use of a building or premises has
been discontinued for a period of more than two years or has
been changed to a higher classification...,,'which is not
applicable here, "...the nonconforming use of such building or
premises shall no longer be permitted unless a variance
therefor shall have been granted by the Board of Appeals as
hereinafter provided .... "
there's no record in your office where anyone moved.
(At this point in time, Bernice
interrupted to stop the hearing
unjammed, etc.)
Gerardi, Stenographer for Mr. Pachman,
so that the steno machine could be
MS. GERARDI: ...Unless a variance shall thereafter be granted
by the Board of Appeals as hereinafter--
MR. PACHMAN:...As hereinafter provided. And Section E, which is
also somewhat interesting. A nonconforming building may not be
reconstructed or structurally altered during its 'life to an extent
exceeding in aggregate cost 50% of the fair value of the building
unless the use of such building is changed to a conforming use...,"
and I think the building inspector's records will reveal that there
is work being done in and about the premises, and I would believe
that after you hear the testimony as to the condition of the build-
ings, the cabins, that more than 50% of the value has been con-
structed, it would be installed in and about the premises. I find
it somewhat also, startling, and I'm somewhat concerned about the
~o~thold Town Board of Appeals -48- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
fact that the ordinance also calls for, that any reconstruction,
restoration, alteration, or structurally altered building, requires
that a permit be obtained from the Building Inspector; and although
roof work and interior room work was done, and siding work was per-
formed, and exterior structure landing, and various other things
and plumbing, and new sewer work was being performed, or cesspool
work was being performed, there has been no permit issued by the
building department. When I asked the building inspector as to
why no permits were issued, he says, that's the way we did it when
I came, and I'm just doing it the same way. I trust that was the
proper quote.
So we have work that's being performed. In violations of
building permits, Section under 100-141, which presumably would not
then be the basis for someone getting a Certificate of Occupancy
which is a prerequisite for occupying a dwelling, whether it be
a nonconforming use or a conforming use, and we don't have that.
And one of the reasons I do also believe that one is required
to have a building permit because that gives the Assessors Office
the key to know that some construction is going on, that some
buildings are being improved, and presumably the assessed value
which is coupled with the improvement of those buildings would be
shown on the assessment role, therefore, the Assessments would
change, and presumably the tax computed based upon that piece of
property would also be the case.
So I'm asking for an interpretation as to why or if the
building inspector does not feel that the erection, reconstruction
and restoration for structurally altered building.s required build-
ing permits. A simple looking at any dictionary--
(At this point in time, Mr. Pachman's stenographer interrupted to
stop the hearing due to problems with the steno machine. There was
another brief pause.)
MR. PACHMAN continued: If we look in the regular paperback dictionary
rather than the Funk and Wagnalls, we find that the word "alter" is
to make or become different or change in character, so the mere
applying of anything different is an alteration that would require the
issuance of a permit under your ordinance. If you look at the word
"reconstruct," to build against, create, to enact, to renew; and we
can go through each one of those words and those words are clearly
defined and clearly set forth that under the very ordinance, a per-
mit was required and hasn't been done. So we need an interpretation
from this board as to why there has been no permit granted.
But let's get to the issue of nonconforming use and why there
hasn't been a stop order or some kind of action taken to abrogate
the permit which was given in June of 1983 to Mr. Damianos and his
co-owner. And understandably and I'm not saying that Abbott and
Swanson didn't rely on it--I'm not blaming them. They bought the
premises I assume with the understanding that they had a valid permit.
I'm not suggesting that they did anything other than rely on the
Southold Town Board
Appeals
-49-
June 21, 1984 Regular Meetin~ ~
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN continued:
person they bought the property from.
I have a statement here--he couldn't be present--from Dr. Pung,
who's the adjacent owner right there and it's in the affidavit form
and says:
"...To Whom It May Concern: June 7, 1984.
I have owned a summer home and waterfront lot by Edwards Lane
in Orient since 1980. I have had in the past negotiated to
purchase the adjoining property west of us belonging to Dr.
Damianos. I have inspected 3 cottages and 1 house in that
property and came with a builder who advised me that those
structures were beyond repair and should be torn down com-
pletely. It was on account of the conditions of those
buildings that I decided not to go ahead with the purchase.
I also know positively that those buildings have been
abandoned at least since 1980 until recently.
I have been involved in several building constructions and
I know those cottages and the house were total wrecks.
Thank you. "
Sworn to. Signed Dr. Pung.
MR. PACHMAN: I would like to submit that for the board. (The
document read above was submitted for the record and marked such.)
MR. PACHMAN: How we doing?
MS. GERARDI: Good.
MR. PACHMAN: I have another statement from Mrs. Mearns. Mrs. Mearns
is a homeowner right on the Long Island Sound adjacent to the
property. As a resident immediately adjacent to 'the newly acquired
property owned by Ms. Abbott and Ms. Swanson, I have been advised to
be in touch with you, as our attorney, to give you some details as
to the deplorable condition of the cottages on said property;
" Several years ago, these cottages were offered to the employees
~'Mr. Damianos and their families for vacation at the rate of $50
per week. ALthough we were not given the lady's name, one mother
told my husband that with God's help, I will never come back to this
place again." She explained she had to spend the entre week doing
nothing but scrub and clean in an effort to make the place even
slightly livable. There was no place allocated for the disposal of
rubbish or garbage. The people just piled it behind one of the
bungalows that were unoccupied,"(pause for other stenographer).
~'..thus inviting rats to feed on the above. This was reported to the
former owner and it was corrected."
Southold Town Board of Appeals -50- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appea'~ No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR'.' PACHMAN continued:
"...Occasionally we would look around the cottage as we were aware
of young people hanging out in them. They surely made a shambles
of the place. The roof of one of the buildings had a leak and
the rain gaining entrance, thus causing mildew actually climbing
the wall in the bathroom. We know the lad~es are in possession of
an affidavit issued by Damianos, stating that these buildings have
been in continuous occupancy. The families of Hess--Gullackson
(former owners of the Truckenbrodt residence), and we, the Mearnses
are related and at no time were all three homes left unattended
even over one might. I add this to say, people could not be
occupying the cottages at any time without someone of us observing
their, presence. It is quite obvious that these ladies have pur-
chased the property under fraudulent circumstances. Submitted,
...Mrs. Harry Mearns .... "
And I think it's in affidavit form also. (Mr. Pachman submitted
the document of Mrs. Harry Mearns which was marked received today's
date by the Chairman, for the record.)
As I indicated to you the Truckenbrodt's predecessor in title is
Gullackson.
"...May 21, 1984. To Whom It May Concern:
This~ is to advise you that I resided in Orient from June 1971
Until June 1983. My house was located on a private road on
the north side of Route 25 and bordered on the north by
property owned by Mearns, on the south by property owned
by Hess, and on the east by property owned by Damianos.
The cabins on the Damianos' property were visible from
my property. These cabins were vacant, open and in total
disrepair. The grounds surrounding the cabins were all
unkempt. For many years these cabins were unoccupied...'."
Signed...Donald L. Gullackson and it's witnesses by two
signatures
(Mr. Pachman submitted the May 21, 1984 one-page letter for the
record, which the Chairman marked "6/21/84 received, H.P.)
On February 28, Mr. Lessard received
I think that shows in your file ()
adjacent to this property.
a letter from Irene Singerman,
who is the other owner
"...Dear Mr. Lessard... I am writing you about a situation
that's just recently come to my attention. My husband and
I have been property owners in Orient on a private road
known locally as Kierdricks Road, and have resided here
since June 1979. A parcel of land on the Sound was recently
purchased ~rom a party name Damianos, containing several
abandoned cabins which formerly enjoyed protected status,
Southold Town Boa~'~ of Appeals -51- ~'~'une 21, 1984 Regula~ ~Mee~:~nc.
(Appeal No. 3234. -ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
...even though they did not conform to thle local zoning laws.
Over the years, and certainly since we have lived there, the
cabins, to my knowledge, have never been inhabited, although
they have been vandalized repeatedly, and have been the
habitat of many animals. Their deterioration has certainly
made them a hazard to all.
I understand that the present owners intend to and are
restoring them for rental use. Since these structures have
been abandoned for so many years, it seems to me that this
would be contrary to the zoning laws established by the Town
of Southold .... Sincerely Irene Singerman.
The original letter has been handed to me by the Building Inspector,
and I will hand that to this board for their information. (Letter
dated February 28, 1984 addressed to Victor Lessard, signed by
Mrs. Singerman was submitted for the record and marked received
today's date H.P.)
Thank you, Sir. At this time I would like to ask Mr. Hale to
please stand. One of the affidavits attached to the application
is from Mr. Hal6, who is present here. Mr. Hale, would you tell
me where you own property with relation to the Damianos property?
MR. HALE: My property is 300 feet east of the Damianos property.
Those 300 intervening feet being owned by Dr. Pung.
MR. PACHMAN: And have you had occasion--how long have you
been living at that location?
MR. HALE: We've been living at that location yearround since
August of 1980. The building was started under construction in
January of 1980, and we had a cottage which was made a part of
the permanent building which has been in my wife's family since-
MR. PACHMAN: Approximately.
MR. HALE: Well, let's see. I've gone with my wife for 50
years and it was before that. So I can't tell you what date.
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Hale, I'm going to have to interrupt you,
sir. I think I usurped the Chairman's charge of having you sworn in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your right hand please.
MR. HALE raised his right hand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do
you are about to give
but the truth?
you solemnly swear that the testimony that
i.s the truth, the whole truth and nothing
Southold Town Boar~m~of Appeals
-52-
21, 1984 Regular Meetin~
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. HALE: I do.
MR. PACHMAN: What you said before was under oath also?
MR. HALE: Yes, it was.
MR. PACHMAN: In about 1978 you retired, Sir?
MR. HALE: Yes, Sir.
MR. PACHMAN: All right. And could you tell this board since
1978 what you observed in and about these premises known as the
Damianos' property and the cottages and the cabins and the house?
MR. HALE: Well in the Summer of 1979, my wife and I spent
the entire summer in our cottage although we had a yearround resi-
dence on Village Lane. We did this in order to really determine
whether or not we wanted to build a permanent residence there. So
we were there from May to October. And we have always had animals;
we would walk on the beach; we walked on the beach ourselves; our
children and our grandchildren used the beach and go up and down
the beach, and we have never seen those cottages occupied. We
moved into our houses that I said in August of 1980, and until
construction was started, we saw nobody in those, in or around
those cottages other than once in awhile we would hear the dog b~k.
We have a very large dog whose mission in life is to guard and we
have a saying in our house, "When the dog barks, look." So we
looked, and once in awhile we would see somebody down on the beach.
It could be Ellie and Dick Leslie taking a swim. But still we were
alerted to th.e fact that they were there. And those cottages were
unoccupied at that time and to the best of my knowledge have not
been Qccupied since we've been permanent yearround residents at
that location.
'MR. PACHMAN: And that would be 1978, Sir?
MR. HALE: We moved in in i980.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. Between 1980 and today--
MR. HALE: Yes. And the Summer of 1979 before
build.
we started to
MR. PACHMAN: Can you give me some idea or can you tell this
board some idea of the condition of those cottages. Let the board
understand one thing, we are not making any objection to the house
being reconstructed or any work that's being done on the house.
Our own focus and direction is upon the cabins and cottages. The
house has got a building permit for the work that's being done there.
My clients are not objecting to the work that's being performed on
the house; and anything that we're talking about now is not talking
Southold Town Boarded of Appeals
-53-
21, 1984 Regular Meetl. n
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT'SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
about the house. The house has a building permit and work is being
performed under that building permit, I presume, conforming to
the building code. And when this is completed, I assume that a
Certificate of Occupancy will be granted. Our focus, our attention,
and our own direction is to the cottages. Now, get back to those
cottages, Mr. Hale. Can you give me some idea as to the--did you--
what did you see in and about the windows?
MR. HALE: Well, in my letter to you I stated that they were
at various times, they were, windows were boarded up; the windows
seemed to be broken out. Only the frames being there; and they
were in an abandoned state.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you notice whether the doors were operating
or whether the landings were usable or anything like that?
MR. HALE: I can't testify to that.
MR. PACHMAN: You don't recollect that. Do you have any
recollection of walking your dog across that property at any t~me.
'~MR. HALE: Well all the old Orienters will vouch for the fact that
in the, I'll call if off season, we take strolls and so forth and
it was our habit for a long period of time to walk our dogs and
one of the places that we would go would be to go from our
property down to what we call.the farmland and across and over
there--Ellie and Dick Leslie's, and cut through Damianos' property
and go down to the beach and go back to our cottage that way. And
over time it got to the point that we each could no longer do that
because the roadway was completely overgrown. The tree limbs had
fallen off and there was just so point in working you~ way through
it. So my observations from that time were only from the beach.
MR. PACHMAN: But you could see that the area was basically
abandoned and not being used?
MR. HALE: Yes, Sir.
MR. PACHMAN: I'll show you these pictures whiCh show the four
houses from the beach area and ask you is that a reasonable repre-
sentation of the condition of the houses that you recollect.
MR. HALE: Yes, it is.
MR. PACHMAN: During the time that they were abandoned and not
used.
MR. HALE: Yes.
MR~ PACHMAN: And those, the ones with the boards on the windows
and things like that. (Mr. Hale nodded yes.) Thank you.
,. ' Southold Town Board of Appeals -54- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: Ok, Mr. Hale, the other statements are basically
in your letter which is part of the record, and I will thank you
very much for testifying. I know your wife is here--
MR. HALE: No, she's not.
MR. PACHMAN: Oh, she didn't show up. Ok. All right. Mrs.
Mearns? Mr. Mearns. Can you hear me?
MR. MEARNS: Sure.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok.
Mr. Mearns, you're the
cabins, correct Sir?
Do you want to use that microphone please.
house right on the sound right next to those
MR. MEARNS: That's right.
MR. PACHMAN: How long have you lived there?
MR. MEARNS: Pret{y close tO ll years. Ten and some odd months.
MR. PACHMAN: Can you see the cottages from your house, Sir?
MR. MEARNS: Yes. The closest one, it"s right near the property
line, is about IOQ feet from.our house. It's about a 100.
'The stenographer a~ked Mr. Mearns his full name and its spelling.
MR. PACHMAN: Harry Mearns. M-e-a-~-n-s.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you raise your right hand please?
Mr. Mearns raised his'right hand.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
about to say is the
truth?
Do you solemnly swear that everything you are
tr~th, the whole truth and nothing but the
MR. MEARNS: Outstandingly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir.
(Mr. Mearns gave a s~atement that was not audible.)
MR. PACHMAN: Would you repeat that for the re~ord please?
MR. MEARNS: I s~id'that the distance from my house to the
nearest cottage is just about 110 feet.
MR. PACHMAN: Then he didn't lose his stroke, ok~ (jokingly).
All right. In your seeing those houses during that time, let'.s
bring it back to the last three or four year~. Can you give me
some description as to the conditio~n of those houses?
Southold Town Boarded of Appeals
-55-~ June
1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. MEARNS: Well, the condition was in a state flux, on account
of the weather, a lot of wind, a certain amount of vandalism, and
very poor effort made to try to board it up. Some of the boarding
that was put up was ripped down. There were young kids around, that
didn't have anything to do so the cottages were v.ery accessible.
Nobody to take care of them. So they deteriorated, I would say
starting in the Year 1978 regularly all different things in the
hosues, things were destroyed and damaged, thrown out, and the
windows broken, and there were some efforts made to sort of close
it up; but they weren't very good. So by the time it got .to '83
I wouldn't have thought that you could fix them. You know, I said
somebody would take a lot of money to straighten these things out.
But that's t.he way it ~as. I know I wouldn't have tried it, and I
agree with Dr. Pung. I felt the same way that he feels on what to
do w~th them. .Either fo.r.~ire wood or take them away. But evidently
they're going to fix them up now. That's about it.
MR. PACHMAN: During that time of disrepair, did you see anyone
living in those houses?.
'MR. MEARNS: No. Another thing about seeing anybody living--
either I would say a very dim light, in any one of the ~ottages I
could see. .I could spot~ even wi.th trees, you know, with the foliage,
you can spot a light .very easily at night. So if anybody was there,
they never had any light, s on. jBut I don't know how they. could have
them on with the el~ectric turned off. They must have bought a
generator. So they--if they came there; they had candlelight with
.a shade over it an~d. I don't know what else.
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Mearns, I'll show you this picture. Do you
recognize, which cabin that is? .
MR. MEARNS viewed the picture: Isn't that the second one. It
looks like the second one f~om mine.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. AnJ is that a fair and accurate representa-
tion of the condition of those cabins during the time they were
abandoned and in disrepair?
MR. MEARNS: That's pretty accurate.
MR. PACHMAN: And what does that show, Sir?
MR. MEARNS: Nobody paid any attention to them.
MR. PACHMAN: Well, ~ mean--
MR. MEARNS: Well there was no one living there.
being used.
They weren't
MR. PACHMAN: Does it show the door hanging off?
Southold Town Board of Appeals -55-~ June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. MEARNS: Oh, yeah. (Mr. Esseks viewed pictures.)
MR. PACHMAN: Thank you. Yes, you're right, Mr. Esseks, it
shows a screen door hanging off and it shows no door. Thank you
for drawing that to my attention. Mrs. Mearns? Do you have
anything to add or to say. I don't want to say anything unless
you have something to say.
MRS. MEARNS: I don't think so. I think that covers it all.
MR. PACHMAN: All right, you heard your husband. If you
testified, would your testimony be substantially similar to his
testimony? Even if you were ~worn?
MRS. MEARNS: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Reverend Hess?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you solemnly swear that
are about to say at this hearing in the truth,
and nothing but the truth?
everything that you
the whole truth,
REVEREND HESS: Yes, so help me God. (after raising his right hand).
MS. GERARDI (stenographer): May I have your full name?
that
REVEREND HESS: Bradford N. Hess. H-e-s-s-.
MR. PACHMAN: Reverend Hess lives right there.
MR. PACHMAN: Reverend Hess, how long have you been
location?
living at
REV. HESS: We've been living there since I retired three years
ago. Before that we were there every weekend for about nine years.
Because my work took me out here weekends.
MR. PACHMAN: Can you describe to this board and tell this board
if during the time you were there on weekends, and during the time
you were there full time for the last three years, do you know or
had you seen anyone residing or using those cabins or cottages in
any fashion?
REV. HESS: No, not at all.
MR. PACHMAN: During that time, did you see the condition of
those cottages, Sir?
REV. HESS: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Can you describe to this board the condition of
those cottages?
Southold Town Boar~d of Appeals
-56-
Jun l, 1984 Regular Me~t'ing'..
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
REV. HESS: They were deteriorating regularly. I remember when
Doctor Damianos first had the property and he rented the cottages, he
was very meticulous during the wintertime to make sure that they were
boarded up, and he hired somebody to come in and put, I guess you
call them shutters or something, plywood over the doors and windows
to protect them. And the same fellow would come back in the Spring
and take it off because he was going to Tent them again. This
happened for about two or maybe three years, back in the late '7Os,
and but then since that time, one of those years through there, he
must have discontinued that practice so I didn't see anybody around
putting boards up or protecting the place.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you see any b~oken windows?
REV. HESS: Yes, ~ saw some'broken windows.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you see any holes in the roof?
REV.' HESS: I didn't see any holes in the roof, but I was sure
that the roofs must leak because the walls inside the cottages were
mildew and the mattresses that were there were. badly stainqd from
mildew and rain.
MR. PACHMAN: In your opinion were those houses occupied for the
last three years during the time--
REV. HESS: No, no way. No way, not possible.
MR. PACHMAN: I'll snow you th'is picture of another one of the
buildings, and this one is with the s~reen door open but the door
off, and ask you if that is a reasonable depicting of the way the
c~ndition of~one of those houses are.
REV. HEss: Yes. I would say so. ' ·
MR. PACHMAN: I have no further questions.
(The picture was given to Mr. Es·seks for viewing.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse, you must dire~t the questions this way.
WILLIAM ESSEKS, ESQ.: 'Can the witness tell us the year this
photograph was taken?
'REV. HESS: I don't know when it was taken.
MR. ESSEKS: Does the witness know which Cabin it is?
REV. HESS: I'm not sure seeing just that much of it. I know
which ones-- I know one that it isn.'t. I know it isn't the first
one closest to us.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -57- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: When was the last time before 1984 that the witness
was in any of the cottages?
REV. HESS: Before 1984. I would think probably '83 or '82.
MR. ESSEKS: Which cottage?
REV. HESS: All of them.
MR. ESSEKS: What time of year?
REV. HESS: That would probably be the summer time.
MR. ESSEKS: Will the Witness tell the board whether the doors
had springs on them?
REV. HESS: I know there was at least one, because I remember it
was loose from the hinges and it matched the state disrepair of the
rest. of them.
MR. ESSEKS: Will the witness state whether there were
on the windows?
screens
REV. HESS: I don't remember. I didn't notice any. I wasn't
looking for them.
MR. ESSEKS: Was the witness in the house and any of the cottages
in 19797
REV. HESS: I was in two of them around 19-- it might have been
'78 or '79 or '77, but it was when Mr. Damianos was renting them.
MR. ESSEKS: When was the last year that the witness recollects
that any of the cottages were r.ented?
RE'v. HESS: Either in 1977 or '78.
MR. ESSEKS: Each cottage or which cottages?
REV. HESS: I don't knJw, you know, if we start from the Truck-
~nbrodt's house and call the first cottage Number One,. the second one
Number Two, it was Cot.tages Number One and Two were the only ones
that I knew that were rented.
MR. ESSEKS: In those cottages in the last year that the witness
recollects they were occupied, were there beds i.n the cottages?
REV. HESS: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Were there kitchen tables in the cottages?
REV. HESS: Yes.
Southold Town Boar~of Appeals -58- June 1984 Regular Meet'i~g
(Appea~ No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: Were there chairs in the cottages?
REV. HESS: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Were thene crockery and kitchen utensils?
REV. HESS: Yes. Pots and pans.
MR. ESSEKS: Is it the witness's testimony that he was only in
two out of the four cottages in the last year of rental?
REV. HESS: Yes. And the reason is 'I had a little fault to
find with the fellow because he was shouting fireworks off at
1:30 in the morning, so the following day I went in to ask him
if he would refrain from that ~because th~s was not a carnival, it
was a residential area.
MR. ESSEKS: Does the witness recollect whether there was
electric power then? .
REV' HESS: I don't recollect that. I'm sure they must have
had lights on. But I don't specifically remember seeing electric
lights on .....
MR. ESSEKS:
cooking or not?
Does the witness recollect whether the people were
REV. HESS: No. I don't know that.
MR.
and pans of the type that you use for cooking?
REV. HESS: Yes. I'm quite sure there was.
specifically seeing them.
MR. ES~EKS: Were there toilet facilities in
ESSEKS: Does the witness recollect whether there was pots
REV. HESS: As far as I know there were, yes.
seeing any. I know there was a shower in Cottage
we had an altercation over that too.
I don't recall
the cottages?
I don't'remember
Number Two because
MR. ESSEKS: Does the witness recollec't whether
of rental whether the shower was operating?
~ REV~ HESS: Yes, it was operable..
in the last year
MR. ESSEKS: Operable?
REV. HESS: Yes, it was operable.
MR. ESSEKS: One of the cottages, two cottages?
~uthold Town Board
ppeals -59-
June 21, 1~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON~ continued:)
REV. HESS: All I know about is Cottage Number Two.
MR. ESSEKS: Did the four cottages in the last year of rental appear
to be approximately in the same condition?
REV. HESS: I don't remember that last year being in Cottages 3
and 4, but 1 and 2 I would say were about equal.
(Mr. Pachman submitted picture #3 for the record.)
MR. CHAIRMAN to RICHARD E. LESLIE: Do you solemnly swear that
the testimony that you are about to give is the whole truth and nothing
but the truth?
RICHARD E. LESLIE: I do.
MS. GERARDI ~ Can I have your full name?
MR. LESLIE: Richard E. Leslie.
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Leslie, do you own property south and west of
the Damianos' property?
MR. LESLIE: My wife and I own that property.
MR. PACHMAN: Excuse me, sir. Yes. Ok.
your wife owned that property?
How long have you and
MR. LESLIE: For ll years. We moved there in 1973.
MR. PACHMAN: And during the course of your living there,
you come a time when you saw Mr. Damianos and others using the
property of the main house and the cottages?
did
MR. LESLIE: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: And did there also come a time when there was a
discontinuance of use of the main house and the cottages?
MR. LESLIE: Yes, there did.
MR. PACHMAN: And can you tell this board when you recollect
there was a discontinuance of use of the cottages?
MR. LESLIE: I would, to the best of my recollection, after 1976
the cottages and the house, '76, '77, along in there some time were
no longer in use.
MR. PACHMAN: And did you have occasion to look at those cabins
during the years that they were in disuse?
MR. LESLIE: Yes, we did.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -60- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeai No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, Continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: Can you tell this board what you observed when you
looked at those cottages?
MR. LESLIE: Well, my wife and I walked that property many, many
times throughout the year. As a matter of fact, we, in order to get to
the beach, we passed through cabins we've now comE! to describe as
Cabins 3 and 4 within three or four feet of either cabin, so we did
have occasion to observe them on numerous times during those years.
MR. PACHMAN: And can you tell this board what you observed at
those occasions?
MR. LESLIE: Well, we observed that the houses obviously were
unoccupied, repeatedly over the years, or gradually over the years,
they became more and more vandalized by, I would assume children and
animals. The stairs were falling off several of them. The windows
what screens there were, there were only remnants left. We observed
snow in the wintertime in these cabins that passed through, and rain
in the other seasons of the year.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you observe some furniture in these houses?
MR. LESLIE: Well, I don't know if you would call it furniture.
Over the course of time, I think I recall seeing a small kitchen table
in one of them and a couple of iron pots and a mattress that was too
far gone to be called a mattress, a stove, refrigerator, but I don't
think that--if you call that furniture, then t guess it was furniture.
MR. PACHMAN: And from your viewpoint in the vantage of your
house, did you see any lights between '78 and to date?
MR. LESLIE: Well we cannot observe these cottages from our house.
MR. PACHMAN: So you would not be able to see whether-- did you
ever take walks along the beach and along the paths during the night?
MR. LESLIE: We walked along the beach at night. We didn't go
through the path at night.
MR. PACHMAN: And when you walked along the beach during that
time, did you observe any lights in those buildings?
MR. LESLIE: Not in the intervening years, somewhere around '76
'77.
MR. PACHMAN: Do people have to pass by your house to get access
through that property?
MR. LESLIE: Yes, they do.
MR. PACHMAN: Does that right-of-way go right across a good portion
of your property?
~Southold Town Board
ppeals -61- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. LESLIE: It goes within--yes, a good portion of my property.
MR. PACHMAN: And from your house, can you hear and can you see
if cars are going up and down that road?
MR. LESLIE: Yes, we can.
MR. PACHMAN: And during that time when the houses were abandoned
and disused, did you see many cars going up there?
MR. LESLIE: To use that--that specific property? Well, as a
matter of fact, when we would see a car, when I observed a car coming
up the drive, it was not the car that I knew to be either the Singer-
mans, the Mearns, Hess, Gullackson, I would go out and see who they
were and where they were going because we were always concerned about
vandals in the area. So any cars that I saw going to that area immedi-
ately turned around and left.
MR. PACHMAN: And you saw no one who was using your--the area in
front of you, or the right-of-way, to get access to those cabins?
MR. LESLIE: I saw no one.
MR. PACHMAN: And that was during the last three years at least
and possibly longer since those cabins have been abandoned and in disuse?
MR. LESLIE: That is correct.
MR. PACHMAN: All right. I have no further questions.
MR. LESLIE: Thank you.
(Mr. Pachman asked Mrs. Leslie a question that was inaudible.)
MRS. LESLIE: We have had occasion to go in--
MR. CHAIRMAN: Use the mike, if you would please.
MR. PACHMAN: And get sworn in please. (Mrs. Leslie raised her right hand.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you solemnly swear that everything that you
are about to tell us is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
MRS. LESLIE: I do.
MS. GERARDI: Can I have your name?
MRS. LESLIE: Eleanor Leslie. And I would like to say, that we
had in the last three years, particularly occasion to go inside the
cabins quite often. I recall that my husband often said, "And don't
go inside the cabin because the stairs have fallen down so badly they
Southold Town Board of Appeals -62- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MRS. LESLIE (continued):
may break and you'll hurt yourself." But the reason we had occasions
to go inside is that we have had several robberies, I wouldn't call
them robberies--but what seemed to be teenagers breaking into our
house to take an odd bottle of wine, scotch, or whatever, glassware,
and we kn~w because we had to get inside the garage on the property
to the main house that there were kids using that garage as a
camping out spot, if you will. They have written on walls and all
of the furniture was broken up in that garage, so when we were missing
a substantial amount of liquor and then later it was a television set
and a bicycle and so forth, we'd check ou
the property to see if perhaps those kids
then using that as the camping out place,
them.
t all of the buildings on
had.left them there and were
and to see if we could catch
MR. PACHMAN: And now that you went into those buildings and had
close observation of those buildings within the last years or more,
can you tell this board what y~u observed in those buildings? Were
they occupied?
MRS. LESLIE: Obviously not.
MR. PACHMAN: Were they in a state of disrepair?
MRS. LESLIE: State of total disrepair. Mildew as everyone has
mentioned plus the inside of the showers were so rusty that you would
never have gotten into one; and while there was crockery and pots and
pans, I mean if you call two dishes, some broken, one odd glass, you
know--it's the sort of crockery that you'd find in any abandoned place.
MR. PACHMAN: I have no further questions. Mr. Lyons.
PATRICK E. LYONS raised his right hand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your right hand, Mr. Lyons. Do
you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give is
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
MR. LYONS: I do.
MS. GERARDI: Your full name?
PATRICK E. LYONS: Patrick E. Lyons.
MS. GERARDI: L-y?
MR. LYONS: L-y-o-n-s.
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Lyons, you are at the front of the entrance
of that right-of-way where all these other neighbors live. That's on
Main Road and the right-of-way commences at that location, east of
your house?
'Southold Town Board of Appeals -63- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOT?/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. LYONS: Yes, it's a 16-foot wide easement over our property,
which is the sole ingress and egress of all those lots including the
former Damianos' property.
MR. PACHMAN: How long have you owned that property?
MR. LYONS: Since '77.
MR. PACHMAN: And since the time you've owned the property, have
you had occasion to use that right-of-way and go down to the Damianos'
property, the Leslie property, the Singerman. property, the Hess, Gullack-
son, and Mearns' property?
MR. LYONS: Yes. My wife and I are residents mainly on the
weekends, yearround, and very much fulttime in the summer. We used
to go to the beach because it was more, closer to the house and a
very attractive beach down there, and there was a little worn path
that Dick Leslie had eluded to between Cabin 3 and 4. And we have to,
we know that area on the way to the beach.
MR. PACHMAN: And in the course of your traversing and traveling
over the property and observing those cabins, can you tell this board
what you've seen and heard?
MR. LYONS: When we had first walked down there was to some
timidity seeing cottages. I'll back up a bit. When we bought our
house on Main Road, it had been abandoned for about 20 years and it
was in a severe state of delapidation. The cabins when we first
looked at them, I guess in '78 we were fairly busy in the first couple
of years when we bought the house and didn't have much time to go to
the beach. It seemed to be in a state of disuse, and over the years
it continued to get worse. Vines would crawl up through the windows,
higher every year. There was no evidence that the lawns were ever
mowed. Windows were broken out of. Doors torn off. Part of the
cottages had been boarded up it seemed, but then some of those have
been torn off, and we did upon occasion go into one cottage. This
would probably be around '81, '82 I guess. We saw bits and pieces
of crockery and mildew and it's something that brought back horrible
memories of our house before the renovations, so I got out of there.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. Did other than the normal neighbors and the
normal property owners that had access and right to use that right-of-way
during the time that you were there, during the intervening years where
we, testimony has indicated there's been an abandonment of the property,
did you see cars go in there other than the normal homeowners that would
be using that road?
MR. LYONS: Yes. Occasionally I would get very brave and stop
somebody that would use it, and in fact one time I think Rev. Hess had
a Sunday School picnic and it was quite embarrassing to stop several
people. We did get to note fairly much who owns the property back
there and what the cars were.
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: And you saw no cars going to the Damianos' property?
MR. LYONS: As far as I know. I said the road that went to the
main house by this time, by '82, was totally unpassable, in fact I
didn't even realize there was a house up there tlntil someone pointed
it out about '82. The weight of the cottages, too, the one road
curved around and the washout had been so tremendous that there's no
way that short of a four-wheel heavy-duty vehicle could even have
gotten down to that road ~'~the parking area. I think there was a
gas truck that got ( ) down there trying 1:o move the gas tanks
was something someone did recently.
MR. PACHMAN: All right. I have no further questions.
MR. PACHMAN: If the board pleases, I subpoenaed the Conservative
Gas Company who serviced the bungalows and received in lieu of their
appearance a letter from them, two letters--one says, "Annexed to
your subpoenae dated June 4th, 1984, Mr. Steven A. King is District
Manager of our Riverhead Office. After making diligent search of our
records, we have the dates and amounts on our computer listed below.
Damianos Account, 9/7/75 8.2 gallons, $7.37. May 5, 1975, 23.5
gallons, $20.32. June 8, 1975 service work order 9/2-30, $40.13. A
copy of the computer run-off of Mr. Damianos' account is enclosed
showing the two deliveries of service and the work order." Signed
by Conservative Gas. I've then received another' letter dated the
same date, "Dear Mr. Pachman: Enclosed please find copy of work
order 40144 for the pick-up of all equipment at the Damianos'
residence, Orient Point. We failed to include th~s with our other
information. We are sorry for any inconveniences this might have
caused you." And apparently that indicates that the equipment was
taken out in February 29, 1984. So if there has been no use of gas
on that premises from '75 through '84--
MR. ESSEKS: Mr. Chairman, I object to the counsel testifying.
He hasn't shown that he had personal knowledge of what happened on
that property. Unless he's willing to show that.
MR. PACHMAN: I was sworn.
MR. ESSEKS:
property--
You've shown no background by your visit to the
MR. PACHMAN: All I said is what that report says.
MR. ESSEKS: That isn't what it says at all. It says gas was
delivered in '75 and the equipment was taken out in February of 1984.
MR. PACHMAN: The board will make whatever conclusions they can.
from that.
MR. ESSEKS: It should, but not from your testimony.
Southold Town Board Appeals -65- June
984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: I also subpoenaed the Department of Health records
and asked them if they had any evidence of any work being done in and
about the premises.for the installation of septic systems, et cetera.
I have a certification from Robert A. Villa, Chief ~En§ineer, Division
of Environmental Health, County of Department of Health Services. I
think it indicates the application for this was submitted some time
in -- it doesn't seem to be dated, but I'll give it to the board--
the whole sheet of papers and they can read it as they will. I think
it's somewhat significant to note that on the applicant which is
signed by Janet Swanson, the utility type code circled "cabin and
bungalow colony." I have a paper clip attached to it. I won't
comment on it. I'll let it speak for itself. I also subpoenaed
the Wetmore Realty Company. I don't know ~f they're here. Did you
bring some records?
BONNIE ROSE: I have no record~this date. The only thing
have on my record and I am Bonnie Rose, licensed in real estate, is
what Lew Edson had sent to us. He concluded the deal. We were the
co-broker in that deal.
MR. PACHMAN: Is that the listing?
MS. ROSE: ( ) of sale. Memorandum of sale. (The brief
statement of Ms. Rose was not audible.) R-O-S-E.
MR. PACHMAN: All right. Will you swear this witness please?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Surely. (Mrs. Rose raised her right hand.) Do
you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give is
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
MS. ROSE: Yes. I do. And legally I am Lillian not Bonnie,
if you have to have it legal.
MR. PACHMAN: I'd like you to look
memorandum of sale, and if you'll please
sentence on that memorandum of sale.
at the last page of that
read to the board the last
MS. ROSE: Seller shall give purchasers an affidavit that the
house and cottages have been used within the last three years, closing
as soon as possible~ That's Lew Edson's signature.
MR. PACHMAN: Thank you. I have no further questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. PACHMAN: I also subpoenaed the Department of Environmental
Conservation of the State of New York to see if any permits were
obtained to put in a septic system and to reuse the property with
reference to it's being adjacent to tidal wetlands. Apparently they
have not responded to the subpoena and I have no knowledge of whether
any application was filed or what their records reveal other than the
fact that t did serve them with a subpoena. I have here a memorandum
of law which I have for each member of the board which I think will
explain my arguments with reference to the use of nonconforming uses
and the strict compliance, how they are to be interpreted under the
Southold Town Board~f Appeals -66- June 984 Regular Meeting~
(Appeal No, 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
code. I also have one for my adversary, Mr. Esseks. I also have one
for your Town Attorney, Mr. Tasker, so that he can have one also. I
think in essence what that says, and I'll summarize it and then sit
down and rest and to give you a rest, the, where an ordinance calls
for a set elimination of a nonconforming use for a period of two years~
the testimony that my clients gave showing vacancy and abandonment
is of no great consequence. That is some evidence of an abandonment
of a nonconforming use. But where the ordinance specifically sets a
time frame of two years, as the absolute bar, if it is not used and
you can't go back beyond and say, it could have been used or should
have been used. I will not go in detail to that. I think it's my
memorandum and I think it goes to that. I think the issuance and
the continuance of a nonconforming use is to be constrictly construed.
your own ordinance says where there are conflicts between varying
sections of the ordinance, particularly Section lO0-11, where
"provisions of this chapter conflict or impose with a different
requirement from any other provision of this chapter, the provision
or requirement which is more restrictive or which establishes a
higher standard shall govern." So therefore, the standard of
strict construction is the one that must be applied against the
continued use of a nonconforming existence, or nonconforming use.
And the burden should not have fallen on the adjacent neighbors to
prove before this board that this was a continuing nonconforming use
for that. The burden should have been on the owners of the property
who should have come before this board when the building inspector
was put on notice that this certificate that he issued apparently
was based upon information that was not totally accurate and he should
have put a stop order on the work that was being performed and not
let these people spend a lot of money to repair and add to these
houses when they vaguely violating the ordinance and violating other
codes for which they shouldn!)t have been put to that task because
they didn't get a stop order from the building department. And they
should have then come before this board and asked for a variance if
they wanted continuation of this nonconforming use. As set forth
in the ordinance. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Esseks, we have one member of the board
came out of the hospital bed tonight to make this hearing, and I
would like to take a three-minute recess to allow--
that
MR. ESSEKS: I believe this proceeding is brought against the
building inspector, so, I don't know how you do it here in Southold,
but it would appear to me as though he would go next.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that who you would like?
MR. ESSEKS: I'm going to do what you decide, but it would
appear to me as though he's the respondent and--
Southold Town Board o~f Appeals -67- June
1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not to my knowledge.
MR. PACHMAN: I would respectfully differ with you.
MR. ESSEKS: My clients are not a part of these proceedings.
MR. PACHMAN: I understand that. They were put on notice
because they're an adjacent owner and they're the ones who are the
recipients unfortunately of an affidavit which they relied on,
rightly or wrongly so.
MR. ESSEKS: Howard,he asked me whether I agree. I think a
break is a wonderful idea. But implicit in that is that you'd be
expecting more testimony from me. I'm going to call at least one
witness tonight, but I believe that it is appropriate if the
building inspector is ready to proceed for him to offer whatever
proof he has. I believe the proceeding is an im rem proceeding
brought against the town questioning whether the town was correct
in the decision, and I intend to support the position of the
town or at least until a conclusion, but I will proceed as you direct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Esseks, I don't think specifically the
building inspector is ready to testify.
MR. ESSEKS: I now understand what you're saying. After
the break, we'll go on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I have a motion please?
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED to recess temporarily for ~pproximately five minutes,
at which time the hearing will be reconvened.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted
vote of all the members.
Grigonis, Doyen,
by unanimous
The board left the meeting hall, and returned at approximately
11:35 p.m.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to reconvene the public hearing in the matter of
Appeal No. 3234, TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
·
Southold Town Board~f Appeals -68- June 2 984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. ?RUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
J. ROBERT PETERS was the next witness.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth?
MR. PETERS: I do. Initial, J. Robert Peters.
MR. ESSEKS: Where do you live, Sir?
MR. PETERS: I live in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
MR. ESSEKS: And have you been here tonight and heard about this
property?
MR. PETERS: Yes, Sir.
MR. ESSEKS; And when did you first visit it?.
MR. PETERS: In 1952.
MR. ESSEKS: What relationship were you or are you to the former
owner?
MR. PETERS: My mother married Raymond Diedrick who owned the
property.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you spend summers at the property?.
MR. PETERS: Yes, sir.
MR. ESSEKS: Did there come a time when the cottages were built?
MR. PETERS: Yes, sir.
MR. ESSEKS: Were you present at that time?
MR. PETERS: Yes, sir.
MR. ESSEKS: When were they built?
MR. PETERS: The first cottage that was started to be built ~'n~
1953, and the second one was built the following year which would be
'54. Third and fourth were started to be built in 1956.
MR. ESSEKS:. When were they completed?
MR. PETERS: Completed in the Spring of 1957.
MR. ESSEKS: I'll show you this photograph and
it reflects.
MR. PETERS:
I'll ask you what
It reflects the four cottages as I know them.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -69- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. ?RUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON,
MR. ESSEKS: I offer that.
(Mr. Esseks submitted the photograph With the words
Sent by Mrs. Raymond Diedrick, Green Acres, Orient," for
MR. ESSEKS: Is that a fair and reasonable portrayal
photographs in the Year 1957 and '58?
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
PETERS: Yes, Sir.
ESSEKS: I offer it.
PACHMAN: Bill, may I see
ESSEKS: Of course. (The
PACHMAN:
Did you take
it?
photograph was
that picture?
continued:)
"June, 1958,
the record.)
of those
shown to Mr. Pachman.)
MR. PETERS: No, sir.
MR. PACHMAN: I wanted to know when it was taken.
MR. PETERS: It was taken in 1958.
MR. PACHMAN: How do you know?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, would you direct that--
MR. PACHMAN: I'm sorry. I asked him if he took the picture.
said, "No." And I asked him when it was taken, and he said in 1958.
And I asked him how he knew it was taken in 1958.
MR. PETERS: It was taken by friends of myself and my mother.
They were there visiting them in 1958.
He
were
time
MR. PACHMAN: And you saw them take the picture?
MR. PETERS: I didn't see them.
MR. PACHMAN: No objection.
MR. ESSEKS: I have no other questions. Oh, yes I do. In what,
the units rented, leased?
MR. PETERS: Yes. Number one and number two were rented at the
when I was there.
MR. ESSEKS: Thereafter, did you know whether 3 and 4 were leased?
MR. PETERS: Yes, sir.
Southold Town Board'=6f Appeals -70- June 1984 Regular Meetihg:
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTI~/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: No other questions.
MR. PACHMAN: No questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
MR. ESSEKS: I would like to read certain affidavits into
the recoYd and make them part of the record, and if that is necessary
for me to be sworn to do that, I'll be sworn. Do I have to be sworn
to read?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you reading from some text, sir?
MR. ESSEKS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. It's not necessary.
MR. ESSEKS: If I have to be sworn, you'll warn me?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: "...County of Lancaster,, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania: Before me, a Notary Public, in and for the County and
Commonwealth afforesaid personally appeared Raymond H. Diedrick who
being duly affirmed according to law deposes and says that to the
best of his knowledge, information and belief the structures and
improvements located on the premises in the Hamlet of Orient, Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, New York, which he sold to ...," I can't
pronounce the name, "...on November 1, 1983, are valid and legal
nonconforming uses, said structures having been erected in about 1955 .... "
I offer this affidavit for his name, his address, history, and the
fact that he said it was constructed, I mean erected, in about 1955.
I don't offer it for his conclusion.
(Photocopy of affidavit of Raymond H. Diedrick was marked
"E-2 6/21" and made a part of the file.)
MR. ESSEKS: May I start the next one?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: "...State of New York, County of Suffolk:
Gary Tabor, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I reside on
Navy Street, Orient, New York. I am forty years; of age and have
been a resident of Orient all my life. 2. I am familiar with the
property owned by Janet Swanson and Dorothy Abbott as I irregularly
pass by the property and have done so since 1950. 3. I make this
affidavit to state that to my knowledge the cottages in ques. tion on
their property has been there since before the 1957 hurricane .... "
May I continue? "...Elva Deidrick, being duly sworn, deposes and
says: 1. That my husband, Raymond H. Deidrick and I own property
~ ~outhold Town Board o~f Appeals -71- June
1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS (continued):
that we acquired from Dr. Harry C. Greene in Orient consisting of
approximately 12+ acres and described upon a survey, a copy of which
is annexed hereto. To my knowledge we acquired the property in 1947
and sold it in 1973. 2. A house and four cottages are shown on the
annexed survey. The four cottages were all constructed prior to
April, 1957. Two of the cottages were constructed in 1953. 3. While
we used the cottages, they were only used for residential purposes.
The two cottages erected in 1953 did not have electricity until 1954 .... "
"...June ll, 1984. To Whom It May Concern: I Lawrence Bruno rented
cottage number 4 from Raymond Diedrick in the summer of 1957. The
cottages at that time were named after the Diedrick children instead
of having numbers. I also stayed in Number 1 in 1955 and Number 2 in
1956. Sincerely, Lawrence Bruno .... " Sworn to before a notary in
the State of Florida.
MR. ESSEKS: You can swear the witness.
(Mr.
for the record
Lawrence Bruno
Esseks submitted an original affidavit of Ela M. Deidrick
which was marked "E-4, 6/21." and document signed by
June ll, 1984, marked "E-5, 6/21" for the record.)
Janet T. Swanson was the next witness.
MR. CHAIRMAN to JANET T. SWANSON: Do you solemnly swear
that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? (The witness raised her right hand.)
JANET T. SWANSON: I do. Janet Swanson. Janet T. Swanson.
MR. ESSEKS: Are you one of the owners of the property in
question?
MS. SWANSON: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: When did you first see the cottages that have
been described this evening?
MS. SWANSON: Summer of 1983.
MR. ESSEKS: Would you describe their appearance in the
Summer of 19837
MS. SWANSON: They were boarded up. They --
MR. ESSEKS: Keep your voice up.
MS. SWANSON: Some of the windows were boarded up. The
screened porches were boarded. The doors to the cottages were there.
And they were furnished and looked to me to be redeemable.
Southold Town Board~f Appeals -72- June 1984 Regular Meet~n~
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON~ continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: Now, was there furniture inside
MS. SWANSON: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Describe the furniture that was
MS. SWANSON: The furniture in Cabin 4, which
cottage, was very wet and awful because of the leak
other cabins, there were no leaks in the roof arid it
but it did not look ( ) (inaudible).
MR. ESSEKS: Describe what kind of furniture.
MS. SWANSON: There were maple chairs.
There were dressers, no mirrors. There were
quite an abundance of them, boxes of them as
cups, saucers, glasses.
each cottage?
there.
is the easterly
in the roof. The
looked grungy
There were maple beds.
dishes stacked up and
a matter of fact, and
MR. ESSEKS: Who did you buy the property from?
MS. SWANSON: Eurydice Loucoupolous and Herodotos Damianos.
MS. GERARDI: Could you say that once more?
MS. SWANSON: Eurydice Loucopoulos and Herodotos, H-E-R-O-T-O-S
Damianos, D-A-M-I-A-N-O-S. The monthly payments make that easy.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you have conversations with them concerning the
prior use of the cottages before you signed the contract to buy the
property?
MS. SWANSON: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: What did they say to you about the prior use by them
of the premises?
MS. SWANSON: They said that they have been used consistently
through the years.
MR. ESSEKS: For what purposes?
MS. SWANSON: Rental, and for income producing.
MR. ESSEKS: By whom?
MS. SWANSON: A lot of employees, I
of their businesses, but I don't know.
believe they were employees,
MR. ESSEKS: I'll show you this photograph and I'll ask you what
it reflects.
MS. SWANSON: That's Cabin 1 kitchen. It's numbered Number Four,
but it's Number One.
Southold Town Board ~f Appeals -73- June 21~'~1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: And when you first saw the cottages in the Summer of 1983,
did the inside, is that how the cottage looked as shown in the photograph?
MS. SWANSON: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: I offer it.
MS. SWANSON: No, we took some curtains down. Sorry. There were curtains
up here and we took curtains down.
MR. ESSEKS: Were there curtains in the windows of these cottages?
MS. SWANSON: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Were there curtains in the windows of any other cottages?
MS. SWANSON: Yes, but I can't tell you which ones. I believe they were
but I can't --
MR. ESSEKS: Besides curtains, crockery, beds, were there any appliances
in these cottages?
MS. SWANSON: Yes, there were. They were stoves and refrigerators, you
could not test the stove--I mean you could not test the refrigerator
since there was no electricity, but the stoves were working.
MR. ESSEKS: What kind of stoves?
MS. SWANSON: Gas. Conservative Gas.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you turn them on?
MS. SWANSON: Yes. We turned them on
we turned them on in 1 and 2.
in 3 and 4; I don't remember if
MR. ESSEKS: Were there screens in the windows?
MS. SWANSON: Not all of them, no.
MR. ESSEKS: I offer that photograph. (Photograph was marked as E-6, 6/21)
MR. ESSEKS: Questions?
MR. PACHMAN: This is Cabin 1 or 4?
MS. SWANSON: Is that the one I just looked at?
MR. PACHMAN: Yes, ma'am.
MS. SWANSON: It's Number 1. That Number 4 I think Mr. Lessard put on
it. It's the westerly cabin.
MR. PACHMAN: It is the one closest to Truckenbrodt?
·
Southold Town Board~f Appeals -74- June 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MS. SWANSON: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Is that the one that
the lamp in the window?
In the living room?
Yes. The one facing
had the curta ns on the window and
MS. SWANSON:
MR. PACHMAN: the Truckenbrodt and the Mearns
and the Hess.
MS. SWANSON: There was curtains in the--
MR. PACHMAN: Is that the one where the one wall was ( ) on the outside?
(Word was unclear due to noise in background.)
MS. SWANSON: I don't know about painting of the walls. Somebody told
me that they had painted a wall on that side toward Mr. Truckenbrodt,
but I don't know--
MR. PACHMAN: Did they indicate to you why? Did they indicate to you
why they put curtains up in the house?
MS. SWANSON: I didn't know they put them up.
MR. PACHMAN: They didn't tell you that they put the curtains up?
MS. SWANSON: No. They--
MR. ESSEKS: Howard, I'm offering a photograph.
MR. PACHMAN: I'm just asking her because she, the identification of
this particular photograph was confusing between 1 and 4. I'm trying
to ascertain its identity.
MR. ESSEKS: That's Number 1.
MR. PACHMAN: It's Number 1, the one closest to Truckbrodt. Thank you
very much.
MR. ESSEKS: I have no other questions.
MR. PACHMAN: No questions.
MR. ESSEKS: Mr. Beebe?
William M. Beebe was the next witness.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your right hand? Do you
that the testimony that you are about to
truth, and nothing but the truth?
WILLIAM BEEBE: I do.
solemnly swear
give is the truth, the whole
~outhold Town Board'~'f Appeals -75- June 21,~984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
Excuse me.
I do respectfully request to call Mrs. Swanson
Right now?
Well, it can wait.
Ok.
Are you going to question Mr. Beebe?
not know what he has to say.
I have your full name please?
William M. Beebe.
Spell it.
B-E-E-B-E.
What is your trade or profession?
Building contractor.
When was the first time that you
MR. PACHMAN:
back again.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
MR. PACHMAN:
MR. CHAIRMAN:
MR. ESSEKS:
MR. PACHMAN: I do
MS. GERARDI: Can
WILLIAM B. BEEBE:
MS. GERARDI:
MR. BEEBE:
MR. ESSEKS:
MR. BEEBE:
MR. ESSEKS:
question?
MR. BEEBE: I guess
MR. ESSEKS: Do you
six months prior to
MR. BEEBE:
MR. ESSEKS:
MR. BEEBE:
it was January '84.
know whether anyone
January of 19847
I don't think they have,
How much do you weigh,
Two-hundred sixty lbs.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you walk up and down other
in January of 1984 on each of the cottages?
saw the cottages in
had done any work on the cottages
MR. BEEBE: Yes there was.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you walk
MR. BEEBE: Yes, I did.
MR. ESSEKS: Did they break?
MR. BEEBE: No.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you,
no,
Mr. Beebe?
Thank you.
stairs--were there stairs
up and down them?
have you done
some carpentry work on the cottages?
Southold Town Board~'~f Appeals -76- June 21 984 Regular Meetin~
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTI'/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. BEEBE: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Will you describe to the board in your opinion as a builder
whether the building was structurally sound or not prior to your work on
them?
MR. BEEBE: Well, structurally sound they were. There were no sags in
the roofs. There were no holes in the roofs. Number 4, I guess it is,
.to the east, had leaks in the roof. The other, Number 3 might have had
a couple of leaks, but Number 1 and 2 were, they were both good roofs.
MR. ESSEKS: Did they have doors on them?
MR. BEEBE: They had doors on them, in fact they were there, tight,
and the man I had with me and I had to pry them open with bars to get
into them.
MR. ESSEKS: Did they have windows?
MR. BEEBE: Most of them had windows. There were a few broken glass.
The porches, most of them, had shutters, ( ) up and down, they were
closed, and the screens were pretty well shot in there.
recollect--
MR. ESSEKS: Did you
MR. PACHMAN: I didn't hear that, again. What was that?
MR. BEEBE: The screens on the porches were pretty well
vandals --must have happened..
MR. ESSEKS: Was there furniture in the cottages?
MR. BEEBE: Yes, there was.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you enter into
to do work?
MR.
you~
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
a contract with
It wasn't a written contract.
amount of the contract
BEEBE:
PACHMAN: What was the
re performing?
BEEBE: Well it wasn't a contract.
PACHMAN: Well, how much--
BEEBE: I'm doing it time and material.
PACHMAN: Are you being paid for your work?
BEEBE: Yes.
PACHMAN: And you are being paid
to do the work
shot, done by
Swanson and Abbott
for the work that
that you are doing?
'Southold Town Board~of Appeals
-77-
June 21e1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. BEEBE: Right.
MR. PACHMAN: And that's why you're here today, sir, right?
MR. BEEBE: Right.
MR. PACHMAN: Thank you. No further questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Swanson--
MR. ESSEKS: I don't want her. He wants her.
MR. CHAIRMAN: He wants her back. Do you want to wait till later?
MR. ESSEKS: Let him wait till later. May I inquire of the building
inspector, sir?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Esseks, I will not speak for the building inspector.
If the building inspector wishes, it's entirely up to him.
MR. ESSEKS: I would like the record to reflect, if I may, that the
property in question is now zoned for residential purposes, and has
been so zoned continually since the advent of zoning in the Town of
Southold, is that correct? Can we take that as a (), otherwise
I'll call the building inspector and ask him is that true.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't answer that. I won't answer that because I
don't know if the map was changed or not.
MR. ESSEKS: Mr. building inspector, would you come up? Mr. Chairman,
instead of asking the building inspector, who may be as reticent as
you, I believe that your counsel will advise the board, the board
takes judicial notice of the zoning ordinances of the towns since
they're in such--and if for such period of time in there this property
was zoned for motion picture theaters or something like that, I'll
stand correct; but I believe that it was-always been zoned one-family
residential.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would assume that.
MR. ESSEKS: I don't need the building inspector.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lessard, would you raise your right hand please?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give
is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
VICTOR LESSARD: I do.
MS. GERARDI: Full name?
VICTOR LESSARD: Victor G. Lessard. L-E-S-S-A-R-D.
Southold Town Boarder Appeals -78- June 21,~"1984 Regular
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON,
MR.
you
MR.
MR.
of
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
state
Meetin~
continued:)
ESSEKS: I will show you these seven photographs, Mr. Lessard. Did
take them?
LESSARD: No, sir, Mr. Curtis Horton took them when I was with him.
ESSEKS: Are they pictures of the cottages that have been the subject
so much discussion tonight?
10th of February.
Yes, sir.
When were they taken?
When were they taken?
Yes.
They were taken the
Of this year?
LESSARD:
ESSEKS:
LESSARD:
ESSEKS:
LESSARD:
ESSEKS:
LESSARD: Of this year,
ESSEKS: And are they a
of facts that existed
MR. LESSARD: Yes, sir.
MR. ESSEKS: I offer them.
MR. LESSARD: I would like to
board won't get confused, ok?
yes, sir. 1984.
fair and accurate representation
on February 10th of this year?
clarify the number's on this so the
When these photos were taken, we
of the
had come down from %he main house and as we took them we numbered
them one, two, three, four; and now I find out I'm in complete
reverse from everyone else, but that's why they're numbered this way.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you saying that east is Number 17
MR. LESSARD: That's right, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pachman wants to look at them.
MR. PACHMAN: May I ask him some questions?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you direct them toward the Board please.
MR. PACHMAN: This is the state of the buildings as you found them
when you came in since there were complaints made by the adjacent
neighbors, is that correct, sir?
MR. LESSARD: That's right.
MR. PACHMAN: Wasn't there work being performed in and about the
premises at that time?
MR. LESSARD: Yes, there was.
~outhold Town Board~'f Appeals -79- June 21,~984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: So that you don't know if this was the actual state of
these buildings before work was constructed, do you?
MR. ESSEKS: Witness suggests that it was.
MR. PACHMAN: Well I would like him to say it for the record--
MR. LESSARD: Being in the carpenter business for 40 years, I know
new work from existing, sir.
MR. PACHMAN: I didn't ask you that, sir.
MR. LESSARD: That's what you inferred.
MR. PACHMAN: This is what you saw on the date that you saw it. You
week before, or a month
do not know what it was two days before, a
before?
MR. LESSARD: That's true.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. And do you know of your
were
three years prior to
own knowledge if they
occupied for two months, three months, one year, two years or
that time?
don't.
questions.
MR. LESSARD: No, sir, I
MR. PACHMAN: No further
at all.
MR. ESSEKS: I'd like to
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you,
I don't object to the photographs
bring Janet Swanson back.
Mr. Lessard. Could you just give me a
(The Chairman was handed the seven
E-6 through E-12 for the record.)
minute to number these please?
photographs, which were marked
MR. ESSEKS: Had any work been done on
that you bought them and the time the
in February of '84?
JANET SWANSON: To the roofs, a no.
MR. ESSEKS: Anything else?
MS. SWANSON: I think we did
think some of the growth was cut back.
the cottages between the time
~icture, the pictures were taken
MR. ESSEKS: The buildings themselves.
MS. SWANSON: No.
MR. ESSEKS: I have no other questions.
Howard?
some cutting around in that time. I
Southold Town Board~of Appeals -80- June 21,~984 Regular Meetin~ ~
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: Pror to the time (
time that you owned the property,
whether any houses were occupied,
) back to the property and during the
do you know of your own knowledge
the cabins? Do you know of anybody?
MS. SWANSON: No.
MR. PACHMAN: You have no knowledge. You relied purely on the affidavit
as you received from the former owner. So the last three (), you had
no knowledge that those buildings were occupied by anybody?
MS. SWANSON: I wasn't acquainted with the property then.
MR. PACHMAN: No questions.
MR. ESSEKS: Mr. Chairman, we have asked the owners who sold the
property to the present owners and who made the affidavit to the
building inspector to appear and testify, and they have not responded
to our strong request, they indicated a misunderstanding and therefore
I'm going to ask for a continuance for some period of time to bring
them in because I would think their testimony would not only be
relevant but of interest to the town's board of appeals based upon
the fact that the building inspector is an officer of the town, and
I have considerable summary and argument to make, but if I'm going
to be granted my continuance, I would like to make it afterwards.
If I'm not going to be granted my continuance, I would make it tonight.
Seeing that it's midnight, I don't really see how my request is
terribly out of line. I hope it will be granted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As
grant one recess.
scheduled meeting.
I have told the public
The recess is usually
If not, then we have
in the past, we usually
until the next regularly
to readvertise.
MR. ESSEKS: I understand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And I would like you to bear the cost of the advertising
if it is not at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
MR. ESSEKS: I have no trouble with the next regularly scheduled
meeting unless something happens to my witness. I will bear the costs.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you don't have to bear the costs because we don't
have to readvertise if it's the next regularly scheduled meeting.
MR. ESSEKS: If there has to be a readvertising~. I'll bear the costs.
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I respectfully
disagree~and heartily object to the requirement that this hearing
be adjourned. I think that Mr. Esseks had three or four weeks'
notice, maybe more, that this hearing was scheduled for the 21st.
If he did not have the opportunity to have a voluntary appearance
on the part of Damianos and the co-owners, he had the same right and
obligation to subpoenae those witnesses to come before this meeting
~outhold Town Board~f Appeals -81- June
1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
tonight the same way I did. I don't see why it was necessary for me
to be prepared to meet the burden of my proof tonight, and he was not
necessarily required to meet the burden of his opposition to my proof.
I think he had every opportunity to subpoena those witnesses. I
think those witnesses are hostile to him. He knew they were hostile
to him. They indicated a reluctance to testify based upon his
statements, t do not want this board to work beyond midnight, and
I'm really very sorry that one of the members is not well, but I
think this meeting was to be held a month ago, work is continuing
unabated, contrary to the ordinance and if the owners would stipulate
not to do any further work on the premises pending a determination
of this board, I think I will consult with my clients and see if that
would be accepted.
MR. ESSEKS: I'm not going to make that offer to stipulate. I've never
heard of that being required of the board. The board, they know it,
even the secretary knows, that I have been out of the Country for
almost two weeks and I requested that it not be heard tonight so I
could have some control over whether witnesses would appear or not,
and despite my request and with Mr. Pachman's insistence, this matter
was held tonight. And you have the absolute right to hold things
when you want to, but I think my request is not cruelly brought, it's
not in bad faith, it's after midnight. I think the board ought to
hear the testimony of the people who sold the property to my clients.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This determination is not mine. It's the determination
of the board.
MR. ESSEKS: I understand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And at this particular time, unless Mr. Pachman has
anything else to say we will go into a caucus for a short period of
time, and come back with a decision.
MR. ESSEKS: All right. But if in fact you don't grant my application,
I'm not through. But to repeat myself, I would like not to sum up
and give my arguments until after my case is in it. So if you grant
my application for an adjournment, I'll go away. If you don't grant
my application for an adjournment, I will then go into my arguments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr Pachman, I would assume then you have nothing further
to present to this board?
MR. PACHMAN: Based upon the information that has been supplied
tonight and what I've given, I think this board has adequate informa-
tion to make the determination. I do feel that if Mr. Esseks is
going to make some eloquent statements to thsi board, ! would be
given the opportunity of a reply. Other than that, I think the matter
should be continue tonight and come to its conclusion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll take a five-minute recess for the purpose of
discussing this issue.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
Southold Town Board~of Appeals -82- June 2~,~ 1984 Regular Meeting~
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTI'/SWANSON, continued:)
RESOLVED, to recess temporarily for five minutes.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted by all the members.
RECONVENING OF REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Sawicki,
seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to reconvene the Regular Meeting of this board.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted by all the members.
The meeting reconvened at approximately 12:~12 o'clock a.m.
DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Goehringer,
seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the next Regular Meeting of this board is
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1984 commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m., to be
held at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted by all the members.
RECONVENING OF TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON: Appeal No. 3234:
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Esseks and Mr. Pachman, we have discussed
the extension that you have request, and the board is in agreement
to grant the extension for the purpose of what I mentioned before,
I prefaced to--I said that we normally grant one extension. And
we'll vote on that now. The meeting will be held, will continue
on July 26, 1984 at 8:30 p.m., and we'll vote on that now. Do
you have anything further before we clQ~e this--I mean recess this
hearing?
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, just so I understand the rules, if
I may. He's just going to bring in Damianos at that time, am I
correct? And then he is going to make a summary of his arguments
and I will have a chance to reply, is that what we're doing?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I assume.
·
Southold Town Board~f Appeals -83- June 21, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appea'l No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBROD?/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: We're not expecting anybody else?
MR. ESSEKS: I don't know that.
MR. PACHMAN: I want to know that now.
MR. ESSEKS: I don't know, but if I hear of any, I'll let you
know so you can prepare yourself to oppose it. But I don't know of
any other tonight--
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. Then we're just talking about the two
Damianos, or each one of those, right? Either one of them or both?
MR. ESSEKS: That'~ all I'can think of right now, Howard, to
be candid with you.
MR. PACHMAN: You're always candid with me.
MR. ESSEKS: If I can ~hink of any others in between, I'll let
you know and the board know, and y.ou and the board can take whatever
position--
MR. PACHMAN: At least l0 days' notice?
Mr. Esseks nodded affirmatively.
MR. PACHMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion
recessing this hearing until 8:30 p.m. on July 26th..
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, 'seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to recess Appeal No. 3234,
A. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON until the
July 26, "i98~, at 8:30 o'clock p.m.
application in the matter of
next Regular Meeting of
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted by all the members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thak you very much everybody for coming in.
MR. PACHMAN: Thank you.
NEW APPLICATION REVIEW: Appeal No. 3257 A.M. AND E.F. STOLL-
MEYER. Insufficient area in this proposed set-off of a parcel of
land at Soundview Avenue, Southold.
J6uthold Town Board Appeals -27- July 26
Regular Meeting
RECESSED PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3234:
Application of ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT, ET AL., Private Road,
Orient, NY for a reversal of the interpretation of the building
inspector concerning a Certificate of Occupancy No. Zl1736 issued
June 21, 1983, to E. Loucopoulos and H. Damianos for a one-family
dwelling and four accessory cottage structures at Private Road
No. 7 (a/k/a Diederick's Road), Orient; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-18-03-005 [Current Owners: D.I. Abbott and J.T. Swanson].
The Chairman reconvened the public hearing on this matter,
which was recessed from the June 21, 1984 public hearing, at
approximately 9:16 o'clock p.m.
MR. CHAIRMAN (GOEHRINGER): Mr. Pachman, since this hearing
was brought about by you and your clients, I would assume you
would be the first one to address the board.
HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: I had served the Board of Assessors
last time with a subpoena, and they didn't supply the record
at that time. They have since come in and they were mailed to me.
I have them here. I would like to submit them to the board.
(Mr. Pachman submitted the Assessor's transmittal letter with
enclosures listed thereon.)
When I was talking last time, I was referring to a map showing
the Abbott and Swanson property and the adjacent owners and the
right-of-way. I didn't have an extra of that, and now I have a copy
which I'd like the board to have. Since we referring to it, it
should be part of the record. And if you will recall, the telephone
company was here last time, and he testified as to certain books and
records that he did not have copies of. He was asked to mail copies
to the board and to myself. Did the board get their copies?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. PACHMAN: All right. I have a copy for the board. I have
a copy for my adversary.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You meant LILCO.
MR. PACHMAN: LILCO. I'm sorry. If you want more than one
copy, I have extra copies. (Mr. Pachman submitted five photocopies
concerning LILCO for the record.) I think at this point, I don't
have anything to add except what I will reserve for the rebuttal.
.Southold Town Board Appeals -28-
(Appeal No. 3234 TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Esseks?
July 26
AND SWANSON,
Regular Meeting
continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: I'll show you a survey that Mr.
to the chairman that purports to show a parcel of
the north by the Long Island Sound. Do you recognize
DR. BAMIANOS: Yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you ever own it?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes, we did.
MR. ESSEKS: By yourself or someone
DR. DAMIANOS: With my sister, Mrs.
Eurydice, Loucopoulos, L-O-U-C-O-P-O-U-L-O-S, a
MR. ESSEKS: Doctor. The survey that Mr.
purports to show four cottages, and a two-story
MR. CHAIRMAN: Doctor, would you raise your right hand please?
Anything you have to say concerning this hearing concerning this appli-
cation will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes (raising his right hand).
STENOGRAPHER: Could you spell your full name?
DR.
DR. DAMIANOS:
PETITIONER's
DR. DAMIANOS: H-E-R-O-D-O-T-U-S
MR. ESSEKS: Are you a medical
DAMIANOS: Yes.
D-A-M- I-A-N-O-S.
doctor?
DR. DAMIANOS: That's correct.
MR. ESSEKS: When did you and your sister acquire the premises?
DR. DAMIANOS: In 1973.
MR. ESSEKS: And when did you sell it?
DR. DAMIANOS: Recently in 1984. Early of this year.
Pachman just gave
land bounded on
this parcel?
else?
E-U-R-Y-D-I-C-E, pronounced
nice Polish name.
Pachman handed up
frame house.
DOCTOR DAMIANOS: Thank you.
WILLIAM W. ESSEKS, ESQ.: I have an affidavit of Doctor Damianos,
I can't pronounce his name--and he's here, and I'm going to also have
him testify. So I'd like to have his affidavit be part of the record,
and I have a copy for the Doctor.. Doctor, did you want to come up
as a further witness?
.Southold Town Board Appeals -29- July 26,
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT AND SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: The cottages--were
and the house shown on this survey on
in 19737
the cottages shown on
the premises when you
this survey
acquired it
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes, they were.
MR. ESSEKS: Now, would you be so good as to describe to the
audience and the members of the Board of Appeals the extent, if any,
to which you or anyone else used those cottages between the time you
acquired it in 1973 until the time you sold it to my clients?
DR. DAMIANOS: In 1973, when we acquired the property, we are
presently operators of a Nursing Home called Woodhaven Nursing Home
in Port Jefferson, and two larger built Homes, one in Port Jefferson
Station, and one in Patchogue. These facilities employ more than
300 people, 200 people. At that time, my sister and I decided that
we would find an area in which some of our employees would benefit
by this lovely piece of property. And that's primarily what
precipitated us in buying this in 1973. When we first viewed the
property, we had our employees use the cabins on the property for
what we call rest and rehabilitation, and did so up until the sale
of the property.
(At this point in time, Mr. Leslie laughed loudly.)
MR. ESSEKS: Mr. Chairman, is it expected that members of the
audience can giggle and cackle and carry on in the adolescent fashion?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Not usually, Sir.
MR. ESSEKS: I think it will detract somewhat from the ability
of my client to present their case.
DR. DAMIANOS: Oh, that's ok, Counsellor. I'm sure that you'll
be asking more questions that would certainly vindicate that comment.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you visit the property each year, 1973 to 19837
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes, I did.
MR. ESSEKS: Then tell the members of the audience, the members
of the board, to what extent you visited the property yourself and
saw it either yourself, members of the family or others using the
property?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes. During the Year '73 until approximately
'78, '79, they were primarily occupied by members of our--employees
of our facilities. I can certainly attest that in '80 when Pindar
Vineyards was established here on Peconic, Long Island, I also
incorporated some of our vineyard people and our workers who worked
in such close proximity to use the cottages; and in 1980, 1981, 1982,
and 1983, not only did the members of my staff frequent the cottages,
so did I.
~outhold Town Board Appeals -30- July 26
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT AND SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS:
during the day?
Did you stay overnight, or did you just occupy them
DR. DAMIANOS: Many, many times. Overnight.
MR. ESSEKS: Do you recognize this gentleman who is giggling?
DR. DAMIANOS: I really don't recognize anyone. Only the com-
plaints that I would unhurriedly get about radios being on, et cetera.
And that's one of the problems that we had, and we banned all radios
used on the premises.
MR. ESSEKS: Did you ever see him at the premises--the gentleman
with the orange shirt?
DR. DAMIANOS: Many of these people who lived adjoining the
property would come to the property and ask who we were, and when I
was there, I would introduce them and myself. But when I was not
present, I always had a letter of authorization on my stationery
informing anyone who arrived on my property that these people were
allowed to be on my property on the part of my staff in the event
that a police car would come or whatever the case may be. They had
a document that I would write, and they would carry with them at all
times.
MR. ESSEKS: Now, the content that you described, did it occur
each year, '73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes, we always had residents or people staying
at that property during these years.
MR. ESSEKS: Can you identify my name some of the people that
you personally recollect--
DR. DAMIANOS: Absolutely.
MR. ESSEKS: That you know stayed there.
DR. DAMIANOS: Well, absolutely.
MR. ESSEKS: Can you describe them by name?
DR. DAMIANOS: Number one, Mr. and Mrs. James Morand and their
son, John, who was my vineyard foreman. Alexander and Jason Damianos,
two of my boys. Michael Jazanti (spelling unknown), one of my
part-time helpers from St. James, Long Island, where I live. K.J.
Morand, also a worker on the vineyard. John Carlucci, also a worker
on the vineyard. Kirk Kelly, Arlene Connolly, and her husband.
MR. ESSEKS: I ask that you would read this affidavit of Arlene
Connolly.
·
· Southold Town Board~f Appeals -31- July 26,~"1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
DR. DAMIANO~..Arlene Connolly, being duly sworn, deposes and
says: 1. I am employed by the Woodhaven Home for Adults; 2. I
make this affidavit to advise that during the July 4th weekend in
1975 I occupied two of the cabins on the property in question with
my sister and friends; 3. During the 4th of July weekend in 1978
I occupied one cabin at the property with my husband and my sister .... "
Signed Arlene Connolly and notarized.
MR. ESSEKS: I ask that that be made part of the record. Do
you know a "Kathryn Krejci?"
DR. DAMIANOS: Oh, yes, she's a sweetheart.
MR. ESSEKS: Besides that she's a sweetheart, do you also know
her in some other capacity?
(A remark was made by Dick Leslie to Dr. Damianos.)
DR. DAMIANOS to Dick Leslie: How dare you say that!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me?
DR. DAMIANOS: I refuse to be insulted by members of your
group here or by the audience. If anyone, I would say, Sir--excuse
me, I have my rights as well, but a perjurer I am not. How dare
you make that accusation!
MR. ESSEKS: I hope that the record reflects the comments of
the gentleman, and Mr. Pachman, would you so good as to identify
him for the record? Identify your client who stated that Dr.
Damianos was a perjurer, a person guilty of a committed crime.
MR. PACHMAN: May t have a break here, Mr.--
MR. ESSEKS: I would like the record to reflect the gentleman
who did that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to say something before-- Doctor?
I must apologize at the last hearing which you were not, I did have
a police officer present. I was with the Chief of Police yesterday.
I did not ask him.
DR. DAMIANOS: I'm sorry, sir. I had no intent to create
problem. Perjury of course is very damaging to myself and my
reputation, and I will withhold all comments if you would care
for me to read the next affidavit, I would be happy to do so.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just let me say that normally in this particular
case, I have no intentions of taking anybody fr~m this board and
asking someone to physically remove themselves from this premises,
that was the purpose of the police officer. Ok?
· Southold Town Board o~f Appeals -32- July 26e1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
DR. DAMIANOS: I understand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: At this particular time, I have the telephone
plugged in, and if there are any further outbreaks, all right, by
anybody in the audience that does not have a mike in their hand and
is not speaking in the mike so that it can be controlled by this
lady down here and this lady up here, I will call the police and
I will have them extricated from this room.
DR. DAMIANOS: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your
kindness and your gentleness, and we certainly appreciate it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pachman, did you want to--
MR. PACHMAN: Can we have a five-minute recess?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to that?
MR. ESSEKS: None.
On motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to recess for approximately five minutes.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted by all the members.
At 9:41 p.m., the meeting reconvened, on motion by Mr. Douglass,
seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to reconvene the meeting of this board and to
continue with the public hearing in the matter of Appeal No.
TruCkenbrodt/Abbott/Swanson.
3234,
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted by all the members.
DICK LESLIE apologized to the board and the members of the
audience and assured them the disruption would not happen again.
MR. ESSEKS: Doctor, I believe we were at the point where I
was asking you if you knew a Kathryn Krejci.
DR. DAMIANOS: Krejci.
MR. ESSEKS: Is she employed at one of your places of business,
sir?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes, she is.
· Southold Town Board o~f Appeals -33- July 26,e984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: In what capacity?
DR. DAMIANOS: She's an assistant administrator.
MR. ESSEKS: Now, would you read her affidavit please?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes. "...Kathryn Krejci, being duly sworn, deposes
and says: 1. I reside at Miller Place, New York and I am employed
by the Woodhaven Home for Adults; 2. I make this affidavit to advise
that my husband and I stayed in cottage number 4 on the property in
question for at least one night on my birthday weekend during the years
1981 and 1982; 3. I further advise that there was no electrical
power at that time and my husband and I employed a camping lantern .... "
MR. ESSEKS: I would like the original, which I believe you have
in your hand, to be made a part of the record. I gave a copy to Mr.
Pachman.
MS. GERARDI, stenographer for Mr. Pachman, asked Dr. Damianos
for the spelling of Krejci.
DR. DAMIANOS: K-R-E-J-C-I.
MR. ESSEKS: K-R-E-J-C-I.
MR. PACHMAN: Well there are two different spellings on the
affidavit, I believe the bottom one is the correct one.
MR. ESSEKS: The one that she printed. She's here and she will
be sworn in a couple of minutes. Doctor, did there come a time when
there was no longer electricity servicing the cabin?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes, there was.
MR. ESSEKS: And when was that.
DR. DAMIANOS: I really don't recall.
MR. ESSEKS: What did you do with regard to toilet facilities
after there was no longer electricity at the site?
DR. DAMIANOS: Did two' things in terms of sanitation at the
time that I was there and what was instructed the people who were
there. We brought with us jerry cans that we used on the vineyard
for bringing out fresh water, for fresh water. What we would
normallyldo is arrive at about 6 or 7 o'clock and just in the
beautiful Long Island Sound after a hard day's work. We carried
on the fresh water, and ~he use of the toilet facilities in the
cabin using the water from the sea that we carried in to use as
a flushing device.
MR. ESSEKS: Doctor, annexed to your affidavit that's been
'Southold Town Board o~f Appeals -34- July 26,e984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS (continued):
handed up and made a part of the record, is something called Green
Acre cottages rules and regulations. Could you tell us who created
those rules and regulations, for what purpose and what you did with
them.
DR. DAMIANOS: What we did back in '73 when the recreation
department had built the nursing home and the adult homes coordinated
the use of the cabins by the employees, various rules and regulations
that would govern their behavior of this property inasmuch as that
there were other people and neighbors present, and this was formulated
regarding check-in time, check-out time, what could be done and what
could not be done, and these were the rules and regulations of which
anyone who went to the cottages were obligated to abide by. We
called the property "Green Acres."
MR. ESSEKS: I have no other questions.
MR. ESSEKS: Do you have a recollection as to whether the location
of the cottages -- withdrawn. When did you first see the cottages?
DR. DAMIANOS: 1972, I believe, sir.
MR. ESSEKS: Are they in the same location today as they were
in '72?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes, they are.
MR. ESSEKS: Are they any larger? Were they in the same physical
size in '83 when you sole. it to my clients as it was in '72 when you
first saw it?
DR. DAMIANOS: Same size, sir.
MR. ESSEKS: Now, when you bought the cottages in '73, how were
they furnished?
DR. DAMIANOS: There was a small kitchen, a bathroom, bedroom,
sort of like a little ( ) room, small little porch.
MR. ESSEKS: Furniture?
DR. DAMIANOS: There was some furniture. Yes. There was some
furniture. As a matter of fact, the kitchen, yes. I wouldn't give
much for the beds.
MR. ESSEKS: I have no other questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask one question?
DR. DAMIANOS: Sure.
-Southold Town Board Appeals -35- July
984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Doctor, at any time, were these cottages rented
for a monetary sum?
MR. ESSEKS: Mr. Chairman, I assume you mean while he owned them?
MR. CHAIRMAN: While he owned them, yes.
DR. DAMIANOS: They were leased to the Adult Home and to the
Nursing Home. Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
money?
But you did not charge any of your employees any
DR. DAMIANOS: No. The homes themselves paid for the rental as
part of some of the benefits that they would receive.
MR. CHAIRMAN: ts there any lease agreement that you could show
us?
MR. ESSEKS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, you have that. Ok. I'm over-stepping-
MR. ESSEKS: I've got to get them in order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this taking you out of order?
MR. ESSEKS: I've got to find these things. Doctor, I'll show you
at least what purports to be two xerox copies of executed leases
between--I'm not going to go through those names--
DR. DAMIANOS: Let me try. Xenophon Damianos and Herodotos
Damianos.
MS. GERARDI, stenographer: Say that again?
DR. DAMIANOS: X-E-N-O-P-H-O-N Damianos, D-A-M-I-A-N-O-S, and
Herodotos H-E-R-O-D-O-T-S Damianos, herein referred to as Landlord,
and South Country Adult Homes regarding property at Orient, New York
known as Green Acres, dated November 1st, 1973, and to end October31st,
1978.
MR. ESSEKS:
on that?
You also have a lease, how much was the consideration
DR. DAMIANOS: Ten thousand, ten thousand dollars.
MR. ESSEKS: For the same period of time there was also a lease --
DR. DAMIANOS: With the same names, Woodhaven Home for Adults,
property at Orient, New York, known as Green Acres, November 1st, 1973,
until October 31st, 1978, for a sum of $10,000.
MR. ESSEKSi Those were both Woodhaven Home for Adults, right?
DR. DAMIANOS: One was Home for Adults, the other was SOuth Country
Homes.
· Southold Town Board
Appeals -36- July 26,e984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: All right. Here are two more.
DR. DAMIANOS: Again, same names, South Country Adult Home, same
propety at Orient, New York, known as Green Acres, from November 1st,
1973 until October 31st, '78, annual rental $10,000. Another lease
sent for the same names, Orient Point to Woodhave Home for Adults
November 1st, 1978 until October 31st, '83, $10,000.
MR. ESSEKS: Are those true xerox copies of the original leases
that were xeroxed in my presence by your lawyer and given to me two
weeks ago?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes, that's correct.
MR. ESSEKS: I ask that they be part of the record.
(Four xerox copies of leases were entered for the record and
marked WE, exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8 of 7/26~by the Chairman.)
MR CHAIRMAN: I'd like no further testimony until--I'm not
going to say anything until I get a copy so I can log them in.
MR PACHMAN reviewed the four xerox copies of leases and had
no objection.
MR CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Esseks?
I'm numbering them. Ok, did you have a question,
MR ESSEKS: No. I have no further questions of the witness
and I apologize for interrupting.
MR CHAIRMAN: Doctor, I will ask you maybe a question or two
during-- Mr. Pachman?
MR PACHMAN: I'll wait.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no. That was all I --
MR. PACHMAN: Before I ask any questions of the Doctor, is
Kathryn Krejci--
MR. ESSEKS: She's here.
MR. PACHMAN: She's going to testify?
MR. ESSEKS: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: All right, so I'll hold off on that affidavit
until she testifies.. Is Arlene Connolly going to testify?
MR. ESSEKS: Is she here?
· Southold Town Board Appeals -37- July
984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
(No repsonse).
MR. PACHMAN: So she's not going to testify. Ok. With reference
to Arlene Connolly's affidavit, Dr. Damianos, would you please tell me
the period of which she claims to have rented the property, or used
the property?
DR. DAMIANOS: In her affidavit she states that she used the
property on July 4th weekend in '75 and that she occupied two of
the cabins at the property in question and also during the 4th of
July weekend in '78.
MR. PACHMAN: In '78.
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. Did she occupy--when did you sell the property
to Mrs. Swanson and Abbott?
DR. DAMIANOS: In 1984.
MR. PACHMAN: Did they, did M~ss Connolly, Arlene Connolly occupy-
DR. DAMIANOS: '83, not '84.
MR. PACHMAN: '83. Did Arlene Connolly occupy it in '83?
DR. DAMIANOS: Not to my recollectio'n.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. Did she occupy it in '82?
DR. DAMIANOS: I think, Counsel, that the affidavit states--
MR. PACHMAN: I understand tha~, Doctor, I'm just trying to
establish that for a period of two years prior to the transfer of
title, this affidavit does no% indicate that this person who signed
this affidavit occupied the premises in that period of time. In
'75 this property may have been occupied, we had no q~estion about
that. But the period two years prior to the transfer of this
property from yourself to the present owners, they were not occupied
by Arlene Connolly. Is that correct, is that what the affidavit says?
DR. DAMIANOS: It would be correct according to the affidavit.
MR. PACHMAN: I have no objection to that affidavit. Now, may I
see those leases again please?
MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as I get them back.
MR. PACHMAN: Oh, yes, don't worry. I'll be sure to get them back.
Doctor, it would appear from both these leases that you rented the
same property in two different corporations during the same period of
time. Is that correct, sir?
· Southold
(Appeal No. 3234
DR. DAMIANOS:
MR. PACHMAN:
the same property?
DR. DAMIANOS:
MR. PACHMAN:
DR. DAMIANOS:
MR. PACHMAN:
Town Board~f Appeals -38- July 26,~"1984 Regular Meeting
ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON~ continued:)
That's correct.
And you received rent from both corporations for
They're not corporations,
Entity.
Yes.
Ok. Let me just go back
but nevertheless.
to the first one that you
leased to Woodhaven
Adults, and that was from
ber 31st, 1978. Now that
the transfer of title, am
DR.
MR.
before.
DR.
to 1978,
MR.
Home for Adults which was from, Woodhaven Home for
October lst--November 1st, 1973 to Octo-
lease expired prior to two years before
I correct?
DAMI~ANOS: May I see the leases?
PACHMAN: Yes, sir. And I think that expired some four years
DAMIANOS:
correct.
PACHMAN:
period for two years prior to when you transferred the title?
just
The lease from Woodhaven Home for Adults, 1973
So that was not, the coverage did not cover a
DR. DAMIANOS: You're referring to 19817
MR. PACHMAN: That's right. This lease.
DR. DAMIANOS: With that lease, no.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. I have no objection to that lease, and I
want the board to indicate it, I don't know how you marked it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: WE 5.
MR. PACHMAN: That would be number 5?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. Now with reference to the lease between
yourself and the Suffolk County Adult Home which also covers the
period of November 1, '73 to '78, your answer to that would be the
same?
DR.
'78, and
correct.
DAMIANOS: The lease reads November 1st, '73 to October 31st,
the entity is called the South Country Adult Home, that is
Southold Town Board Appeals -39- July 26,~'~984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT}SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: So that doesn't cover a periOd in excess-- it would
have been two years from the time you transferred the title?
DR. DAMIANOS: 1978, Counsellor.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. So I would have no objection to that lease
being entered, and I think it should be indicated that's the period
of time. Now we cover the leases which apparently overlap. That's
the one from Novem-- I haven't lost the board, I hope.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
number 8.
I'm referring to our recorder that that was
MR. PACHMAN: Oh, ok. Thank you. Is this number 7, sir?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. With reference to Exhibit #7 which is yourself
and Woodhaven Homes, that is for the period starting with '78, resum-
ing when the other lease expired, and went to October 31st of '83.
You remember when you transferred the property, what date?
DR. DAMIANOS: Um, November 3rd, '83.
MR. PACHMAN: November 30 of '83. So that was after this lease?
DR. DAMIANOS: Third.
MR.
expired?
PACHMAN: Third. All right. So that was after this lease
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: ok. In the period beginning with 19-- this lease
doesn't define whether it covers the cottages or the main house, does
it?
DR. DAMIANOS: Green Acres is known at the Adult Homes and at
the Nursing Home as being a parcel of land located in Orient Point,
which consists of the main house and four cabins.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. So, although the lease covers that parcel of
property, it does not segregate or say which portion of the rental
applied to the cabins and which portion of rental applied to the
main house.
MR. ESSEKS: Is that a question?
MR. PACHMAN: Sounds like one to me.
MR. ESSEKS: Wouldn't you say the lease speaks for itself, Howard?
MR. PACHMAN:
speak for itself.
question.
I can't answer that question. The lease doesn't
If the lease spoke for itself, I wouldn't ask the
-Southold Town Boarc Appeals -40- July 984 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/S.W.~NSON~, continued:)
DR. DAMIANOS: I thin
have viewed this, is that
four cabins, and the lease
called Green Acres, and al
employees.
k the intent of the lease and as the employees
the property consisted of the main house and
included at the time 12 point something acres
1 of the structures were available to these
MR. PACHMAN: Doctor, whether the buildin~ were occupied or not,
you would still get the rent, is that correct?
DR. DAMIANOS: I would say, counsel, that that's true of any lease.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. So whether the buildings were occupied, the
cabins were occupied, the mere fact that you entered into a lease does
not in any way indicate that anyone occupied the cabins.
DR. DAMIANOS: I can't make that jUdgment. I think that's
probably a conclusion that you've made.
MR. PACHMAN: Well, I'm asking you, if you-- if the payment of
the rent has any condition that it be occupied by anybody between the
two corporations that paid $10,000 annually to each one of these
properties for a total.of $20,000, was i~ predicated on the fact that
they be occupied or not .occupied?
DR. DAMIANOS: The lease was predicated on the fact that these
cabins, all including a house, were open for the employees of the
three facilities in which --
MR. PACHMAN: I'm not denying that, Doctor. I'm just asking you
whether it was necessary that they be occupied for the rent that they
paid?
DR. DAMIANOS: I've never structured a lease in that fashion and
I don't know how to answer that question. ~
MR. PACHMAN: It doesn't matter whether they were occupied or
not, Woodhaven Home for the Adults and Sou~h Country Adult Home would
pay the rent?
DR. DAMIANOS: That's correct.
MR. PACHMAN: And I presume your books reflect that obviously
that a rent twas taken at the time. ~
DR. DAMIANOS: Certainly.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. I have no objection to that. Now, Doctor,
the lease that expired 1978, which was the first two leases, seem
to coincide with the same time that the electricity was turned off
with LILCO. Do you remember turning the electricity off with LILCO?
-Southold Town Boa
Appeals -41- July 26,
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
DR. DAMIANOS: I believe the office may have managed that during
the winter months, yes. I received a telephone call from Mr. Galluckson
in 1978. It was December, if I recall correctly, in which he called
me at my office and informed me that some of the wires were down and
that that it might be dangerous for people that might be trespassing
on the property. At that time I informed my office who handled the
matter in order to have the power I would imagine at that time turned
off so that no damage be done since there was a storm and something
had occurred to the wires coming across the property.
MR. PACHMAN: I appreciate that, Doctor. Now, did you repair
those wires at any time?
DR. DAMIANOS: No.
MR. PACHMAN: Was the electricity turned on in 19797
DR. DAMIANOS: The electricity was not turned on from 1979 until
1983.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. So anyone who occupied the main building or
the cabins occupied it without electricity.
DR. DAMIANOS: That's correct.
MR. PACHMAN: And anyone who occupied the buildings during that
period of time had to carry a jerry can of water to flush the toilet?
DR. DAMIANOS:
potable water.
MR. PACHMAN:
DR. DAMIANOS:
and they picked up
the toilets.
MR~ PACHMAN:
DR. DAMIANOS:
in the bushes.
MR. PACHMAN:
DR. DAMIANOS:
MR. PACHMAN:
MR. ESSEKS:
MR. PACHMAN:
DR. DAMIANOS:
was being used. I
No, sir. They carried a jerry can of water for
Ok. How did they flush the toilet?
About 100 feet away is the great Long Island Sound
the bucket of water from there and they flushed
Doctor, is that good practices?
Of course, it is, sir. It certainly beats going
It certainly beats good plumbing,
There's a cesspool.
But the cesspool wasn't used?
Did you get an answer
I'm waiting.
I didn't go down to
know that pipes went
right?
to your question?
the cesspool to see whether
into the cesspool.
it
· Southold Town Board Appeals -42- July
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON,
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. Did you supply camping equipment
using these premises?
~84 Regular Meeting
continued:)
to the people
DR. DAMIANOS: No.
MR. PACHMAN: Did they use camping equipment when
premises, that you know of.
DR. DAMIANOS: In part. I do know of.
they used these
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. And do you know the nature of this camping
equipment that they used?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes. They used coleman lamps for illumination in
the evening, they brought in barbeque and Hibachi apparatus. They
brought in sleeping bags and also sleeping cots.
MR. PACHMAN:
well, don't you?
Doctor, do you know the premises, you know it fairly
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes, I do.
MR. PACHMAN: If someone was using a Hibachi or an outdoor grill,
and with the neighbors surrounding the property be able to see that?
DR. DAMIANOS: The neighbors that were constantly trespassing
probably could. But the location where the neighbors were, it would
may or may not be visible depending on what they were doing.
MR. PACHMAN: Would you see smoke?
DR. DAMIANOS: From a Hibachi, sir? Very little I think. By
the time they would see it from the distance they were at, it would
have diffused in the atmosphere.
MR. PACHMAN: These people I presume swam at the beach?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Were the people who lived surrounding the property,
were they able to see whether people used the beach and were in the
water if they were looking--
DR. DAMIANOS: Probably only one person would probably see that,
and I think that that was Mr. Gallockson who had a house by the
water. The others I'm not sure whether they could see them or not.
MR. PACHMAN: Well, Mearns has-- if I show you this survey which
we looked at before and asked you if those are the four cabins, would
you think your attorney--no, as I showed you before the four cabins
exist right here, is that correct?
· Southold Town Board Appeals -43- July 26,
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
DR. DAMIANOS: That's correct.
MR.
from the
location
PACHMAN: All right. Now you have the Mearns, did they see
water-side anyone doing anything on the water-side in the
of their property?
DR. DAMIANOS: Are the Mearns the Gallucksons?
MR. PACHMAN: No. Mearns are the ones all the way at the edge
near the water.
DR. DAMIANOS: No, their house is at the end of the--at the end
close to the water. There is some hedges of some kind of foliage
that separpates the property from that last cabin. As a matter of
fact, they even put a fence up there. If I recall correctly, unless
that fence was taken down, and I would imagine that they went on
their patio and looked out to their extreme east, they would
probably see people swimming, yes.
MR. PACHMAN: What about the Gullocksons?
DR. DAMIANOS: I really don't know because there is so much
dense foliage and heavy trees, I'm not certain whether they could
see where we might be swimming at the beach.
MR. PACHMAN: What about the Hesses?
DR. DAMIANOS: Sir, I would find that difficult and I again
cannot be certain. But I think I would find it difficult unless
you're looking through the trees. It's very heavily wooded.
And there is a gully down--
MR. PACHMAN: Do you know when those trees were taken down?
DR. DAMIANOS: Which trees, sir?
MR. PACHMAN:
on the same side.
Blocking the Mearns, the Gullocksons and the Hesses
Do you recollect when they were taken down?
DR. DAMIANOS: I didn't say there were trees blocking. The
property here is covered with trees. If you looked at the property
and if you walked the property, you would find that when you come
over a deep rise and you go down approximately maybe 20 or 30 feet
and then come down into the flatland, there is a slight rise coming
up, and then down again to the water side. If you were sitting on
the beach back by the tree line, just sitting, you probably could not
see someone at the water line because of that slight, that slight
cove that comes over.
MR. PACHMAN: On the north side of that property, a gentleman
by the name of Pung, Dr. Pung--
· Southold Town Board Appeals -44- July 26, 1 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT./ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
DR. DAMIANOS: Dr. Pung. I know Dr. Pung well. As a matter of
fact, he--
MR. PACHMAN: Would he be able to see the property?
DR. DAMIANOS: Dr. Pung could probably see part of the property.
He uses my property all the time to bring in helicopters. Dr. Pung
is a chemo-therapist in New York and it's difficult to communicate
with him sometimes, and I don't him using the property, but I was
worried about the safety and liability involved when he flew in with
helicopters. I told him he could use the property but he would
please check to be sure there were no people on the beach, otherwise
somebody might be injured. Dr. Pung and I had difficulty in
communicating in the English language.
MR. PACHMAN: When you say cottages l, 2, 3 or 4, can you
designate to me on here,~which you mean are cabins 1, 2, 3 and 4,
if I take a pen so we know which ones we're talking about, if we
take this one, now this is the main house right here, right?
DR. DAMIANOS: Let me see. I don't have my glasses. Yes.
That's the two-story framed house.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. If we take the first one to that,- Can'~ we
call it number one.
DR. DAMIANOS: Ok.
MR. ESSEKS: Howard, you were asking him a question.
MR. PACHMAN: I'm just saying I want him to ~designate the map.
MR. ESSEKS: Why don't you go ahead and ask for it?
DR. DAMIANOS: If you want to call it number one, that's fine.
MR. PACHMAN: Do you want to call it number four?
MR. ESSEKS: I don't care what you call it.
MR. PACHMAN: What number do you want to call it?
DR. DAMIANOS: I don't know. What number do you want?
MR. PACHMAN: Call it any number you want.
DR. DAMIANOS: Call it four.
MR. PACHMAN: Call that one four?
DR. DAMIANOS: One to ten. Take four.
MR. PACHMAN: Call that one four. Ok. Let's take the one to
the left of that.
Southold Town Board~f Appeals -45- July 26, 19~ Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
DR. DAMIANOS. So it would have to be three, two, one I would
imagine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pachman, could you tell us which one you're--
MR. PACHMAN: I'm going to give it to you right now so you can see
them, ok?
MR. CHAIRMAN: So I would assume one is on the west side.
MR. PACHMAN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And four is on the east side?
MR. PACHMAN: Right. For the record, ok? So the most, well
the easterly cabin is number four and the most westerly cabin in
number one. Do you know if at any time whether all four cabins were
occupied at the same time?
DR. DAMIANOS: Simultaneously?
MR. PACHMAN: Yes.
DR. DAMIANOS: I don't know for any certainty, no.
MR. PACHMAN: Was any one cabin used more than any of the other
cabins?
DR. DAMtANOS: Not with any great certainty.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. There was some testimony last time, Doctor,
and I'm trying to refresh my recollection, there were shutters on
these cabins, and the screens were covered with shutters and doors
were covered. When these people went out, did they take the shutters
down as far as you know? Or did they leave them up?
DR. DAMIANOS: Well, counsellor, I really can't recollect but
I would imagine we had and I know we had a great deal of damage from
the elements from the storms, et cetera, especially as you know out
here on the Fork if we get a good northeastern, we really get blasted
badly down there. When we had a few northeasterly, and I watch the
weather very, very closely, and certainly problems where the shutters
were broken down or torn off, et cetera.
MR. PACHMAN: Well, when these people--we're trying to find out
when these people came, did they take these shutters down, spend two
days or the one day there, and %hen they put the shutters back up
again when they left, is that part of your rules and regulations?
DR. DAMIANOS: I think my rules and regulations doesn't say
anything about shutters.
MR. PACHMAN: All right, did you take down the shutters at the
beginning of the season and then at the end of the season put the
· Southold Town Boa Appeals -46- July 26 ~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
shutters back up again?
DR. DAMIANOS: You're referring to.shutters as what? The actual--
MR. PACHMAN: Swanson indicated to me that there were wooden
shutters over the screen doors and over the screen windows to protect
the screens. And I'm asking you, and you have some photographs there
that I think show some shutters if I may have the photographs, maybe
that will help the Doctor refresh his recollection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you talking about the photographs that were
supplied to us?
MR. PACHMAN: Yes, of the buildings.
(The photographs were viewed.)
MR. PACHMAN: Here are some shutters. The other photographs--
yes, these shutters. The shutters in the photograph.
DR. DAMIANOS: Those aren't shutters. Those are storm shutters--
they're not really shutters. A shutter is one that looked like you
were in Bermuda.
MR. PACHMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. No, no. These.
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes. Oh definitely. Oh sure.
MR. PACHMAN: Those were ~aken down?
DR. DAMIANOS: Oh certainly. Picked up and taken down.
MR. PACHMAN: Each time someone used it.
DR. DAMIANOS: Oh, yeah. It would happen during the summer.
Most of the time they were up, you know, people who forgot to put
them down
MR. PACHMAN:
indicated a part
when to when?
Ok. Now your rules and regulations that you
of your affidavit, they covered the period from
DR. DAMIANOS: During the entire course of the ownership of
the property.
MR. PACHMAN: And every time someone came out, they were given
one of these rules and regulations?
DR. DAMIANOS: These rules and regulations were on record at
both the Adult Home and the Nursing Home and they were available to
them, and they were given the rules and regulations.
Appeals -47- July 26,~'r984 Regular Meeting
- ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
DR. DAMIANOS:
MR. PACHMAN:
DR. DAMIANOS:
MR. PACHMAN:
DR. DAMIANOS:
MR. PACHMAN:
DR. DAMIANOS:
· Southold Town Bc
(Appeal No. 3234
MR. PACHMAN: Between '82 and '83, you indicated some people
occupied these cottages. I don't recall their names. Could you give
me their names again please?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes. Michael Duvaney.
MR. PACHMAN: Is he here tonight?
DR. DAMIANOS: No.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. Do you know how many times he stayed there?
DR. DAMIANOS: I would to give you an estimate, counsellor?
MR. PACHMAN: Yes. To your best recollection.
DR. DAMIANOS: During the Year '81, approximately five times.
During the Year '82--
MR. PACHMAN: Approximately five times. Did he stay in one, two,
or three, or four, which cottages?
I don't know.
Did he stay in more than one cottage?
But it's conceivable he did.
He stayed in several cottages?
It's conceivable, sir, he did.
But you don't know which ones.
No.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. Let's take '82. How many times did he go
out then?
DR. DAMIANOS: '82, several times.
MR. PACHMAN: You don't know the amount.
DR. DAMIANOS: No.
MR. PACHMAN: Do you know if he stayed in one or more cottages?
DR. DAMIANOS: I think the same answer.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. And '83?
DR. DAMIANOS: In '83 several times during the course of the
summer and approximately a week and a half to two weeks during harvest
time, which was some time in the middle of September until the end of
· Southold Town Board of Appeals -48-
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON,
DR. DAMIANOS (continued):
September, beginning of October.
MR. PACHMAN: Did he stay at a cottage or
July 26, 1984 Regular Meeting
continued:
did he stay
at the ma~n
house?
DR. DAMIANOS: Primarily at the cottages.
MR. PACHMAN: And he stayed in more than one cottage?
DR. DAMIANOS: I don't know that.
MR. PACHMAN: Is there anyone else in '81 who stayed at
cottages?
the
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes. Jason Damianos.
MR. PACHMAN: Jason Damianos. How many times did Jason Damianos
stay there?
DR. DAMIANOS: Jason stayed in '81 about the same amount as
Mike did.
MR. PACHMAN: Five times?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes. And that would be about the same amount of
time in '82~
MR. PACHMAN: In '82 you didn't recall.
DR. DAMIANOS: Whatever times that Michael stayed he would stay.
'83 with the exception of September, he stayed many times at the
cottages in '83.
MR. PACHMAN: Who else?
DR. DAMIANOS: Except in September where he was not at the
cottages, he was going to school. Alexander Damianos.
MR. PACHMAN: I didn't have his name before.
DR. DAMIANOS: Oh, yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Alexander Damianos.
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes. The same amount of time, almost as Jason,
probably a few times longer, he was older.
MR. PACHMAN: Is it possible--
DR. DAMIANOS: Mr. and Mrs. James Moran and son, Sean.
~outhold Town Board of )eals -50- July 26, 191)~4 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
that you maintain in an effort to identify who was going to be out there
on those dates, and which cabins they would be, so there wouldn't be a
conflict. You had these rules and regulations, so I assume you had some
kind of mechanism in which to ascertain who was going to use it, what
weekend, what dates, and which cabin. How did you do that?
DR. DAMIANOS: Well, what we did, counsellor, at our vineyards
was play moveable cabins, and after work, one of the men would go out--
most of them would go out to take a quick swim after working hard in
the fields.
MR. PACHMAN: Oh, that's important. There's a difference between
living in a cabin and swimming. I want to know the people who were
living there as opposed to those who were just using the beach for swim-
ming.
DR. DAMIANOS: I'm trying to explain your question.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok.
DR. DAMIANOS: That since we were in such close proximity, what-
ever cabin was available for the boys that night, they would take.
MR. PACHMAN: Was there ever an occasion that there were no
cabins available?
DR. DAMIANOS: I don't recall.
MR. PACHMAN: So if I made some, it would appear-
MR. ESSEKS: Howard, you asked a question about a ledger, and the
witness started to answer it.
MR. PACHMAN: Oh, I wish he would tell me about the ledger. I'm
glad you reminded me. Let's hear about the ledger.
DR. DAMIANOS: I didn't say I had a ledger.
MR. PACHMAN: I thought Mr. --
MR. ESSEKS: You asked about a ledger.
MR. PACHMAN: I'd like to know if he maintained one?
DR. DAMIANOS: I explained how we maintained our ledger.
MR. PACHMAN: Oh, so there was no ledger.
DR. DAMIANOS: It was called moveable cabins.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. So he answered the question. Ok. You wanted
him to reiterate the answer?
Southold Town Board ot~peals -51- July 26, Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: I just wanted to make sure all your questions were
answered.
MR. PACHMAN: I want to be sure they are also.
DR. DAMIANOS: What I failed to mention is my use of the cabins
also during these periods of time.
MR. PACHMAN: You used them also, Doctor?
DR. DAMIANOS: I certainly did.
MR. PACHMAN: Do you recollect the dates that you used the cabins?
DR. DAMIANOS: Well, I can tell you probably two days of the
week that would be more likely, and one would be Thursday which is my
day off and I'm out here, and it would have to be on a Friday, Saturday
or Sunday. That's generally if I take a weekend off that's 'the time I
would be out here. But never on Monday and never on Tuesday.
MR. PACHMAN: During the times that you were out there, did you
have occasion to see your neighbors?
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes. I met Mr. Gullackson on a few occasions.
I recall the last time I met Mr. Gullackson was in the Spring of 1983
in which I came down to the property which James Moran and Michael
Duvaney and we were looking the cabins over to see whatl,kind of winter
damage had taken place, and what we had to do. Mr. Gullackson followed
me all over and said, "What are you going to do. What are you going
to do, what are you going to do?" I said, "Well, you know, paint a
little bit and, you know, pound a few nails in, and do the best we can."
We had some damage there from the elements. But that was the last time
I met Mr. Duvaney--rather Mr. Gullackson, and I remember, I recall
meeting a Reverend, and I don't remember the Reverend's name, but he~s
a retired Methodist minister, whom I met in Smithtown General Hospital.
He was a local minister in our community, and he was apparently visiting
some of his parishioners and we discussed Green Acres, very amicably,
and I didn't think we had any problem at that time. I'm sure that the
Reverend would have told me if there was. He certainly knew where to
get ahold of me.
MR. PACHMAN: Well, I don't think anyone was going to say
anything about the problems since they were not ( ), but let's get to
the Cabin No. l, which is the most easterly cabin. Do you recall
placing any curtains in that cabin?
DR. DAMIANOS: I recall there was some really moth-eaten
curtains, which were facing the Gullacksons, and I'm not certain,
I think there were some terrible moth-eaten ones there which--
but
MR. PACHMAN: Did you put them up?
Southold Town Board of~ppeals -52- July 26, 1 Regular Meeting
(Appeai No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT~ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
DR. DAMIANOS: I don't recall.
MR. PACHMAN: Do you know if the Gullacksons put it up?
DR. DAMIANOS: I really don't recall. I assume that people who
went out to the cabins did put the curtains up.
MR. PACHMAN: Do you recall any part of that cabin being painted
before this condition--
DR. DAMIANOS: Mr. Gullackson painted the west end of the cabin
without permission. I told him I appreciated his painting the cabin
inasmuch as it faced him completely and I guess he must have felt that
some of the peeling paint may not have been too aesthetic for him, so
he took it upon himself to trespass my property and paint the wall. He
also put up a fence there and he also put up some shrubbery there, and
I thanked him profusely for his efforts, and I offered to also pay him
for the paint.
MR. PACHMAN: Did he indicate to you why he painted it?
DR. DAMIANOS: No. He just painted it.
MR. PACHMAN: Are many of these people who, obviously your sons,
are they here tonight?
DR. DAMIANOS: No, they're not.
MR. PACHMAN: Are any of the other people you mentioned here
tonight?
DR. DAMIANOS: No.
MR. PACHMAN: /~re~any of these people still in your employ?
DR. DAMtANOS: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Could you tell me, sir, why and when you applied
for the Certificate of Existing Nonconforming Use from the Town of
Southold?
DR. DAMIANOS: I'm not familiar with the details of applying
for that, but apparently my attorney in the terms of closing on the
property had to get certain documents in order for him to close, and
I allowed him to handle those matters.
MR. PACHMAN: Was there a condition in the contract to establish
that these cabins could be used for the uses previously stated?
DR. DAMIANOS: I'm not certain, sir.
MR. PACHMAN: You don't know if you don't know.
§outhold Town Board of~ppeals -53- July 26, 1984 Regular Meeting
(Appeai No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANS~N, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: Sir, I looked at a copy of your affidavit, section
five, Sir, and would you please read that and read it aloud?
DR. DAMIANOS: A ledger has been maintained at the adult home
to coordinate the use of the cottages by the employees and friends.
We have not been able to locate the ledger.
MR. PACHMAN: Do you know when the last time the ledger was seen?
DR. DAMIANOS: No, I don't recall.
MR. PACHMAN: Do you know how long it was in use?
MR. PACHMAN: To your best recollection.
DR. DAMIANOS: Wh~t occurred with the ledger is that initially
one of our recreation directors kept the ledger so that you could
coordinate the various weekend as per the rules and regulations. Her
name is Mrs. Roberts; she's presently in California, otherwise I))m
sure she would be here at the meeting. She kept the ledger in peak
periods of time in order to coordinate the employee use. After awhile
I imagine she felt it was not necessary to do that. That's just a
supposition on my part, and that it could be handled on a one-to-one
verbal basis.
MR. PACHMAN: When did she leave your employ?
DR. DAMIANOS: If you'll allow me a moment, I'll get the time.
Approximately five years ago. ·
MR. PACHMANi Ok. So that may have been the last time the
ledger was kept.
DR. DAMIANOS: It's quite possible.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. So but during the years '81, '82 and '83
no ledger was kept.
MR. ESSEKS: Are you asking him or are you telling him?
MR. PACHMAN: I'm asking him. Were there ledgers kept with
'81, '82, '837
MR. ESSEKS: I could even tell if it was a .question or a statement.
Because I didn't see you take the oath.
MR. CHAIRMAN: He's still in effect from the last time.
DR. DAMIANOS: Your question?
MR. PACHMAN: Read it back to me.
Southold Town Board of~ppeals -54-
July 26, 19~ Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MS. GERARDI, stenographer for Mr. Pachman: That during the
years 1981, 1982, and 1983 no ledger was kept. Was a ledger kept in
1981, '82 and '83?
DR. DAMIANOS: No, I don't believe so.
MR. PACHMAN: And no record of who was there and when those
people were there. It wasn't kept in any written form?
DR. DAMIANOS: No, not in any written form.
MR. PACHMAN: And this is only your best recollection?
DR. DAMIANOS: That's correct, Counsellor.
MR. PACHMAN: I have no further points~
MR. CHAIRMAN: Doctor, could I ask you one question. The
thing that confuses me concerning the property, and maybe you can
refresh my memory because, or you can answer the question, it will
help me with my problem of this particular parcel. When we began to
look at the parcel, it was my understanding the area where you would
park was severely overgrown. I'll show you a picture which I had
taken, and I believe was one of the first pictures. I think that's
cottage No. 1. After you had, there had been some work done on the
property, I would assume machinery had been brought in and this is
a picture with--I'm sorry to make you come ford-- cesspools and so on
and so forth as it presently exists so that it had probably been
placed in the ground at this particular time, ok? Where did these
people park? Where did they park their vehicles, were they parked up
in the area of the main house?
DR. DAMiANOS: There were three areas in which the vehicles
were parked. ~umb~r one, coming down the road there is a cut in, a
small little back road, it's overgrown, where cars were parked.
Place No. 2, as you come down, front of one of the houses is another
area in which you could come in. The difficulty this past year
because of the storms and the runoff is that the place where we
normally parked regular passenger cars had to go over a bit of a
gulley down into the cabins which was very difficult. We at the
vineyard would always bring our truck, which was a 4-wheel drive,
and we went right into it, so there was no problem. But my car we'd
have difficulty getting in there, and where I would park would be
way up into a cut-in and just pull the car right off of the road.
We had tremendous--they did something, something happened with that
road, and we had bulldozed that area to get the beautiful parking
area back in '74, '75, and we were getting adequate drainage. As a
matter of fact, I brought one of my engineers out and one of my
cement people out, and I had the tractor people out to take a look
at that and what we could do.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're referring to the area in back of the
cabin--
DR. DAMIANOS: Yes, that little 9ulley area which makes it
difficult for a car to come down and in to, but we would use a large
'Southold Town Board of peals -55- July 26, 4 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
DR. DAMIANOS (continued):
truck. The men would generally come down with
packed their jerry cans and everything in there.
got to the property.
large trucks and
That's the way we
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Doctor.
DR. DAMIANOS: You're welcome.
MR. ESSEKS: Kathryn Krejci? I can't pronounce your name--
MS. KREJCI: That's close enough.
MR. ESSEKS: When you'take the oath, stand by the microphone?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you raise your right hand please? (Ms. Krejci
raised her right hand.) Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you
are about to give during this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
KATHRYN KREJCI: Yes.
of your
MS. GERARDI: How do you spell your name?
MS. KREJCI: Kathryn. K-A-T-H-R-Y-N Krejci K-R-E-J-C-I.
MR. ESSEKS: I'll ~how you this affidavit, is that a xerox
signature?
copy
MS. KREJCI: Yes, it is.
MR. ESSEKS: Are you employed at one of the nursing homes?
MS. KREJCI: At the adult home, yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Sorry. And how long have you worked there?
MS. KREJCI: I worked for the nursing home from '73 to '80, and
then I went to the adult home from '80 to the ~resen~ time.
MR. ESSEKS: And this place called Green Acres, do you know where
we're talking about?
MS. KREJCI: Oh, yes.
MR. ESSEKS: Have you visited it from time to time?
MS. KREJCI: I didn't in the beginning when groups of people were
going out, but in the past few years, I did go.
MR. ESSEKS: And would you describe to the ~embers of the board
Southold Town Board of Appeals -56- July 26,
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS (continued):
and the audience the extent to which you and/or members of your family
occupied one or more cottages at different times?
MRS. KREJCI: I had gotten my new job in 1980. It was the Fall.
I worked the year after that. I handled a lot of things for my
employers of that deal out east, one is the vineyard and a few other
things. It was the following Summer, I guess that's Summer of '81
and the Summer of '82, for both my birthday weekends, it was offered
for me to go out and I did. It was very, very rustic. My husband
and I have a motorcycle that we use on the weekends. It was just the
two of us. We came out. I only used it to sleep in. I didn't really
spend the day or use the area. I really just slept there. It didn't
really have too many --
MR. ESSEKS: On how many occasions did you sleep overnight at
the cottages?
MRS. KREJCI: It was twice.
years, one night.
It was my birthday weekend both
MR. ESSEKS: Do you have friends or associates in your similar
employment with the same employers, and to your knowledge went out
there in the last five years and stayed overnight?
MRS. KREJCI: Within the last five years? Yeah, they've
spoken about it--a few parties--
MR. ESSEKS: No other questions. Howard?
MR. PACHMAN: Did you do any cooking there?
MRS. ~KREJCI: Oh, no. No. I did not.
MR. PACHMAN: Was there a stove with the gas?
MRS. KREJCI:
I did not cook.
I believe there was a little kitchen set up, but
MR. PACHMAN: Did it work?
MRS. KREJCI: I did not cook.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you use the toilet facilities?
MRS. KREJCI: No, I did not.
MR. PACHMAN: What would you describe the condition of the cabin
that you thought as it being in?
MRS. KREJCI: I would say rundown.
MR. PACHMAN: Rundown. Was it clean or maintained in any fashion?
MRS. KREJCI: Yes. It was. I wouldn't say that it was-- it
wasn't dirty. There wasn't debris or anything and by no means were they
~outhold Town
(Appeal No.
MRS. KREJCI
a hotel
Board of~ppeals -57- July 26, 1~4 Regular Meeting
3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
(continued):
room.
MR. PACHMAN: Well, was it a shack?
MRS. KREJCI: No. I don't think so.
MR. PACHMAN: Well give me some better descriptive term how you
would describe it.
MRS. KREJCI: Ok. No electricity. It was rustic. It was, I
think I remember some shingles down on one--
MR. PACHMAN: The n~ght you were there?
MRS. KREJCI: No. I don't believe so.
MR. PACHMAN: Do you know if the roof leaked?
MRS. KREJCI: I don't-- it rained.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you have a chance to look at the other
cottages?
MRS. KREJCI: No I did not. We picked the one we came right
down to.
MR. PACHMAN: You had a choice of any one you wanted?
MRS. KREJCI: Oh, yes.
MR. PACH~AN: S°JY°U c°~t~k one,
there any reason you picked four?
MRS. KREJCI:
MR. PACHMAN:
MRS. KREJCI:
very steep and we
Is
being
closest.
two, three or four?
It was the closest.
The closest to what?
We came right down on the bike and remember it
had passed the big house, and it was the
MR. PACHMAN:
MRS. KREJCI:
MR. PACHMAN:
MRS. KREJCI:
MR. PACHMAN:
To that big house.
When we came directly down.
What was the condition of the big house?
I don't remember?
Was it occupied?
Southold Town Board of~ppeals -58- July 26, 1
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MRS. KREJCI: Not when I was there, no.
MR. PACHMAN: Did you go through it?
MRS. KREJCI: No, ~ did not.
MR. PACHMAN: And you didn't go through the other cabins?
MRS. KREJCI: No, ~ did not.
MR. PACHMAN: And you were not able to ascertain whether they
were used at all?
MRS. KREJCI: They weren't used the weekend I was there.
MR. PACHMAN: And you don't know why your observing or viewing
the cabin, whether they were used at all?
MRS. KREJCI: They could have been.
MR. PACHMAN: And they could not have been also.
MRS. KREJCI: Could not have been.
MR. PACHMAN: No further questions.
MRS. KREJCI: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. ESSEKS: I handed up last month I guess it was an affidavit
from Elva M. Deiderick and Raymond Deiderick, and I had a supplemental
affidavit dated July 3, 1984. I don't have a copy. I forgot. I'm
sorry. I'd like to offer it. If I may, I'll read it in first.
"...State of Pennsylvania, County of Lancaster: Elva M. Deidrick and
Raymond Deidrick, being duly sworn, depose and say that this affidavit
is made to supplement the affidavit sworn to on the 17th day of May, 1984;
2. For each of the years 1953 through 1973, when my husband and I sold
the property in question, we did lease each of the four cottages on the
property for some portion of the summer season; and each cottage was
rented for at least several weeks of each summer season .... "
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. ESSEKS: That's all I have. If you'll give me just a moment,
I'd like to inquire--I want to make a statement. The Doctor is not a
client of mine.
MR. PACHMAN: I apologize.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pachman, do you have anything that you would
like to add?
~outhold Town Board of ~eals -59- July 26, 19 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: Yes, I'd like to do one thing if I may. I see
Mr. Beebe is back here today and I see Miss Swanson is here. I would
ap½preciate, I would like to examine both those people, and I'd like
one of them not to be present while the other one is testifying, if
you don't mind.
fit,
MR. ESSEKS: I don't know of any basis for excluding one.
MR. PACHMAN: I'm asking you. I'm asking you that it be done.
MR. ESSEKS: If it's done--the Chairman will do what he sees
but it will not be with my consent.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's a discussion that we'll
this particular time. So we'll take a fast recess.
MR. PACHMAN: Thank you.
have at
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED to recess temporarily for approximately five minutes,
at which time the hearing will be reconvened.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki.
adopted by all the members.
Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
This resolution was unanimously
The meeting was recessed at 10:33 p.m.
MEETING RECONVENED: On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by
Mr. Goehringer, it was
RESOLVED to reconvene the regular meeting and proceed with the
hearing in the matter of TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, Appeal No. 3234.
The meeting reconvened at 10:44 p.m.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki.
adopted by all the members.
Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
This resolution was unanimously
MR. 'PACHMAN: I asked the chair for a ruling, and 'Mr.
objected to it. I don't know what the board decided.
Esseks
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we go by past precedents, and although I'm
not the most wisdomatic person on this board, there are two gentlemen
sitting to the left of me that have been on this board for some 23-24
years--, 27. And to their knowledge no one, of course, this is not a
court of law; no one has ever been asked to leave the room.
MR. PACHMAN: I accept the Chair's ruling which I presume is "No."
MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct.
S~)uthold Town Board o?~Appeals -60-
July 26, 1
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R.~TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN: I would like to call Mr. Beebe. Mr. Beebe, the
last time-- he was sworn before, I presume he's still under oath.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Did he testify the last time?
he testified. I must apologize.
I don't believe
WILLIAM M. BEEBE: William B. Beebe. B-E-E-B-E.
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Beebe, I think when you were last here,
you testified that you are a contractor-builder who was doing work
in and about the premises known as Green Acres, am I correct, sir?
MR. BEEBE: That's right.
MR. PACHMAN:
performing on behalf
basis?
And you indicated that the work that you were
of Swanson and Abbott was on a time and materials'
MR. BEEBE: I don't know if I said that or not. You asked me
if I was getting paid. I was getting paid as a contractor.
MR. PACHMAN: All right. And you said there was no written
contract?
MR. BEEBE: No.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok, sir. Have you completed all your work?
MR. BEEBE: No.
MR~ PACHMAN: But how much work have you completed to date?
MR. BEEBE: On what?
MR. PACHMAN: Well, let's take the house. The main house. Can
you estimate the total amount of work that you performed in dollars?
MR. BEEBE: I thought this meeting was for the four bungalows,
not the house.
MR. ESSEKS: I object to the question. I fail to see its
relevance. I don't want to kill the whole evening.
MR. PACHMAN: Well, if you would like to know the relevance,
I will tell you the relevance.
MR. CHAIRMAN: By the way, let me just reiterate, gentlemen,
that we have broken the ground rules here all night. All right. If
you'll remember the discourse that you had with Dr. Damianos and the
Doctor who was not your client, ok, all those statements should have
been projected to the board. Ok.
,Southold Town Board )eals -61- July 26, Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR~R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT~SWANSON,'continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: We get too esthusiastic and I apologize.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as the recorders could take the information
down is what I was mainly interested in. So, I would ask you please--
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I understand thereis an objection to
the present one. I would like to draw the board's attention to Section
100, Subdivision 121(C), wrong section, excuse me--lO0-118, Nonconform-
ing Uses, Subdivision (E). And it says and I'll quote it,
"...A nonconforming building may not be reconstructed or structurally
altered during its life to an extent exceeding in aggregate cost
50% of the fair value of the building, unless the use of such build-
ing is changed to a conforming use .... "
So therefore I have objected on several grounds, as to the use of this
building. One, that it hadn't been used for a period fo two years,
which was Section (D) of that, and now I would like to get into the
testimony of Mr. Beebe and possibly others as to the cost of the
improvements that were made to see if they will exceed 50% of the value,
because if they don't, even if you assumed that the property was con-
tinuously used, which I'll argue at another date for that period of
two years, I think there was a violation because the value may have
exceeded 50% of the value which would provide for the reconstruction.
MR. ESSEKS: Mr. Chairman, before he gets into that, I would ask
you to consider that it be --the petition of Mr. Truckenbrodt where he
claims that the Certificate issued by the Building Inspector, our
zoning administrator, was incorrect, and also I believe it's the burden
of the owners, Mr. Truckenbrodt and his cohorts that it'~ up to them
to show this is a nonconforming building; and I don't believe there's
anything in the evidence to show that it is a nonconforming building.
I believe that you and the other members of the board know that a
nonconforming building is a building such as a house in a commercial
district or a commercial structure in a residential district. A
building designed and only usable for a use not permitted in that
district. The only testimony for two days and tonight is that this is
a cottage, a residential cottage situate at the property zoned for
residential purposes. I fail to see how --that's there is any showing
that this is a nonconforming, a nonconforming use. You haven't proven
that yet. He's assumed that conclusion. So I fail to see how the
testimony being elicited is germane. If you're going to allow it,
fine, but you take it subject to connection subject to his showing
that the property in fact is a nonconforming use.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just briefly, Mr. Esseks, we would also consider,
or I would also consider, I'm not answering for the other five board
members of this board, that a building, we won't call it a dwelling, ok,
that does not meet the 850 square foot requirement could be construed
to be a nonconforming dwelling--I'm sorry-structure.
MR. ESSEKS: But, Mr. Chairman, I believe the section--do you want
to give me the section, Howard?
MR. PACHMAN: The one I was just referring to, nonconforming uses,
lO0-118. And that's on page 10053.
·
Southold Town Board of~ppeals -62- July 26, 1 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTTTSWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: That section is entitled, Mr. Chairman, lO0-118, Noncon-
forming Uses. It doesn't say nonconforming structure. It doesn't say
nonconforming as to area. It doesn't say nonconforming as to the size
of the lot. It doesn't say nonconforming as to setbacks and sideyards.
It says, nonconforming uses, and I believe the word "uses" is a word of
art in the law of zoning. As you know, you have use variances and you
have area variances. And I'm going to stick to my guns that there's no
suggestion of nonconforming use.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How far are you going to go into this?
MR. PACHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I assume that the board is going
to take judicial notice of its own ordinance and that the zoning of this
particular section does not permit hotels, motels, tourist camps, or
cabins of this nature. And if that's the present zoning ordinance, and
pretty sure that you will take notice to that effect, then the use of
these cottages can only exist if they were nonconforming uses. I don't
have to prove the self-evident what the ordinance says and what these
buildings are. They are obviously not in the present zoning classifica-
tion in their use. And I don't suggest that Mr. Esseks is saying they
are. Or are you?
I'm
MR. ESSEKS: I'm suggesting--
MR.
this use
PACHMAN: I'm asking you a question, Sir? Are you claiming that
of this property is within the present zoning classification?
MR. ESSEKS: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: You are?
MR. ESSEKS: Yes.
MR. PACHMAN: Will you show me the section?
MR. ESSEKS: These are-- I submitted that in the Town of Southold,
that's where we are tonight. I get confused some nights. You may rent
your house by the week and you may rent your house by the month and you
may rent your house by the year or by the five years. And if I'm in the
wrong town to say that, I'll stand corrected, but I don't think I am.
MR. PACHMAN: That's not the issue, Mr. Esseks. We're not renting
one house. We are saying whether this main building and the subsidiary
satellite buildings¥1}which are cabins or cottages and the definition is
the ordinance, which self-supplies in itself says that a tourist cottage
is a detached building having less than 35Q square feet of cross-sectional
area, designed for or occupied as a living and sleeping quarters for
seasonal occupancy.
MR. ESSEKS: It's not less than 350 square feet.
MR. PACHMAN: Is this seasonal occupancy?
'Southold Town Board of~m~ppeals -63- July 26,
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: You can have a house that's seasonal occupancy,- If this
was less than 350 feet, i~ might fall within that definition. But it doesn't.
MR. PACHMAN: I'll stand on the ordinance thai: this is a nonconforming.
MR. ESSEKS: We're all going to stand on the ordinance.
MR. PACHMAN: Ok. And I would hope that the board will take judicial
notice of its own ordinance as to whether this is a hotel, motel, or a
tourist camp or anything else other than a permanent dwelling or a dwelling
which is defined in the ordinance as a dwelling.
MR. CHAIRMAN: By the nature of the fact that
done by the Building Inspector which is of course
why we're here, ok--
it was a determination
probably the reason
MR. PACHMAN: That it is a nonconforming use.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I'm about ready to direct that question to Mr.
Lessard.
MR. PACHMAN: His certificate so states it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What's your opinion?
VICTOR LESSARD, BUILDING ADMINISTRATOR: First off, this property is
in an A-Zone, which is residential. Ok. The main house is a one-family
dwelling, ok. In a residential zone, you're allowed to reside. The
nonconformity is, under Article III, Section 100-30 where there it says
that you're allowed one dwelling on the property. The nonconformity is
because of the fact that there are four cabins there that were preexisting.
The fact that people lived there, that's what they're allowed[to do in a
residential zone. The main house is the one dwelling. That is a conform-
ing use in a residential zone.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So in other words, you're saying that the one house
on the ten acres, or whatever the--
MR. LESSARD: The law doesn't specify acreage.. You're allowed one
dwelling on a piece of property under lO0-30(B) I believe. The fact
that you have four cabins there, that is the nonconforming condition.
The fact that people lived there, that's conforming.
MR. PACHMAN: That is jibberish.
MR. LESSARD: That's the law, Sir.
MR. PACHMAN: You construe, you can see that the four cabins make
it a nonconforming use and you gave a certificate to that effect. I
don't care what the basis of its nonconformity is. If it was abandoned
for a period of two years, it's nonconforming.
S~uthold Town Board of~ppeals -64- July 26,
Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. ESSEKS: Either purposefully or otherwise, Mr. Pachman fails
to realize that nonconformity can be use and it can be as to number of
residential units on a piece of land. And it's very difficult to argue
with the fact that the cottages are residential, no one has ever pEesented
it to the contrary. It's also very difficult to argue with the fact that
there are five residential structures on one p~ee of land, and therefore
to the extent that they're violating the density and setback rules of the
Town of Southold, they are nonconforming. But not as to use. They're
nonconforming as to acreage and setbacks, and I submit and I'm not
testifying that that is manifestly self-evident and I don't know why
we'd really want to spend a great amount of time arguing about it. ~And that
I believe ~s the basis of the issuance of the certificate.. I believe
that if you had a house on an eight-acre lot in this Town, it would also
be nonconforming as to density--the coverage I mean, and as to setbacks
and as to the size of the lot. But because of single and separate you
would do that. That's not our situation. And I think you shouldn't try
to confuse the issue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: At what point--excuse me just one second--at one point
are you objecting? Well, I know what you're objecting to--
MR. ESSEKS: If this were a nonconforming use, if we had a
restaurant in a residential district, you would be covered under that
section as to value and cost for repairs, and if you wanted to exceed
it we'd have to come to you and get a variance. The reason being in
this Town, special permission for that--I can't remember. But that's
not our situation. So I believe you can take that testimony--it will
be irrelevant to the issue before the board.
MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, you're own ordi-
nance defines what a nonconforming use is, and the lies, the arguments,
that Mr. Esseks has made and Mr. Lessard is a~nonconforming use is
defined as,~',Any use, whether of a building or tract of land, or both,
existing on the effective date of this chapter, which does not conform
to the use regulations of the district in which it is located."
MR. ESSEKS: I absolutely agree.
MR. PACHMAN: And t~e use regulations include not only the type of
use as to multiple use or single use or setbacks and everything else,
that's all in your use regulations.
MR. ESSEKS: I submit that that's not correct.
MR. PACHMAN: But that's what it says.
MR. ESSEKS: "Use" as to business, commercial, and so on.
MR. PACHMAN: Use talks about buildings, size, coverage, sideyards,
rearyards, frontyards, everything is use; and if it violates the use by
your very definition, it is in violation of your ordinance and it's
nonconforming. And there would be no other reason by the very fact that
~Southold Town Board o peals -65- July 26, 1 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, continued:)
MR. PACHMAN (continued):
the Building Inspector issued a Certificate of Nonconforming Use that he
as the interpreter of the ordinance indicated that it was nonconforming.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You know, gentlemen, you're forcing me at this
particular point to basically recess this hearing for another meeting
because you're getting into a situation here where you're referring-
this is an area that the Town Attorney should be dealing with, and
unfortunately, he is not with us tonight. So, you know. You're
going to have to tell me how you are going to resolve this, or else
we're going to have to recess it at this particular' point.
MR. ESSEKS: I have no trouble with a recess. I vote for a recess,
but I'm not even suggesting that you not recess to consult with your
counsel, but I have before me a believe a copy of the Certificate of
Occupancy and it says "Certificate of Occupancy, Nonconforming Premises."
And then it says this stuff that my client owns does not conform to the
present zoning code of the Town of Southold for the. following reasons:
~a lot with a dwelling and four cottages.!' It doesn't say that it
violates the use. It says that a Certificate of Occupancy, Nonconforming
Premises, and I submit that I am correct as to my interpretation of the
law, but you shouldn't hear what I have to say or hear about what I
have to say, you should hear what Mr. Tasker says.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you object to a recess, Mr. Pachman?
MR. PACHMAN: I don't object to a recess. If this is an issue
which this board can consider as not an appeal from a nonconforming use
based on the interpretation of the building inspector, which I have
been actually appealing, and that's why we're here today, as to the
definition, now the definition as I'said, a nonconforming use, then
we shouldn't be here and there should be no work being done here at all
because it's totally without merit what they're doing. Secondly, we're
also objecting to the fact that there's reconstructing, altering and
various other things being done in and about the premises without a
Certificate--or permit, or a Certificate of Occupancy. And that has
not been responded to or answered in any way, nor has anything been
applied for. I think it's so self-evident what we're talking about,
if this board has any doubt in its mind, I'll come back again and go
over this issue and argue it with the Town Attorney, or anyone else
you want to argue with.
MR. CHAIRMAN:I.You leave me with no choice at this particular time
to put a motion before this board to recess this hearing until the
next regularly scheduled meeting. My major problem, gentlemen, is
that that meeting is fully booked. The Town is running 200% over
capacity at this particular time.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion? We
could have it on a separate night, just this alone? How does that sound?
S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -66-
July 26, ~84 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3234 - ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON, cOntinued:)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's-- we have to make the motion on that
basis though for the purpose of advertising, and--
MEMBER SAWICKI: Would you have to readvertise it again?
SECRETARY: Unless you have a date now.
shouldn't have to readvertise it.
If you have a date you
MR. CHAIRMAN: We don't know what that date is at this particular
time, so we'll have to readvertise it.
MR. ESSEKS: Please don't make it on a Friday night. You don't
work Friday nights, do you?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have, ok, at this particular time I'll offer a
motion to recess this hearing until August 23rd, 1984, tentatively, in
hopes that it might be the only hearing on that particular evening,
so it would be earlier and we'll deal with that issue-
MR. PACHMAN: I didn't get the date, Sir, I'm sorry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: August 23rd. Tentatively. A Thursday. Is that
all right with you, Mr. Pachman?
MR. PACHMAN: Yes. You did not set a time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Seven or 7:30 at this particular time. 7 p.m.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Are we going to start this first?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the only one we'll have.
SECRETARY: We could have a Regular Meeting two. weeks after that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I'll call that motion, gentlemen.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was
RESOLVED, to recess the hearing in the matter of Appeal No. 3234,
TRUCKENBRODT/ABBOTT/SWANSON until Thursday, AUGUST 23, 1984 at 7:00
o'clock p.m.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously
adopted by all the members.
Following the hearing, Mr. Pachman corrected the pronunciation
of Mr. Gullackson's name (not Gallockson), who was the predecessor
in title to Truckenbrodt. i)
'Southold Town Board of peals -67- July 26,
Regular Meeting
The board discussed a tentative date for a
held at Fishers Island on Wednesday, August 8,
1:30 p.m. The secretary will be advised as to
when definite.
Special Meeting to be
1984, at approximately
an official notice
Being there was no other business properly coming before the board
at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at approxi-
mately 11:15 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Approved 10/11/84
Southo!d Town Board of Appeals
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRtNGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
,SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT .J. DOUGLASS
.JOSEPH H. SA~VICKI
January 2, 1985 .
To:
Howard E. Pachman, Esq.
Pachman, Oshrin & Block, P.C.
366 Veterans Memorial Highway,
Commack, NY 11725
Box 273
William W. Esseks, Esq.
Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel
108 East Main Street, Box 279
Riverhead, NY 11901
Re: Appeal No. 3234 Truckenbrodt/Abbott and Swanson
Gentlemen:
This letter will confirm that the public hearing
above matter has been officially declared closed at our
December 13, 1984 Regular Meeting.
You will be advised accordingly.
We wish all of you a very Happy New Year.
Yours very truly,
in the
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
By Linda Kowalski
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
(516) 360-5513
LEE E. KOppI:'LMAN
October 16, 1984
Town of Southold
Board of Appeals
Applicant:
Arthur R. Truckenbrodt, et al.
#3234
Gan t leman:
Pursuant to Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above
referenced application*is not within the jurisdiction of the Suffolk County
Planning Comm~ ssion.
Very truly yours,
Lee E. Koppelman
Director of Planning
Gerald G. Newman
Chief Planner
GGN:jk
* for a determination as to the legitimacy of a June 21, 1984 decision of the
building inspector. If a variance and/or special exception is being sought,
please resubmit with findings indicating compliance with applicable criteria.
ESSEKS, HEFTER, CUDDY & ANGel
September 20, 1984
WATER MILL OFFICE
MONTAU K HIGHWAY
R O. BOX 570
I would like
manner:
1. The cottages
12+ acre parcel.
area requirements
been permitted on
Town of Southold
Board of Appeals
Main Road
State Road 25
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Appeal No. 3234
Premises of Abbott and Swanson at Orient
Variance filed by Truckenbrodt, et al.
Gentlemen:
I have received Mr. Pachman's memorandum under date of
September 13, 1984 and the Chairman's advice that I could have
until today to respond.
I have been out of the office for about one week and offer
that excuse for presenting this argument in the form of a
letter rather than a formal brief.
to summarize our position in the following
were constructed ~rior to zoning upon this
Under any interpretation of the density or
of the zoning ordinance, five residences have
this site.
2. The only testimony from all prior owners is that the
premises were either occupied by the owners or offered for rent
on a seasonal basis. The Deidericks testified through
Town of Southold
Board of Appeals
Page Two
Sepember 20, 1984
affidavits that they rented the property until
Damianos and his
3. Dr.
of the
members of his family.
4. Petitioners' contention that the premises constitute a
tourist cottage is belied by the definition thereof in the
zoning ordinance that a tourist cottage equals
"A detached building having less than
three hundred fifty (35) square feet
of cross-sectional area, designed for
or occupied as living and sleeping
quarters for seanson occupancy."
The only testimony in the record is that each of the cottages
far exceeds this area.
5. Section 100-118 of the zoning ordinance
conforming uses. A nonconforming use is defined
ordinance as
1973 when Dr.
sister acquired it.
Damianos testified that each year through to 1983 each
cottages was occupied by tenants, guests, employees or
deals with non-
"Any use, whether of a building or
tract of land, or both, existing on
the effective date of this chapter, which
does not conform to the use regulations
of the district in which it is located."
in the zoning
5. Under permitted uses in the subject district is "one-
family detached dwellings, not to exceed one (1) dwelling on
each lot."
6. Lot is defined in the zoning ordinance as follows:
Town of Southold
Board of Appeals
Page Three
September 20, 1984
"Any parcel of land, not necessarily
coincident with a lot or lots shown
on a map of record, which is occupied
or which is to be occupied by a building
and its accessory buildings, if any, or
by a group of buildings accessory thereto,
if any, together with the required open
spaces appourtenant to such buildings or
group of buildings."
It is submitted that the situation that we have here is
at best nonconforming buildings as opposed to nonconforming
uses. See Amzalak v. Incorporated Village of Valley Stream,
220 N.Y.S.2d 113 (Supreme Court, Nassau County, 1961), n.o.r.
It is submitted that the use being solely residential in nature
as a matter of law cannot be nonconforming.
Petitioners argue that because there is more than one
dwelling on this 12+ acre parcel that the use is nonconforming.
Their argument defies logic and the precise language of the
ordinance. Article III S100-30 A(1) refers to "one-family
detached dwellings, not to exceed one (1) dwelling on each
lot." (emphasis added). The word "dwellings" is obviously
plural. Accordingly, it is then necessary to examine the
definition of lot as set forth above. The definition of lot
does not preclude the interpretation that five dwellings on
12+ acres in a two acre zone is a conforming use. Said
definition of lot includes "any parcel of land...occupied by a
building...or by a group of buildings accessory thereto, if
Town of Southold
Board of Appeals
Page Four
September 20, 1984
any... "
Petitioner's theory would require a finding that two
houses on a 500 acre farm constitute a nonconforming use which
would preclude any improvements thereto not in accordance with
~100-118 of the code. Such a strained construction of the
ordinance is not warranted or necessary.
The Board should find that the uses of the four dwellings
in question is permitted or alternatively that their
nonconforming status has not been abandoned based upon the
testimony of the various owners of the parcel.
Respectfully yours,
william W. Esseks
WWE:cf
Copy: Howard Pachman, Esq.
Mere ndum from....
$outhold Town Board of Appeals
TOWN HALL, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
765-1809
Date
3-1~-C4
To: ~ir. Tasker
From: ZBA Office
Please find attache(,
July 26, i9L;4 hear'lng
matter ii Truckenbrodt vs.
Plcasm 1,.c me know if there ,; ..; .. it~i(,* :
which ;¢0~; may need.
Deli'u~.,'r,*c, i o ~.:,' )laVe
tll~ h~,~'rii;g has ne
by rascl u~i(,n.
Li:~da K.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 BOUTNOLO, L.I., N.Y. 119'71
TELEPHONE (51§) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, .IR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H, SAWlCKI
September 14, 1984
William W. Esseks, Esq.
Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel
108 East Main Street, Box 279
Riverhead, NY 11901
Re: Appeal No. 3234 - Truckenbrodt, et al.
Dear Mr. Esseks:
This letter will confirm our telephone conversation with
Jean today that the board has received copies of the memoran-
dum submitted by Mr. Pachman; and that in accordance with your
request at the last recessed hearing, a reply brief would have
to be submitted by Wednesday, September 19, 1984, during normal
business hours.
Yours very truly,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
By Linda Kowalski
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARO P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, .JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
Southold Town Board o£ Appeals
MAIN ROAD- BTATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD. L.I.. N.Y.
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
August 12, 1984
Howard E. Pachman, Esq.
Pachman, Oshrin & Block, P.C.
366 Veterans Memorial Highway
P.O. Box 273
Commack, NY 11725
Re: Appeai NO. 3234 - Truckenbrodt, et al.
Dear Mr. Pachman:
This letter is to confirm that the public hearing on the
above-entitled matter has been further recessed until our
next Regular Meeting of Thursday, August 23, 1984, at 7:30 p.m.
at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southo!d, New York.
Yours very truly,
Linda Kowalski
CC:
William W. Esseks, Esq.
Mr._Victor Lessard (Building Department
Ms. Dorothy Abbott
Ms. Dorothy Swanson
Southoid Town Board of Appeals
MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11cj'71
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI l~-
Howard E. Pachman, Esq.
Pachman, Oshrin & Block, P.e.
366 Veterans Memorial Highway
P.O. Box 273
Commack, NY 11725
July 16, 1984
Re: Appeal No. 3234 - Truckenbrodt, et al.
Dear Mr. I~achman:
This letter, will confirm that the public hearing on the
above matter has been recessed until our next Regular Meeting
of July 26, 1984, at 8:35 p.m.
Also, transmitted herewith are a transmittal letter with
enclosures from the Assessors pursuant to your subpoena which
I have been asked to forward to you.
Yours very truly,
Linda Kowal ski
Enclosures
cc: William W. Esseks, Esq.
Mr. Victor Lessard (Building
Department)
PACH~4AN, OSHRIN & BLOCK, P. C.
June 29, 1984
Victor G. Lessard, Bldg. Inspector
Town of Southold
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Application of Truckenbrodt, et al
re Property pf ~_wanson & Ab~o~t
Hea~in~' Heid 6/I9/84, adj. to 7/26/84
Dear Mr. Lessard:
As you know, there is presently an appeal before the Town
Board of the Town of Southold. One of the issues which had been
raised was the fact that work was done in and about the cottages/
cabins without benefit of building permits and/or Certificates of
Occupancy.
Since the hearing date, it has come to my attention that
there are persons living in the cabins in violation of the zoning
ordinance of the Town of Southold. In addition, I am led to believe
t~at final approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health
with reference to the septic systems has not yet been received.
Since we are of the opinion--and this is presently on ap-
peal--that your actions are in violation of the zoning code, I re-
spectfully request that you take such additional action as may be
necessary to keep the cabins vacant until the Board of Appeals renders
its decision.
I have taken the liberty of sending copies of this letter
to all interested parties herein for their information.
Very truly yours,
~an
HEP:ss
cc:
Robert W. Tasker,Town Attorney
Chairman, Southold Board of Appeals
Mr. Richard Leslie
Mr. Arthur Truckenbrodt
Mr. Patrick Lyons
PACHMAN, OSHRIN (~ BLOC~, P. C.
May 24,
Town of Southold
Board of Appeals
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
1984
Attention: Ms. Linda Kowalski
Re:
Appeal No. 3234
Premises of Abbott & Swancon
Orient, New York
Dear Linda:
This will confirm telephone conversation of recent date,
wherein we were advised that the above-captioned matter is scheduled
for June 21, 1984 at approximately 9:00 p.m.
We are in receipt of a copy of Mr. Esseks letter of
May 14th requesting an adjournment of the matter. Since, as his
letter indicates, he will be back in his office on June 21st, there
is no need for a further adjournment.
We have already served subpoenas for the June 21st date
and will be ready to proceed at that time. The matter has already
been delayed, and we would very much object to any further adjourn-
ments.
ruly yours,
Howard
HEP:ss
cc: William W. Esseks, Esq.
Esselcs, HEFTER, CUDDY & ANGEL
May 14, 1984
Town of Southold
Board of Appeals
Main Road
State Road 25
Southold, New York 11971
Attention: Linda Kowalski
Re:
Appeal No. 3234
Premises of Abbott and Swanson at Orient
Variance filed by Truckenbrodt, et al.
Dear Ms. Kowalski:
I am in receipt of a copy of your May 8, 1984 letter to Howard
E. Pachman, Esq. with copies to Dorothy Abbott and Janet T.
Swanson. Your letter indicates that this matter will
tentatively be the subject of a public hearing on June 14,
1984.
I represent Ms. Abbott and Ms. Swanson on this matter. I will
be out of the country on June 14, 1984 and I am not expected to
return until June 21, 1984. Therefore, I would appreciate your
delaying the public hearing on this matter until at least June
28, 1984.
Please advise.
Very truly yours,
William W. Esseks
WWE:cf
Copy: Howard Pachman, Esq.
HOWA]~2) E. PACHMAN
ALAN D. OSHRIN
II'AP. BLOCK
PACHMAN, OSHRIN ~ BLOCK, P. C.
ATTOI~NEYS
May 8, 1984
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
Town Hall, Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Abbot and Swanson Property
Tax Map No. 1000-18-3-5
Dear Mr. Goehringer:
This will confirm my several telephone conversations
with the Clerk of the Zoning Board of Appeals. On or about
March 15, 1984, we submitted an appeal to your Board, on
behalf of several adjacent neighbors to the above-captioned
property, requesting an interpretation of the building and
zoning ordinance, pursuant to Section 100-121(D)(1). In-
cluded with the forms which were supplied to this office and
subsequently submitted, was an Environmental Assessment Form,
which was non-applicable to our situation.
The hearing was scheduled for May 17, 1984, but we were
advised that, after review, the Environmental Assessment Form
was found to be inadequate and that additional papers would
be forthcoming, which were necessary in order to have the
matter rescheduled for hearing.
As I indicated to the Clerk and to Robert W. Tasker,
Esq., Town Attorney, the Environmental Assessment Form is not
applicable when the relief requested is an interpretation of
statute. Since the Board of Appeals is sitting in a
quasi-judicial capacity to interpret the meaning of the
ordinance, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
(SEQRA) is therefore not applicable..
In any event, we herewith withdraw the Environmental
Assessment form as being an unnecessary supporting document.
We trust that the matter will be promptly rescheduled, since
it has been pending for some nine weeks and our several
clients would appreciate an early resolution of the issue.
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
Page
I would appreciate some verification to assure
matter has now been resolved.
HEP:ss
cc: Robert W. Tasker, Esq.
Town Attorney
Mr. Arthur Truckenbrodt
Mr. Patrick Lyons
that the
Very truly yours,
adjoining the Abbott/Swanson p~ope~ty~ do he.by s~a~ ~ha~ t~
dwlllnts ~d/o~ build~s on p~ope~y ouvPen~ly o~d by said
Abbott/Sw~son ~d located on P~ivaSe Hoad, Omients have been
abando~d and continually ~oo~upied fo~ a ~iod of not less
th~ t~ yea~s.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLE
STATE O1~ I~ YORI{
)
))
)
)
Doris M. Gannon ., NOtaPy in and fop said Oou~ty and
state do hereby state that Ham~y Meax.nsp personally appea~ed befor~
me ~his 21st
day of Ma~'eh, 198~$ and signed ~he above.
.... .~2'"° '". GANNON .
; ,.u~y PUBLIC, S~te ~ N Y
Su~ ~. ~. 47015~ ~
le~ Exp~ ~rch ~ ]~ ~
Page 3 Legal Noti~
. Phblic Hearings ily 26, 1984.
Copies of the Legal Notice to the following 7/16/84:
Mrs. Loretta DiMaggio, Southold EQuities, Southold
Charles R. Cuddy, Esq., Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel
for Mr. John Simicich
Abigail A. Wickham, Esq. for Joseph Wanat
Philip J. Ofrias, Jr., Esq. for Henry J. Smith
Mr. David Kapell for Giannaris and others
Irving L. Price, Jr., Esq. for Vincent Griffo
Nicholas Aliano, Cutchogue
Mr. Thomas Higgins, Garden City
Howard E. Pachman, Esq. for Truckenbrodt and others
William W. Esseks, Esq. for Abbott and Swanson
Mr.
Z
0
N
ZBA board members
Town Clerk Bulletin Board
Suffolk Times, Inc. for publication July
L.I. Traveler-Watchman, Inc." "
Individual files for reference
19th
~w¥"
Southold Town Board of
Appeals
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
Howard E. Pachman, Esq.
Pachman, Oshrin & Block, P.C.
6080 Jericho Turnpike, Box 273
Commack, NY 11725
May 8, 1984
Re:
Appeal No. 3234
Premises of Abbott and Swanson at Orient
Variance Filed by Truckenbrodt, et al.
Dear Mr. Pachman:
This letter will confirm our telephone conversations
that the board has, after reviewing the Short Environmental
Assessment Form filed with the variance application, requested
that the enclosed Long Environmental Assessment Form be
completed in accordance with Paragraph (b) of the instructions
on the SEAF and Section 617.3 of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act.
Also, it is our understanding that it is your opinion
that since this is a variance for an "interpretation," it
is not directly related to the environment and the provisions
of SEQRA would not apply. You have stated that you will be
withdrawing the SEAF filed with the variance application, and
upon receipt, copies will be transmitted to the board members
and town attorney for review.
Since this application has not been advertised for the
May 17, 1984 public hearings, the application will be con-
sidered for the June 1984 Regular Meeting for public hearing,
which is tentatively the 14th.
Please don't hesitate to call our office if you have any
questions.
Yours very truly,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
Enclosure
cc: Building Department
Ms. Dorothy Abbott
Ms. Janet T. Swanson
By Linda Kowalski
TOWN OF SOUI'HOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
TEL. 765-1802
February 21, 1984
Ms. Dorothy Abbot
P. 0. Box 369
Cutchogue, New York
Ms. Janet T. Swanson
Box 913
11935 Cutchogue, New Yor~ 11935
Dear Ms. Abbot and Swanson:
I am in receipt of letters and statements from Messrs. Richard
Leslie, Patrick E. Lyons, Bradford Hess, and Arthur R. Truckenbrodt.
They claim the use of the four nonconforming accessory cottages on
your premises has been discontinued for a period of more than two
years and therefore any continued use of these buildings is not
permitted unless a variance is granted b~ the Southold Town Board
of Appeals.
I have written these individuals a letter, a copy of which is
enclosed for your review. As you can see from the information I
have in my file, I have determined the Certificate of Occupancy
for Nonconforming Premises issued to Eurydice Loucopoulos and
Herodotos Damianos on June 21, 1983, (Zl1936) is valid.
However, you should be aware if you perform any reconstruction,
restoration or structural alteration to the cottages, a Building
Permit will be required. Therefore, you and your attorney should
consult Section 100-118 of the Southold Town Zoning Code. In
addition to avoid any future difficulties, I would suggest you
discuss this matter with these neighboring property owners.
Further, you might also want to clarify the entire situation by
presenting the matter to the Board of Appeals for their considera-
tion.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
VGL:bc
Enclosure
Very truly yours,
Victor G. Lessard
Executive Administrator
TOWN OF SOUTBOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
TEL, 765-1802
February 21, 1984
Mr. Richard Leslie
Box 831
Orient, New York 11957
Mr. Patrick E. Lyons
203 East 29th Street
New York, New York 10016
Mr. Bradford Hess
Private Road
Orient, New Yor~ 11957
~Mr. Arthur R. Truckenbrodt
Private Ro'ad, Box 2016
Orient, New York 11957
Dear Messrs:
I am in receipt of your recent letters concerning property owned
by Dorothy Abbot and Janet T. Swanson (Suffolk County Tax Map No.
1000-18-3-5) upon which there is located a principal dwelling and
four nonconforming accessory cottages. I have checked into this
matter and find the prior owners, Eurydice Loucopoulos and Herodotos
Damianos were issued a Certificate of Occupancy Nonconforming Premises
on June 21, 1983 (Z11736). This Certificate was issued on the basis
of an affidavit of Eurydice Loucopoulos that the premises and the
accessory buildings were in existence prior to April, 1957, and have
been used continuously to the present time. In addition, our files
indicate Eurydice Loucopoulos executed another affidavit on November 3,
1983, stating "that within the last 2 years the cottages on the above
described property were used by families different and other than the
owners or their families for which the undersigned received considera-
tion.''
A Building Permit was issued to Dorothy Abbot and Janet Swanson
on December 15, 1983 (No. 12837Z) for permission to construct addition
and alterations to existing principal dwelling. An inspection of the
entire premises was performed on February 10, 1984, and it was found
the present owners are not in violation of the zoning ordinance.
Based upon the recent inspection and the information I have in my
file, I have determined the existing Certificate of Occupancy dated
June 21, 1983, (Z11736) is valid. Until such time as a zoning viola-
tion is brought to my attention, my department will not proceed any
further with this matter.
If you want to proceed further, you should consult with your
EXHIBIT B-1
Mr. Arthur R.
attorney or you may appeal my determination to the Southold Town
Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 100-121(D) 1 of the Code of
the Town of Southold.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Victor G. Lessard
Executive Administrator
VGL:bc
TOWN OF SOUTItOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
TEL. 765-1802
February 21, 1984
Mr. Richard Leslie Mr. Bradford Hess
Box 831 Private Road
Orient, New York 11957 Orient, New Yor~ 11957
Mr. Patrick E. Lyons ~Mr. Arthur R. Truckenbrodt
203 East 29th Street Private Road, Box 2016
New York, New York 10016 Orient, New York 11957
Dear Messrs:
I am in receipt of your recent letters concerning property owned
by Dorothy Abbot and Janet T. Swanson (Suffolk County Tax Map No.
1000-18-3-5) upon which there is located a principal dwelling and
four nonconforming accessory cottages. I have checked into this
matter and find the prior owners, Eurydice Loucopoulos and Herodotos
Damianos were issued a Certificate of Occupancy Nonconforming Premises
on June 21, 1983 (Z11736). This Certificate was issued on the basis
of an affidavit of Eurydice Loucopoulos that the premises and the
accessory buildings were in existence prior to April, 1957, and have
been used continuously to the present time. In addition, our files
indicate Eurydice Loucopoulos executed another affidavit on November 3,
1983, stating "that within the last 2 years the cottages on the above
described property were used by families different and other than the
owners or their families for which the undersigned received considera-
tion.''
A Building Permit was issued to Dorothy Abbot and Janet Swanson
on December 15, 1983 (No. 12837Z) for permission to construct addition
and alterations to existing principal dwelling. An inspection of the
entire premises was performed on February 10, 1984, and it was found
the present owners are not in violation of the zoning ordinance.
Based upon the recent inspection and the information I have in my
file, I have determined the existing Certificate of Occupancy dated
June 21, 1983, (Zl1736) is valid. Until such time as a zoning viola-
tion is brought to my attention, my department will not proceed any
further with this matter.
If you want to proceed further, you should consult with your
EXHIBIT B-1
Richard Leslie
patrick E. Lyons
~r. Bradford Hess
~r. Arthur R. Truckenbrodt
-2- February 21, 1984
attorney or you may appeal my determination to the Southold Town
Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 100-121(D)1 of the Code of
the Town of Southold.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do
hesitate to contact me.
not
Very truly yours,
Victor G. Lessard
Executive Administrator
VGL: b c
TOWN OF SOUTI~OI,r~
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
TEL. 765-1802
March 2, 1984
Pachman, Oshrin & Block, P.C.
6080 Jericho Turnpike
P. O. Box 273
Commack, New York 11725
ATT: Howard E. Pachman, Esq.
RE: Tax Map No. 1000-18-3-5
Truckenbrodt - Abbott & Swanson
Dear Mr. Pachman:
Thank you very much for your letter of February 24,
1984.
As I previously indicated to your client in my letter
of February 21, 1984, if you do not agree with my prior
determinations, you should appeal them to the Southold
Town Board of Appeals.
VGL:bc
cc: Robert W. Tasker,
Very truly yours,
Victor G. Lessard
Executive Administrator
Esq.
Exhibit B-2
PACtlMAN, O~ItRIN ~c lh.¢){-i{. I'. ('.
February 24, 1984
Victor G. Lessard
Executive Administrator
Office of Building Inspector
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 728
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Tax Map No. 1000-18-3-5
Truckenbrodt - Abbot & Swanson
Dear Mr. Lessard:
As the attorneys for Arthur R.
I should like to thank you for the
me during our meeting of Thursday,
Truckenbrodt and others,
courtesies you extended to
February 23rd.
As I indicated to you at that time, I was somewhat
dismayed to find that there were no building permits applied
for or required by the Town of Southold for the work that was
being performed on the above-captioned property, which is
adjacent to my client's parcel.
The Southold Town Ordinance clearly states that building
permits are necessary when a building is restored or
structurally altered as set forth in Section 100-141.
Obviously, the installation of new roofs, new siding and
interior changes in the room dimenions of the cottage
premises come under this category.
In addition, based upon an application dated November
15, 1983, the Town granted Permit No. ]2828Z, dated January
5, 1984, for the erection of a fence, 150 feet in length, to
be placed one foot east of the property line. Section 100-35
of the Town Code requires fences to be placed within five
feet of property lines. ]t would, therefore, appear that a
variance has been granted without the benefit of the Board of
Appeals.
Lastly, my client received your letter of February 21,
1984, which Jffdicated that a Certificate of OccupanCy for
non-conforming premises, dated June 2], ]983, bearinq No.
Zl1736, had been issued to the previoua owners, Eurydice
Loucopou]os and Herodotos Damianos. A review of the
Exhibit B-3
Victor G. Lessard -2- February 24, 1984
supporting affidavit does not justify the issuance of such
certificate, since, in Paragraph 3, there is no affirmative
statement satisfyinG Section 100-118(D), to-wit: that the
premises have been used continuously for a period of two
years prior thereto. Nor doe the subsequent affidavit of
Eurydice Loucopoulos, dated November 3, 1983, satisfy the
basis for issuinG the certificate dated June 21, 1983.
This becomes more glarinG in light of the fact that you
have on file a series of at least six statements by others
indicatinG that these premises have not been used and the
non-conforminG use, if any, has been abandoned.
We urge that you reconsider this whole situation in
light of the above and respond to us at your earliest
convenience. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
HEP:ss
Howard E. Pachman
cc:
Mr. Arthur Truckenbrodt
Robert Taska, Esq.
Southold Town Attorney
To whom it may concern;
~arch ]4;1984
It is our understanding that information is sou?~t as to the
occupancy of several cottages located just off the Long Island Sound
beach on the former Damianos property in Orient,]..I.
~'e are the o~mers of 5 acres of property at 25]0 Edwards Lane
Orient,N.Y. with 305 feet of beach front which lies 300 feet Northeast
of the mroperties in euestion,the intervening ~OOfeet of property
bein~ o~med by Dr. John Pung since ]979.
Our property, ~ich we have o~med outright since lq75, and Dr. Pung's
property was o~med jointly by ourselves and another since ]951.
In January ]gPO construction was started on our property to
winterize a summer bungalow, built in ]935, and to construct an
addition to it for our mermanent home. We moved into this permanent
home in August 1980.
Our property and the house are situated at an elevation of over
35 feet above sea lev~las compared to the beach off which the
cottages are located of ]ess than l0 feet. ~ith this tomographical
perspective, we have an ove~iew of the beach of the fo~mer DamiRnos
property and s~so the cottages in 9uestion.
Durin~ the period of time we have lived here permanently and prior
thereto when our permanent home was on Village lane in Orient, we
have been in the ha%it, year round, of walking our dogs on the
beachfront. Du~ing the summer our children an5 grandchildren as we31
~ others have been our guests and have joined us in avai]in~
themselves o~ our beach for swim~in~, boatJn~, micnics, and ~ishin~.
With the ~bov~ exposure more ~h~n a ]itt}e'opport~ity has hewn
provided to observe and to ~ecom= aware of activities i~ so far as
the cotta~as are concerned.
~pd dur~n~ t~e entire sum~r of qq79 when we oecupie~ our
from Mcr to October we not only ~'=re not ~ware of any occupancy of the
Box 831
Orient, New York
January 12, 1984
]1957
Mr. Victor Lessard
Executive Administration
Buildings Department
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, New York
Dear Mr. Lessard:
I am a property owner in Orient with a home on a
private road known locally as "Dedricks Road" or "Green
Acres Road". My wife and I have owned and resided in
this house since 1973.
At the head of this road fronting on the Sound there
is a parcel of land formerly owned by Damianos, and prior
to that by Dedricks. This parcel contains several small
abandoned cabins which I understand formerly had protected
status even though they did not conform to our local zoning
laws.
Of my own personal knowledge no one has occupied any
of these s{ructures since 1976. Over the years they have
been repeatedly vandalized by humans, animals and the envi-
ronment. The), are, and have been for many years, in such an
uninhabitable condition that they remain a hazard to adven-
turesome children in the area. I believe they should be
'razed for the safety of the community and the sanctity of
our zoning laws.
It is my understanding that the present owners may at-
tempt to rehabilitate them for rental use. Since these
structures have been abandoned for many ),ears, ~e would vig-
orously oppose any rehabilitation of them in contravention
to the laws of the Town of Southold.
Sincerely, /
..1/
Richard E. Lesl
REL/msg
Box 831
Orient, New York
January 12, 1984
11957
Mr. Victor Lessard
Executive Administration
Buildings Department
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, New York
Dear Mr. Lessard:
I am a property owner in Orient with a home on a
private road known locally as "Dedricks Road" or "Green
Acres Road". My wife and I have owned and resided in
this house since 1973.
At the head of this road fronting on the Sound there
is a parcel of land formerly owned by Damianos, and prior
to that by Dedricks. This parcel contains several small
abandoned cabins which I understand formerly had protected
status even though they did not conform to our local zoning
laws.
Of my own personal knowledge no one has occupied any
of these structures since 1976. Over the years they have
been repeatedly vandalized by humans, animals and the envi-
ronment. They are, and have been for many years, in such an
uninhabitable condition that they remain a hazard to adven-
turesome children in the area. I believe they should be
-razed for the safety of the community and the sanctity of
our zoning laws.
It is my understanding that the present owners may at-
tempt to rehabilitate them for rental use. Since these
structures have been abandoned for many years, we would vig-
orously oppose any rehabilitation of them in contravention
to the laws of the Town of Southold.
, I /iL
Sincerely, / ///
Richard E. Leslie
REL/msg
In February ol 1977, my wil[e and I purchased a house and lot in Orient,
New York on Main Road. The property, formerly the Karcher farm, has
a 16 loot wide easement across it to alford access to Main Road from
a private road known as Dedricks Road.
At the time of the purchase, ] did an extensive visual survey of all property
having frontage on Dedricks Road in order to determine the current use
ol the road and our easement and by how many automobiles. I talked
to everyone who had a house on the road.
1 observed the 12 acre parcel then owned by Demetreikos et Al; which
contained ~ abandoned cottages in disrepair and a larger cottage also
in disrepair located in the denser woods on the property.
Since February 1977, ] have continually observed the cottages at various
times. During the summer months, I crossed the property on my way
to the Long Island Sound approximately 3 times a month from May to
September and approximately every two months during the remainder
of the year and from 1977 until last week, I never saw anyone or any
evidence of anyone occupying the 3 structures.
The structures have continued to deteriorate as the years passed~ with
each year bringing the undergrowth denser, the screens, windows and
doors rotting and continued evidence of minor, chi]dish vandalism. The
lane leading to the larger cottage was completely overg~-own and seemed
almost impassable by automobile.
Attested to by:
Patrick E. Lyons
3anuary 9~ 1984
IPOB, M NO. !
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)
! 9..d..~.~c'~
Date .....: ~..~. ~,./..../~.../../.L./...(., ,~.= ~ ........ :.~.1.....,
Permission is hereby granted to:
....... ..~/.,.~.c,.t .~....s,~.c~.~.,-~.,2 ..~.... ,~. ~ 2.. ,:. :.~...
...... ~- ................................. ) ............. , ............... ; .-" /~/Z~ , --~ /
to ..... ,~¥..~;..."-.,,~ ....... r-...-.~,.~'~.L>.C.. .......... ( .~,:.£./- ........... .~-~,.~..'-.~.~. '-: ...... -~..~.' ...... ;?'-~' .......................
..................................................................... <. ........ :., ,,~: ~.. :-,.~
ot premises iocotea ot ....[...&..,...~. ...... /...A~....~.~..., .................... ~..~-,..-~.~- ...... '..~ ....... , ......... '~- ....... ~..' ,
County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ....~)....:.~..~. ........ Block .......~(~...~ ...... Lot No. (~"~"--
pumuant to application dated ..... ~.-.4..-7-_~.~ ........... ./...-~i! ................... , 19..-.:...~.~---~ and approved by th~
Building Inspector.
Fee $.../.....'~. ..............
Rev. 6/30/80
Exhibit B-5
AFFIDAVIT
I, Bradford Hess, owner amd full $tme resident of proper~y
adjoining the Abbott/Swanson property, do hereby swear that ~he
dwellings and/or buildings on proper~y currently owned by said
Abbott/Swanson and located on Private Road, Orient, have been
abandoned and continually unoccupied for a period of not less
than two years.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I
STATE OF NEW YORK I
I, ~7~7~~---- , Notary inand for said
County and State do hereby staB thm~ Bradford Hess, person lly
· ~d~ 8~
appeared before me this ~day of January, 19 and signed
the above.
ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT
Private Road, Box 2016
Orient, New York 11957
January 3, 1984
Mr. Victor Lazzard
Zoning Commission
Town of Southold
Southold, New York
Dear Mr. Lazzard,
As you know, we have been seriously concerned about current
developments, per our previous conversations, regarding the subject
site on Private Road in Orient currently owned by Abbott/Swanson.
The property houses a number of "old" buildings which were
deserted years ago. We do not wish to see development of the
property fall back to the codes thst existed twenty years ago.
We would be happy to see the property developed by today's
building and zoning codes, which would ultimately be in the best
interest of all Orient residents.
Please accept this letter as a formal objection to any buildin~
permits or renovations at the above mentioned property until all
pertinent information has been made available to the Commission.
Towards that end, please find attached affidavits which state that
all buildings on above described property have been abandoned
for more than two years.
Sincerely, ~
Arthur R, Truckenbrodt
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)ss.:
EURYDICE LOUCOPOULOS, being duly sworn, deposes~
and says:
That she is one of the owners of the subject
Orient Point property conveyed to her by deed dated
January 2,1975 and recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's
Office on October 2,1976 in Liber 8116 of Deeds at Page 120.
That within the last 2 years the cottages on the
above described property were used by families different
and other than the owners or their families ~ ~c;~ ~-~C
Sworn to before me
this ~ day o£-November ,1983
LINDA C. STANKAITIS
NOTAry PUBLIC. Stat~ o~ Now York
~. 52-45485gl, ~ual i~ Sa t,llk County_,
m minion ~plre$ March 30, 19..~ ~
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
SS.:
EURYDICE LOUCOPOULOS, being duly sworn, deposes and
says:
1. I am co-owner with my brother, Herodotos Damianos
of the following described real property located in the Hamlet of
Orient, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk:
BEGII~INGat a post set at the southeast corner of the premises about
to be described, said point being the northeast corner of land now
or formerly of Gom~itz and Barnett;
RUAq~ING THENCE from said point or place of beginning, along land
now or formerly of Go~itz and Barnett the following two (2) courses
and distances:
l~/ South 40 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds West 287.38 feet;
South 49 degrees 04 minutes 40 seconds West 185.55 feet to land
now or formerly of R. Leslie;
THENCE along said land the following nine (9) courses and distances:
degrees 11 minutes West 58.21 feet;
degrees 30 minutes west 54 feet;
minutes West 105 feet;
North 15
North 34
North 51
North 40
North 10
North 41
North~8
North 41
South 48
THENCE along
D. Gullakson
(1) North 21
(S)South 58
{3) North 31
(4) North 41
degrees OO
degrees 27
degrees O0
degrees 17
degrees ~3
minutes
minutes
minutes
miflutes
40 seconds West,
West 188.40 feet;
West 70 feet;
East 25 feet;
68 feet;
degrees 17 minutes West 20 feet; ''
degrees 43 minutes West 25 feet;
land now or formerly of R. L~slie, K. Mearns, B. Hess, .
and H. Mearns the following four (4) courses and distances.
degrees 17 m~nutes O0 seconds West, 5~8.95 feet;
degrees 52 m~nutes West 7.13 feet;
degrees 08 mznutes West 39.83 feet;
degrees 17 minutes West 181.13 feet tO Long Island Sound;
THENCE along the ordinary highwater mark of Long Island Sound on a
tle line course of North 59 degrees 55 minutes 20 seconds East, a
distance of 435.77 feet to.land now or formerly of Phyllis E. Hale;
THENCE along said land now or formerly of Phyllis E. Hale, South 38
degrees 08 minutes 20 seconds East 1200 feet to land now or formerly
of G. Holly;
TP2ENCE along said land of G. Holly the following two (2) courses
and distances:
Il) South 5~ degrees 37 minutes West 7.70 feet;
2) South 38 degrees ~0 minutes 30 seconds East 26.31 feet to the
point or place of BEGI]H~NG.
2. I make this affidavit in support of our request of the
Town of Southold to issue a Pre-Existing Certificate of Occupancy for
the above described property and have knowledge of the facts stated
~erein.
3. The premises and buildings thereon did exist prior to
April, 1957 and were used with no changes, other than what zoning
has permitted.
4. That a survey by Roderick Van Tuyl P.C. dated 9/17/73
shows a two Story frame house and four cottages.
UCOPOULOS
Sworn to before me
this ~& day of May ,1983
/' )RI~ J. DeSANA
NO'rARY PI.,,,L: ,!;tsie of ;~ol'f York
No. 52.4~; ti3, SulfOlk CoU~y
Tel'm ~xpi~es March ~O,
- 2
.,I'VIRC .~.I,.tL A£$FSSMENT
I,
(a) In order to answer the Questions in this short gAF is is assumed that the
preparer will usc currently available lnfor?~tion concerning the proJact ·nd the
likely ~pacts of %he action, It is not expected that additional studie~, raze·rob
or o%her investigations w~3.1 be under%·ken.
(b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant.and ·
completed Envlror~ental Assessment Form lu necessa~/,
(e) If all questions have been answered No it is likely %hat this project is
significant,
(d) ~--nvirer~ental Asses9zent
Will project result in a large physical change
to the project site or physically alter more
Will there be a major change to any unique or
unusual land form found on the site? ,
X Yes No
x Yes No
Will project alter or have a large affect on
an existlng body of water? ,
p .. . have · potentially large impac~ on
Will project significantly effect draLuage flow
on adJaoen~ sites7 . . · . . . .
6. Will project af.e~ any t~hreatened or endangered
plant or anir~l species? . .
7. W~l pro3ect res,~t in a major adverse effect on
air qua!~ty? , , , , . , , ,
e
10.
il.
12.
1~.
1~..
"~'~__. project have a major effect on visual c~har-
attar of the com. munity or scenic views or vistas
knc'.uu to be i~uportant %0 the community? ,
Will project adversely Lop·ct any site or stzuc%-
ute cf historic, pre-~istcric, or paleontological
izpcrtance or any sits deslgr, ated as a critical
environmental area by a local agency7
Yes.~ No
Yes Nc
Yes ~ No
Yes x No
Yes x Nc
x Yes
Yes._x__ No
Will project have a major effect on existing or
future recreational oppor~unities~ · · X Yes No
Will project result in mm Jot traffic problems or
cau~e a major effect to exlstin~ transportation
Will project regu]arl)' cause objectionable seers,
noise, glare, vlbr~t:cn, or eicctrical disturb-
ance as a result of the project's operation? .
'dill project h~ve any i~act on put]lc health or
Will project gffc(', the eristlng co.'~'r, unlty }~)'
directly cau~rw a ~:'cwtn ]n permanent popu/a-
Howard E. Pachman
. Art-h~r ]~_ Trn~k~nbrodtDA'~[:
X Yes N~
Yes ~ t;:
~.- Yes No
Yes X Nc
Yes No
Attorney
3/16/84
~~~ ~ ~, a~ 860,Main Bayvlew Road,
~P~'-q81:,~~~ :'~i~~. Soutbold; County Tax M..p
~""~m~m~"--I~----~*~i PATRICK CARRIG ",nd
CodoOflIMTob~Boli~oia (Owners. Eric and Nancy
~l~U~d t~ Maim), Richmond Road,
Mai". ~d, ~uthOld, ~ , , o~,a ~ate ~t~f-way
~m ~AY, ~E 21, f~atea at me north side of
i~e~ at 7:~p.m B~en Avenue, Mattl~ck. to
~d~f~: .~ml~ identifi~ as
T~ Map Panel
· ~, ?:~ p.m. ApPlie~flon,for
~4TOHN DENNy, 3~ Wa'wick
~,venue, T~n~k, NJ ~6 -
~thold, ~. Coun~ Tax
7~40 ~p~m, ApplAation of
~EOROE R. ~ILL, ~x
"~2, Cutch~ue, NY for a
?~riance to the Zoning
~.0~31 for ~app~val of
[ ~t ~ ~ ~d~ of
j~ar~ls l~at~ at the north
~10t of 9ay Avenue,
~tchogue, NY; Nassau
]earls Subdivision, part of
J~0t l~; County Tak Map
: 7:45 p.m. Application for
~AVID AND JEANNE
BRAWNER, Main Road,
~.~ fur a V~ ~
~ ~ ~, ~cle
HI, ~m 1~1 ~ap~
? i~t ~ ~ ~el ~
~ ~f from n 4.~ acre
~ ~rcel at the South Side of
Main R~d, O~ent; county
.~.7:~p.m, Application of
ERNEST ~-AND JEAN
~' ~ ~ Road
~.~ V~ ~e ~ing
orating, A~icle III, Sec-
81) f~ ~ ~ ~ct
rais~ deck with an
i~et ~ in ~ side
and ~F yards at the West
Side of ~, Oa~d Drive,
~u~; ~u~ Tax Map
Pa~ No, 1~1~.
: 8:~. p,m. A~lication for
EU~A~ ~ ~EN, 1~
W~tvi~ ~ve, Matfltuck,
~ for a Variance ~ the
~n~ ~,
of the building inspector in
o~ ~ ~t ~ ~i~
and renovation ~ a "guest
cotMg~' or ~nd dwelling
s~ at ~m~ ~n .
as~ 1~5 W~t View Drip,
~t~tuck; County Tax Map
Pa~ No~ 1~1~1-3.
8:IS p.m. Application of
JOHN GRIGONIS, 950 Bay- '
~ hd, ~old, ~ for a
Variance to the Zoning
~n~, ~e IlL ~tJon
~-31 for approval of the
Co~ ofn~ dwellS(
'1-18, containing
approximately 3.9 acres.
8:40 p.m. Application for
DOUGLAS MILLER,
Montauk Highway, Quogue,
NY for a Variance for
~oPrOval of accesses, New
rk Town Law, Section
A, over two private righ~-of-
way, one known as "Kirkup
Lane" and one as "Laurel
Way" located at the South
Side of Sound Avenue,
Mattituck, (near Laurel), to
~remises identified as County
ax Map Parcel No. 1000-121-
4-10 containing approximately
7.2 acres.
0:55 p.m. Application for
BERTRAM AND MARGERY
WALKER recessed from May
17, 1984 for Variances for: (a)
interpretation, (b) approval of
deck in sideyard, (c) approval
of reduction of livable floor
area and insufficient
sideyards of dwelling
conversion. Peconic Bay
Blvd., Laurel; 1000-145~4.014.
~d, 9:15 p.m. Application of
fARTHUR R. TRUCKEN.\
fi' BRODT, et al., Private Road,~
fOrient, NY for a reversal of[
Jthe interpretation of the ~
[building inspector concerning I
la Certificate of Occupancy No.
~Zl1736 issued June 21, 1983 to
\E. Loucopoulos and H.
~Damianos for an one-family
/dwelling and four accessory/
[cottage structures at Private~
)Road No. 7, (a/k/a Diedericks;
(Road), Orient; County Tax
PMa~ Parcel No. 1000-1fl-(B-005
[Current Owners: D.I. Abbott
and J.T. Swanson].
, Persons having an interest
in any of the above matters
may bo heard at the time and
place specified above. For
.additional information, please
contact our office, 765-1809 (or
1802L
Dated: Junes, 1984..~
BY ORDER OF
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN
BOARD OF APPEALS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
ITJ7-4587
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) SS:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
SUSAN W. ALLAN of Greenport, in
said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is
Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, o Weekly
Newspaper, published et Greenport, in the Town
of Southold, County of Suffolk ..nd State of New
York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is
n printed copy, has been regularly published in
said Newspaper once each week for ore
weeks successively, commencing on the ? th
dayof Juice 19 64
Principal Clerk
Sworn to before me this 7 th
day of Jun e 1984
,, : NOaaC~OF_ O
· ~ o~ ~ 7:30
pm. ~d~~ 7'35 p.m.
AVenue, Tea N~, .
~ce, A6~e ~' ~o~
~ ~s~ S~e b~d'
Ma~itucL (n~a~ Laurel), to
premises identified as County
~aa Map pa~l ~o. 1~-121-
4-10 ~ntaia~8
7.2
8:55 p.m. Application ~
B~R~M A~D MARGERY
~ ~cesse~ ~m
o~ deck ~ sideyard, (c) ap-
p~val of redu~iOn of livable
fl~t a~a and ~su~ent
stdeyardm of dwell~g ~uver-
sion. pe~nic Bay Blvd., ~ur-
el; 1~.1~-4-014.
/ 9:15 p.m. A~liclt~n of ,,~
~.~v ~.. ~*versal of the
inte~r~ation of the bu~d~g
~spe~Or ~nce~ing a Ce~-
cate of O~up~cY No. Zl1736
~ssued June 21, 19~ to E.
u~ulos and H. Damt~o~4
t~r a one.famil~ dwell~gt~~
tures at ~vate Road No. ~,
(a/k/a Diede~cks Road), ~-
~ent; Count7 T~ Map
ers~D.L Abbo~ aha J.~.
~ ~y o~ the above ma~S
ma~ be he~d at the time and
place specified a~ve. For
~dR~onal ~formation, please
~nta~ out o~ce, ~65-1~ (or
1~2).
Dated: June 5, 19~.
BY ORDER OF ~E
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
OF APPEALS
OE~ P' ~EH~GER,
CHAIRMAN
coUNTY OF suFFOLK
sTATE Of: NEVV yoRK
potricio Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the
Editor, of THE LoNG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN'
a public newspaper printed at SouthoJd, inI Suffolk CountY;
and that the notice of which the annexed is o printed copY,
has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch'
/ ...... weeks
man once each week for .............
......................... .
7 .............. day of
Swam to before me this ........
................
~'~. 52.9321725
Residing in So~olk
6omm~io~ [xl~ March
Copies of Legal Notic ~iled 6/5/84 to
Mr. John Denny
Environment East, Inc.
Mr. George R. Tu%hill
Irving L. Price, Jr., Esq.
Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Stumpf
Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Stumpf
/
Mr. Edward Tobia
Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq.
Mr. John Grigonis
George O. Guldi, Esq.
Abigail A. Wickham, Esq.
Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C.
Richard T. Haefeli, Esq.
McNulty, DiPietro & Haefeli
James Cron, Esq.
William W. Esseks, Esq.
Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy & Angel
Howard E. Pachm~n, Esq.
Pachman, Oshrin & Block, P.C.
Richard F. Lark, Es~.
the foll~ng:
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
March 22,
1984
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
{5161 765 18tll
To:
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk
Transmitted herewith is Appeal No. 3234 by Pachman, Oshrin & Block, P.C., on
behalf of Arthur R. Truckenbrodt, concerning the property of Dorothy Abbott and
Janet R. Swanson for a variance. Also included is Notification to Adjacent Property
Owners; Short Environmental Assessment Form; Letter dated February 21, 1984 from
the Southold Town Building Department, and survey of the property.
/ ~Judith t.
Southold TOwn Clerk
PACHMAN, OSHRIN ~ BLOCK, P. C.
ATTORNEYS
March 19, 1984
Clerk, Board of Zoning Appeals
Town of Southold
Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Swanson & Abbott Properties
Appeal of Truckenbrodt, et al
Dist. 1000, Sec. 18, Block 3,
Lot 5
Dear Sir:
We enclose herein application for interpretation of zoning ordi-
nance, with appropriate exhibits attached thereto, together with
six copies of survey of the property. We also enclose Notice to
Adjacent Property Owners, with certificates evidencing mailing on
all such neighboring property owners. Our check in the sum of
$50.00 covering your filing fee, is also included herewith.
If there is any further information or documentation required,
please do not hesitate to call, and we will endeavor to provide same
as quickly as possible.
We would appreciate having the matter set down for hearing on
the next available date, during the last week of April, preferably
not before the 30th, as I will be on vacation.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
HEP:ss
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Arthur R. Truckenbrodt
Mr. Patrick Lyons
~. RECLqVED ~'WN OF SOUTHOLD NEW YORK
DATE 3/1 5/84 --
TOTHEZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N Y.
et al (See Ex. A)
1,(We)..~r.~...~.~...~g~.9~.~ ..... of...~.~i~.~...~Q.~.~...g~ ....................... Name of Appellant Street and Number
.......... To~n...of...S.a~tho. ld ............................... N~..~Qr.~....HEREBY APPEAL TO
Municipality State
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON
APPLICATION DATED: 3/l~/84FQR: An interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance
of the Town of Southold
WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR][~}C4]lfP~{~ GRANTED TO
x)
Dorothy Abbott and Janet T. Swanson
Name of Applicant for permit
of
. ..Bp.x.....3..6...9./.....C..u..~g.~9~' r.. ~..~.9~']f. ........................................................
Street and Number Municipality State
PERMIT TO USE (Non-Con,arming) No. Z11736 dated 6/21/83
) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
x) PERMIT TO ~ Erect Fence
LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ~.~Y~..~g~.~...!.g.~?~.~.~...~!....9~.~.~.{...N~
Street and H~let Zone A
Dist. 1000, Sec. 018, Block 3, OWNER(S): A~9~A.%.PXA~gPR .......
............................................ No
DATE PURCHASED: t~Z~Z~ ..............
2 PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED {Indicate the Article Section, Sub
sectinr- and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance b~, number Do not quote the Ordinance)
See ~xhibit B attached hereto
3 TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal i~ made herewith for
( )A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map
/ )A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap 62 Cons
Art 16 Sec 280A Subsection 3
(x) Interpretation pursuant to Sec. 100-121(D) (1)
4 PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal ~1~,~ (has not) been made with respect to this decis,on
of the Buildmg Inspector or with respect to th~s property.
Such appeal was ( ) request for o special perm,t
( ) request for a romance
and was made in Appeal No Dated ................................................................
)
)
(x)
,s requested for the reason that we would like
pretation of the Building Inspector,
Exhibit B hereto.
REASON FOR APPEAL
A Variance to Section 280A Subsechon 3
A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
Interpretation of Zoning Ordinance
to obtain a reversal of the inter-
as more particularly set forth in
(Continue on other side)
I STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces-
sary HARDSHIP because
N/A
2 The hordship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by oil properties alike in the immediate
xic~n~t~ of this property and in this use district because
N/A
The Vor,ar~ce v,o~Hd observe the spirit of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE
I/,t~'ACTER OF THE DISTRICT because
N/A
4. In%erpreta%ion of Town Zoning Ordinance (See Exhibit B)
S'rAT£ OF NEW YORK )
)
COUNTY OF ~)
SS
S~orn to this ............. ./.,S ............................ day of.. ~.Q~ .......................... 19 ~
Notary Public
Exhibit A
Rev. Bradford N. Hess
Box 1SA
Main Road
Orient, NY 11957
Mr. Harry Mearns
Box 18
Main Road
Orient, NY 11957
Mrs. Irene Singerman
115 East 87th Street
New York, NY 10028
Mr. Patrick E. Lyons
203 East 29th Street
New York, NY 10016
Mr. Richard Leslie
Private Road
Orient, NY 11957
Dr. John Pung
75 Bacon Road
Old Westbury, NY
11568
Mr. Robert Kulpa
32 Highwood Avenue
Leonia, NJ 07605
Mr. Donald Bayles
Middle Country Road
Middle Island, NY 11953
EXHIBIT B
The applicant and other adjacent property owners
similarly situated object to the use of the property by
Janet T. Swanson and Dorothy Abbott, in violation of the
zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold, more particularly
Chapter 100, as more specifically hereinafter set forth.
The appeal is from a determination made by the Office of
the Building Inspector, by Victor G. Lessard, Executive
Administrator, dated February 21, 1984 (Exhibit B-l) and his
letter of March 2, 1984 (Exhibit B-2), the latter of which is
in response to the letter of Pachman, Oshrin & Block, P.C.,
attorney for the appellants, dated February 24, 1984 (Exhibit
B-3).
The appeal concerns the interpretation of the Building
Department which permitted the issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy for Non-Conforming Use on June 21, 1983 bearing No.
Zl1736, based upon an application dated June 21, 1983, which
certificate was improperly issued on incorrect information
and violates Section 100-118(D)(1) of the zoning ordinance
entitled "Non-ConforminQ Uses"
The Building Department file contains many letters and
affidavits of adjacent property owners who are personally
familiar with the past and present use of the property. All
indicate that the property was not used as outlined in the
underlying affidavit attached to the permit. (Samples of
such contrary documents are attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit B-4).
In addition, application for building permits to erect a
fence, dated November 15, 1983 under Permit No. 12828Z,
(attached hereto as Exhibit B- ) violates Section 100-119.1,
in that it permits the erection of a fence within one foot of
the property line, without obtaining a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals, in violation of Section
100-119.1(A).
Further, it appears that Swanson and Abbott are
operating or intend to operate their property in violation of
Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, by maintaining a tourist
camp/cottage colony without benefit of permits.
Swanson and Abbott are also violating Section 100-23(A) of
the Zoninq Ordinance, by utilizing buildings which are being restored,
altered or rebuilt, and are in violation of Section 100-141
because they have not obtained building permits for the
reconstruction, restoration and structural realteration of
certain other buildings in and about the premises, and the
improvements do not appear on the Assessor's roles.
Lastly, Swanson and Abbott apDear to be doing work in
and about the premises without having obtained permits from
the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Ail of the above has been brought to the attention of
the Office of the Building Iaspector, and his response was
that these items should be appealed to the Board of ApDeals
puruant to Section 100-118(D)(1).
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
TEL. 765-1802
February 21, 1984
Mr. Richard Leslie
Box 831
Orient, New York 11957
Mr. Bradford Hess
Private Road
Orient, New Yor~ 11957
Mr. Patrick E. Lyons %/~r. Arthur R. Truckenbrodt
203 East 29th Street Private Road, Box 2016
New York, New York 10016 Orient, New York 11957
Dear Messrs:
I am in receipt of your recent letters concerning property owned
by Dorothy Abbot and Janet T. Swanson (Suffolk County Tax Map No.
1000-18-3-5) upon which there is located a principal dwelling and
four nonconforming accessory cottages. I have checked into this
matter and find the prior owners, Eurydice Loucopoulos and Herodotos
Damianos were issued a Certificate of Occupancy Nonconforming Premises
on June 21, 1983 (Zl1736). This Certificate was issued on the basis
of an affidavit of Eurydice Loucopoulos that the premises and the
accessory buildings were in existence prior to April, 1957, and have
been used continuously to the present time. In addition, our files
indicate Eurydice Loucopoulos executed another affidavit on November 3,
1983, stating "that within the last 2 years the cottages on the above
described property were used by families different and other than the
owners or their families for which the undersigned received considera-
tion.''
A Building Permit was issued to Dorothy Abbot and Janet Swanson
on December 15, 1983 (No. 12837Z) for permission to construct addition
and alterations to existing principal dwelling. An inspection of the
entire premises was performed on February 10, 1984, and it was found
the present owners are not in violation of the zoning ordinance.
Based upon the recent inspection and the information I have in my
file, I have determined the existing Certificate of Occupancy dated
June 21, 1983, (Z11736) is valid. Until such time as a zoning viola-
tion is brought to my attention, my department will not proceed any
further with this matter.
If you want to proceed further, you should consult with your
EXHIBIT B-1
-2-
February 21, 1984
Richard Leslie
patrick E. LyonS
Mr- Bradford HesS
Mr. Arthur R. Truckenbrodt
attorney or you may appeal my determination to the Southold Town
Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 100-121(D)1 of the Code of
the Town of Southold.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Victor G. Lessard
Executive Administrator
VGL:bc
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971
TEL. 765-1802
March 2, 1984
Pachman, Oshrin & Block,
6080 Jericho Turnpike
P. O. Box 273
Commack, New York 11725
PoC.
ATT: Howard Eo Pachman, Esq.
RE: Tax Map No. 1000-18-3-5
Truckenbrodt - Abbott & Swanson
Dear Mr. Pachman:
Thank you very much for your letter of February 24,
1984.
As I previously indicated to your client in my letter
of February 21, 1984, if you do not agree with my prior
determinations, you should appeal them to the Southold
Town Board of Appeals.
Very truly yours,
Victor G. Lessard
Executive Administrator
VGL:bc
cc: Robert W. Tasker, Esq.
Exhibit B-2
}3ACItMAN. O~tI}~IN & lJLO('l{. I'.
February 24, 1984
Victor G. Lessard
Executive Administrator
Office of Building Inspector
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 728
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Tax Map No. 1000-18-3-5
Truckenbrodt - Abbot & Swanson
Dear Mr. Lessard:
As the attorneys for Arthur R.
I should like to thank you for the
me during our meeting of Thursday,
Truckenbrodt and others,
courtesies you extended to
February 23rd.
As I indicated to you at that time, I was somewhat
dismayed to find that there were no building permits applied
for or required by the Town of Southold for the work that was
being performed on the above-captioned property, which is
adjacent to my client's parcel.
The Southold Town Ordinance clearly states that building
permits are necessary when a building is restored or
structurally altered as set forth in Section 100-141.
Obviously, the installation of new roofs, new siding and
interior changes in the room dimenions of the cottage
premises come under this category.
In addition, based upon an application dated November
15, 1983, the Town granted Permit No. 12828Z, dated January
5, 1984, for the erection of a fence, 150 feet in length, to
be placed one foot east of the property line. Section 100-35
of the Town Code requires fences to be placed within five
feet of property lines. It would, therefore, appear that a
variance has been granted without the benefit of the Board of
Appeals.
Lastly, my client received your letter of February 21,
1984, which iffdicated that a Certificate of Occupancy for
non-conforming premises, dated June 2], ]983, bearing No.
Z11736, had been issued t(> the previous owners, Eurydice
Loucopoulos and Herodotos Damianos. A review of the
Exhibit B-3
Victor G. Lessard -2- February 24, 1984
supportinq affidavit does not justify the issuance of such
certificate, since, in Paragraph 3, there is no affirmative
statement satisfying Section 100-118(D), to-wit: that the
premises have been used continuously for a period of two
years prior thereto. Nor doe the subsequent affidavit of
Eurydice Loucopoulos, dated November 3, 1983, satisfy the
basis for issuing the certificate dated June 21, 1983.
This becomes more glaring in light of the fact that you
have on file a series of at least six statements by others
indicating that these premises have not been used and the
non-conforming use, if any, has been abandoned.
We urge that you reconsider this whole situation in
light of the above and respond to us at your earliest
convenience. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
HEP:ss
Howard E. Pachman
cc:
Mr. Arthur Truckenbrodt
Robert Taska, Esq.
Southold Town Attorney
~!areh ]4;]984
whom it may concern;
It is our understanding thmt information is sought as to the
occupancy of several cottages located just off the Long Island So,and
beach on the former Damianos pro~erty in Orient,].I.
We are the o~ers of 5 acres of ~roperty at 25]0 Edwards I.~e
Orient,N.Y. with %05 feet of heath front which lies 500 feet Northeast
of the ~roperties in ouestlon,tbe inte~enin~ ~nOfeet of ~ro~erty
beln~ o~ed by Dr. John ~ since 3979.
O~ ~rorerty, v'~icb v'e h~v~ o~e~ outright since 1975, end Dr. Yung's
prope~y was o~med joJnt]~ by ourse]yes and another since ]95].
In January ~qoO construction was sta~e~ on our property
n'interize a s~mer b~a]ow, ~uJ]t in ]935, and to const~.ct an
addition to it for our ~e~enent home. ~e moved into ~his p~nent
borne in August ]9~0.
Our prodigy sod the house are situated at an elevation of over
~ feet above sea lewd]as comTared to the beach off which the
cottages ~re locates of ]ess than lO feet. %.itb this tovoKraphicel
perspective, we have an ove~iew of the beach of the foyer DamiRnos
rrope~y an~ also the cottases in cuestion.
D~ine the nerJo6 of time we have lived here pendently and prior
thereto when our ~e~enent home v~s on Village lane in Orient, v~e
h~v~ b=en in the habit, year round, of welkins our do~s on the
beschfront. Durin~ the s~m~er our children ~n~ grandchildren as
n~ ot~rs hsv~ k~n our ~uests end ~a~ joined
~hem~eives o~ our ~=aeh for s~,i~Jng ko~ng, ~icnies, ams fish,ns.
With th= stay= e~.os,~e mor~ *ban a ]itt}e opport~ity
~nvid~d t~ obse~e end to ~=~om= avare n~ ~ctivities in
+h~ cott~s are con,~rn~.
C~tnin~y from tb~ ti~e
- qvq v'hen v'e OOCIIT ie~ cur bi~]~' ]ov
Box 831
Orient,
January
New York
12, 1984
]1957
Mr. Victor Lessard
Executive Administration
Buildings Department
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, New York
Dear Mr. Lessard:
I am a property owner in Orient with a home on a
private road known locally as "Dedricks Road" or "Green
Acres Road". My wife and I have owned and resided in
this house since 1973.
At the head of this road fronting on the Sound there
is a parcel of ]and formerly o~ed by Damianos, and prior
to that by Dedricks. This parcel contains several small
abandoned cabins which I understand formerly had protected
status even though they did not conform to our local zoning
laws.
Of my.own personal knowledge no one has occupied any
of these structures since ]976. Over the years they have
been repe%tedly vandalized by humans, animals and the envi-
ronment. The), are, and have been for many years, in such an
uninhabitable condition that they remain a hazard to adven-
turesome children in the area. I believe they should be
razed for the safety of the cou~unity and the sanctity of
our zoning laws.
It is my understanding that the present owners may at-
tempt to rehabilitate them for rental use. Since these
structures have been abandoned for man)' years, ~'e would vig-
orously oppose any rehabilitation of them in contravention
to the laws of the Town of Southo]d.
Sincerely, / ,
, // 1,
Richard E. Leslie
REL/msg
In February ol 1977, my wile and I purchased a house and lot in Orient,
New York on Main Road. The property, formerly the Karcher farm, has
a 16 foot wide easement across it to afford access to Mare Road from
a private road known as Dedricks Road.
At the time of the purchase, I did an extensive visual survey of all property
having frontage on Dedricks Road in order to determine the current use
of the road and our easement and by how many automobiles. I talked
to everyone who had a house on the road.
1 observed the 12 acre parcel then owned by Demetreikos et Al; which
contained # abandoned cottages in disrepair and a larger cottage also
in disrepair located in the denser woods on the property'.
Since February 1977, I have continually observed the cottages at various
times. During the summer months, I crossed the property on my way
to the Long Island Sound approximately 3 times a month from May to
September and approximately every two months during the remainder
of the year and from 1977 until last week, I never saw anyone or any
evidence of anyone occupying the 5 structures.
The structures have continued to deteriorate as the years passed, with
each year bringing the undergrowth denser, the screens, windows and
doors rotting and continued evidence ol minor, childish vandalism. The
lane leading to the larger cottage was completely overgrown and seemed
almost impassable by automobile.
Attested to by :
Patrick E. Lyons
3anuary 9, 1980
Box 831
Orient, New York 11957
January 12, 1984
Mr. Victor Lessard
Executive Administration
Buildings Department
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, New York
Dear Mr. Lessard:
I am a property owner in Orient with a home on a
private road known locally as "Dedricks Road" or "Green
Acres Road". My wife and I have owned and resided in
this house since 1973.
At the head of this road fronting on the Sound there
is a parcel of land formerly owned by Damianos, and prior
to that by Dedricks. This parcel contains several small
abandoned cabins which I understand formerly had protected
status even though they did not conform to our local zoning
laws.
Of my own personal knowledge no one has occupied any
of these structures since 1976. Over the years they have
been repeatedly vandalized by humans, animals and the envi-
ronment. They are, and have been for many years, in such an
uninhabitable condition that they remain a hazard to adven-
turesome children in the area. I believe they should be
'razed for the safety of the community and the sanctity of
our zoning laws.
It is my understandinq that the present owners may at-
tempt to rehabilitate them for rental use. Since these
structures have been abandoned for many years, we would vig-
orously oppose any rehabilitation of them in contravention
to the laws of the Town of Southold.
S ncerel , /
AFFIDAVIT
I, Bradford Hess, owner and full time resident of property
adjoining the Abbott/Swanson property, do hereby swear that the
dwellings and/or buildings on property currently owned by said
Abbott/Swanson and located on Private Road, Orient, have been
abandoned and continually unoccupied for a period of not less
than two years.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
)
STATE OF NEW YORK ~
I, ~v;~:f~t~ , Notary in and for said
County and Sta~e do hereby stat~ that Bradford Hess, personally
appeared before me this ~day of January, 1984 and signed
the above.
ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT
Private Road, Box 2016
Orient, New York 11957
January 3, 1984
~tr. Victor Lazzard
Zoning Commission
Town of Southold
Southold, New York
Dear 51r. Lazzard~
As you know, we have been seriously concerned about current
developments, per our previous conversations, regarding the subject
site on Private Road in Orient currently owned by Abbott/Swanson.
The property houses a number of "old" buildings which were
deserted years ago. We do not wish to see development of the
property fall back to the codes that existed twenty years ago.
We would be happy to see the property developed by today's
building and zoning codes, which would ultimately be in the best
interest of all Orient residents.
Please accept this letter as a formal objection to any buildin~
permits or renovations at the above mentioned property until all
pertinent information has been made available to the Commission.
Towards that end, please find attached affidavits which state that
all buildings on above described property have been abandoned
for more than two years.
Sincerely,
Arthur R. ~
~OR~ NO. ~
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)
12828 Z
Permission is hereby granted to:
..... :~ ................... } ......... ; ..... :z ................... ;... ~ ~
~" ~%- , ~-~=/ :,'~ ~-~,,. -.~, ,-~ ~Z. ........... , ...............
~. .~ ,. ~ ....... ~ ....... ~..~ ......
County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ....~,...:.C~ ........ Block ..... (~) vT Lot No.
~ ,~' / ' 19..-."....~.7 and approved by the
pursuant to application dated ..... ~-.z..,~ ........................................
Building Inspector.
Fee $...Z...~. ...............
?
t / , ./
...... '::/.
Building Inspector
Rev. 6/30/80
Exhibit B-5
~} I,PC ,.,=.. ~/, ^SS~SS,~ENT FOP.'~
(a) In crier to answer the questions in this short CAF is is asso~ned that the
~._ use currently available infcrw..mtion conce~ln~ the pro3ec% and
likely ~cts cf the action. It is not e~ected that additional s~udief~
cr other ..ves.igat..n. w~l be undertaken.
~. any guestion has been answ<~re~ Yes the project ~y be si~iflcant an~ a
(c) If all questions have been answered No it is l~ely t~% this pro3ec%
not significant.
(d) ~ .... ~
1. W~i project reset in a iarEe physical cbmn~e
to the pro3ect site or physically alte~ more
tb~n 10 acres of land~ . . . . . . . x Yes No
2. Will there be a ~flor chan~e to any ~,igue or
unusual land fo~ ~o~d on the site? X Yes No
}. W~I~.~-~ect alter or b~ve a large effect on
an existing body of water? . . . · · . Yes M No
d. W~i~r.~ ~ec ~ *~ have a poten%iaily larEe ~c~ on
~c,~.~water ~uatity? ' ' ' ' ' ' ' M Yes Nc
5. W~i project si~ificantly effect drainage fl~w
on adjacent sites? ....... Yss ~
6. Will project affect any t~eatened or endangered
plant or anLvm! species? , . . . , , Yes X No
7, W~i prcject res:~t in a major adverse effect on
air ~u~llty? , , · · . , · Yes x No
~___ prcoect have a major effect cn visual
knc'~ %0 be ~portant to the community? , . . x Ye~ No
9, Will pro~ec% adversely i~cac% any site or st~uc~
ute cf his%uric, F~re-nistcric, or paleontcicgical
im~crtance or any site desi~.ated as a critical
10. Will project have a ~3or effect on existing or
future recreat~ona! o~pcrL,~ities? · · · x Yes No
11. "~a_~. prej~3ct result in' mmjcr traffic problems or
12. Will project reKu]ar][,, cause objectional~ie
~xl. project nave any i~n[g{ct cn pul!lc health or
safer}'? · . , , . . . · · . X Yes
Howard E. Pac~an Attorney
BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In the Matter or the Petition of :
Arthur R. Truckenbrodt & Others:
to the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold :
TO:
Jay Gould, Joan B. Caufield,
Harry Mearns, Fe A. Pung, Richard A. Leslie,
Bradford Hess, Herman Singerman, Virginia
Bayles, David Bayles, and Robert Kulpa
NOTICE
TO
ADJACENT
PROPERTY OWNER
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE:
1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petitioQjhe I~ard of Appeals of the Town of Southold
to request a (Variance)(Special Exception) (Special Permit) (Q.~t~e~ [ciccle choice]
Interpretation of Zoning Ordinance
2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des-
cribed as follows: Proper~y nwn~_d by ,Tan~t q~. Swan~nn and D~r~hy Ahhn~.
Private Road, Orient, New York, Tax Map Dist. 1000, Sec. 18, Block 3,
Lot b
3. ThallheproperEy whichisthesubiectofsuchPetitionislocatedinthe/ollowingzoningdistrict:
Zone A - Residential, Agricultural
4. ThaEbysuchPetidon, theundersignedwitlrequestthefollowingrelief:
Interpretation of Section 100-118(d) (i) of the Southold Town Code.
5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under-
signedare Article :~1 S Sections 100-119.1 and 100-119.1(A). 100-231A~00-121,
and 100-141
6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will
be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Read. Southold, New York and you ma), then and there
examine the same during regular office hours. (5L6) 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 teast 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 16, 1984
Arthur R. Truckenbrodt
Petitioner BY~~. Pachman, attorney
Post Office Address
Private Road, Orient, NY
c/o
Pachman, Oshrin & Block,
6080 Jericho Turnpike
Commack, NY 11725
P.C0
NAM
Mr. Jay Gould
Ms. Joan B. Caufield
Mr. Harry Mearns
Mr. Fe A. Pung
Mr. Richard A. Leslie
Mr. Bradford Hess
Mr. Herman Singerman
Ms. Virginia Bayles
Mr. Donald Bayles
Mr. Robert Kulpa
Ms. Janet T. Swanson
Ms. Dorothy Abbott
PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE
ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS
ADDRESS
Private Road, NY 11957
Private Road, NY 11957
Private Road, NY 11957
8 South Tyson Floral Park, NY 11001
311 West 85th
Box 1SA, Main
115 East 87th
Middle Country Road, 11953
Middle Country Road, 11953
321 Highwood Avenue,
Box 369, Cutchogue, NY 11935
Orient,
Orient,
Orient,
Avenue,
Street, New York, NY 10024
Road, Orient, NY 11957
Street, New York, NY 10028
Middle Island, NY
Middle Island, NY
Leonia, NJ 07605
STATE OFNEWYORK)
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
Sandra E. Smith . residing at Northport, New York
, being duly sworn, deposes and says lhat on the 16th day
of March , 19 84 , 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 sel opposite their respective
names; that the addresses set opposite lhe names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on
the current assessment roll of the Town of SouthoJd; that said Notices we,~e mailed at the United States Post Of-
fice at Commack, New York ; that said Notice~ were mailed to each of said persons by
(certified) (~'X~M~: mail.
Sandra E. Smith
Sworn to before me this 16th
day~f March .19 84
Notary Public
DOLORES M. r. ARR
Commlaion Eq)lrell Mamh 30, 1~..~,~
P 697 142 202
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROViDEO
NOT FOR INTERNAT!ONAL MAiL
(See Reverse)
P 697 142 203
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
P ~ State and Z~P Code
Postage -
Restricted OetiYery Fee
Returs Rece,~,t SPc:~; ng
P 697 142 204
R£C£~PT FOR OERT~F~ED
P 697 142 205
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
!~0 !NSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED
NO' FOR iNTERNAT!ONAL MA~L
fSee Reverse}
Postage
· Frorfr' 3800 Feb !982 * UsGpO'9~
: ..... ~T ~ .t%~F~ ~ ~ 3.403517
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(See Reverse)
~ tare and ZIP Code
~turn receipt showing to whom,
Date, and Address of Delivery
TOTAL Postage ~d Fees
Postmark
$
p 697 142 210
NO ~NSURANC£ ~OVE~AG~ PROViDeD
NOT FOR ~N?£RNA990NAL
(See Reverse)
Postage
Certified Fee j
P 697 142 21~
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(See Reverse)
Postmark or Date
P.O, State ~d ZIP Code
P 697 142 212
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAiL
(See Reverse)
PO~ State an~ ZiP ~de ,~ -- __
/~/O~ ~j 07605
Postage $
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Dehve~ Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to ~om and Date Delivered
Return receipt show~ng to ~,hom,
Date and Address of Deh~eW
TOTAL Po~e a¢o L<~ $
Postm~ c~/Dats 'fi[:. :' ~
~MITIt~ FINKELSTEIN~ LUNDIH~RG, CRIMMIN$ AND YAI~ABOSKI
September 13, 1985
Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Southold Board of Appeals
Main Road, Route 25
Southo]d, New York
11971
Re: Truckenbrodt v. Town of Southold
Dear Gerry:
I write to report that, in connection with the
matter of Truckenbrodt v. the Board, the motion made to
dismiss was determined by Mr. Justice Lama on
of August, ]985, in which decision, his Honor
our position and dismissed the petition.
~V~xery truly yours,
FRANCIS O. YA~(AB~SKI
FJY:mo
the 22nd day
agreed with
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OE SOUTHOLD
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
{516) 765-1801
February 25, 1985
To Whom It May Concern:
"Notice of Petition, Arthur R. Truckenbrodt, Patrick E. Lyons, Richard E.
Leslie and others similarly situated, Petitioner, For a Judgement Under Article
78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules - against - Town of Southold, Board of
Appeals of the Town of $outhold, Respondents," was personally served upon me
and accepted by me at 12:15 P.M., Monday, February 25, 1985.
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
PACHMAN & OSHRIN, P.C.
Office and Post Office ,4 ddress, Telephone
366 Veterans Memorial Highway
P.O. Box 273
COMMACK, NEW YORK 11725
516--543-2200
To
Altornc)'(s) for
Service of a copy of the within
Dated,
is hereby admitted.
Auorney(9 for
Sir:--Please take notice
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
that an order of which thc within is a true copy will be presented for
settlement to the ttON. one of thc judges
of the within named court, at
on t9 at M.
Dated,
To
Anorney(s) for
Yours, etc.
PACHMAN & OSHRIN, P.C.
A ttorneysfor
Office and Post Office Address
366 Veterans Memorial Highway
P.O. Box 273
COMMACK, NEW YORK 11725
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss.:
I, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State,
[] syCertificati°nAttorn~y certify that the within
~ has been compared by me wltb the original and found to be a true and complete cop)'.
. [] attorn.y'~ state that I am
~ Affirmationthe attorney (s) of record for
~ in the within action; I bave read the foregoing
~ 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 ~natters I believe it to be true. The reason tiffs verification is made by me and not by
The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon m.~ own knowledge are as follows:
I affirm that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury.
Dated:
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF sa.:
I, being sworn, say: I am
~ [] In~i~ifiaal in the within action; 1 have read the foregoing
-~ and know the contents thereof; thc same is true to my own knowledge, except as to
~ the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, a d as to those matters I believe it to be true.
~ [] Corp.,at~ the of
,~ a corporation and a party in the within action; I have read the foregoing
and know the contents thereof; and the same is true to my own knowledge,
except as to the matters tberein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe
it to be true. This verification is made by me because the above party is a corporation and I am an officer thereof.
The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are as follows:
Sworn to before ~ne on
19
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF
I,
of age and reside at
On 19
being sworn, say; I a~n not a party to Ibc action, am over 18 )'ears
I served the within
by depositing a true copy thereof enclosed in a post-paid wrapper, in an official depository under the exclusive care
and custody of the U.S. Postal Service witbin New York State, addressed to eacb of the following persons at the last
known address set forth after each name:
by delivering a true cop) thereof personally to each person named below at the address indicated. I knew each person
served to be tim person ~nentioned and described in said papers as a party therein:
Sworn to before me on 19
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT, PATRICK E.
LYONS, RICHARD E. LESLIE and others
similarly situated,
Petitioner,
For a Judgment Under Article 78 of
the Civil Practice Law and Rules
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,
Respondents.
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
Petitioners herein,
Article
vacate,
PETITION
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
in this proceeding, brought pursuant to
78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to review, reverse,
dismiss and annul a determination of the Respondent Town
Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, in its ruling on an
interpretation of the Code of the Town of Southold, respectfully
shows to the Court, upon information and belief:
FIRST: That the petitioners herein and others similarly
situated, are the owners of real property situate on Dedricks Road,
in Orient, located within the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk
and State of New York, adjacent to the
ABBOTT and JUDITH SWANSON (hereinafter
The Petitioners were applicants before
Appeals
property owned by DOROTHY
called "ABBOTT and SWANSON").
the respondent Town Board of
of the Town of Southold (hereinafter called "BOARD OF
TO:
JUDITH T. TERRY, CLERK
Town of SouShold
Town Hall-. ~
Southotd, NY 11971
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ARTHUR R. TRUCKENBRODT, PATRICK E.
LYONS, RICHARD E. LESLIE and others
similarly situated,
Petitioner,
For a Judgment Under Article 78 of
the Civil practice Law and Rules
- against -
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,
Respondents.
SIRS :
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that,
TRUCKENBRODT, PATRICK E.
22nd day of Feb , 1985,
NOTICE OF PETITION
SOUTHOLD, dated January 28,
aforesaid determination in
arbitrary,
1985, upon the grounds that the
incorrect as a matter of law, is
the alternative,
capricious and erroneous; or in
that the
be made to the Court at a Special Term, Part I thereof, to be held
at the County Courthouse, Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York, on
the 19th day of March, 1985, at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon of that
day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for a judgment
granting the relief demanded in the petition, wherein petitioner
prays for annulment, reversal, vacation and dismisal of the
determination of the Respondent, BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF
upon the annexed petition of ARTHUR R.
LYONS and RICHARD E. LESLIE, verified the
and attached exhibits, an application will
matter be remanded to the TOWN OF $OUTHOLD BOARD OF APPEALS for a
new hearing because the findings and/or conclusions were inadequate,
erroneous and not supported by the hearing record and for such
other, further and different relief as to this Court may seem just
and proper, or for a judicial hearing to determine all
which may be presented under Section7803 of the
and further relief
the
Rules and for such other and
premises;
PLEASE TAKE
questions
Civil Practice Laws
as may be just in
FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to Section7804 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules, you are directed to file with the
Clerk of the Court your answer, and answering affidavits, if any,
and to annex to your answer a certified transcript of the record of
the proceeding, if any, along with all exhibits,reports, letters,
correspondence or other written documents, tcgether with enetire
official file containing the records of the ~etitioners herein held
by the respondents, and that answering affidavits, as aforesaid,
must be served upon the petitioner at least five (5) days before the
return date hereof.
Suffolk County is designated as the place of trial, on the
basis of Petitioners' residence and Respondents' place of business.
Dated:
Commack, New York
February 25 , 1985
Yours, etc.
PACHMAN & OSHRIN, P.C.
Attorneys for ]Petitioner
366 Veterans Highway
P.O. Box 273
Commack, New York 11725
(516) 543-2200
-2-
petitioners were the owners of certain real property situate on
Dedricks Road, Orient, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New
york, which said property is classified pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance of the town of Southold as "residential property". In the
residential zone, certain uses are permitted; others are permitted
as non-conforming uses and are subject to certain restrictions and
limitations, as set forth in the Zoning Code.
FIFTH: That heretofore and on or about March 15, 1984, ~
Petitioners submitted their application to the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Town of Southold, for an interpretation under the
Zoning Code of the Town of Southold with regard to a non-conforming
use, and for other relief. The certificate thereafter issued by the
building inspector, dated June 21, 1983, bearing No. Zl1736, is
attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B and incorporated
herein by reference. The application which Petitioners filed for
the interpretation of the zoning ordinance by the Board of Appeals
is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by reference.
SIXTH: That a hearing was held before the Board of Apeals on
January 26/28, 1985, which resulted in the decision annexed hereto
as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference. Said decision
was filed with the Clerk of the Tows of Southold on January 28,
1985.
SEVENTH: That the determination of the Respondents is not
warranted by the facts, is in error, is illegal, unjust, void,
arbitrary, capricious, unauthorized and contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town of Southold and violative of the laws of the
-3-
APPEALS"), at which
following items:
1.
time they sought interpretations of the
The issuance of Building Permit No. 12828Z dated November
16, 1983, for the erection of a fence alleged to have been
issued cgntracy to the provisions of Section 100.119.1 of
the Zoning Code.
That the owners of the subject property are operating a
tourist camp/cottage colony without a permit, in violation
of Article X of the Zoning Code.
That the owners of the subject property are violating
Section 100-23(A) of the Zoning Code by utilizing
buildings which are being restored, altered, or rebuilt,
without a permit, in violation of Section 100-141 of the
Zoning Code.
The issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy dated June 21,
1983 (Zl1736), alleged to have been issued in violation of
Section 100-118(D) of the Zoning Code.
The said application resulted in a detel~ination by the
Board of Appeals dated January 28, 1985, filed January 28, 1985,
the Office of the Clerk of the Town of Southold. (a copy of the
determination of the Board of Appeals is attached hereto and made a
part hereof as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference), and
sought.
the
is a Board
a annulment, reversal and dismissal thereof is hereby
SECOND: That at all times hereinafter mentioned,
respondent, Board of Appeals of the Town of $outhold,
which, pursuant to the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold and the
Town Law of the State of New York, is constituted to interpret the
zoning ordinances of the Town of Southold.
THIRD: That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Town of
Southold is and has been a municipality within the definition of the
General Municipal Law of the State of New York.
FOURTH: That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
State of New York, and not in harmony with the general purpose and
interest of the public health, safety and welfare, and is in
violation of and is an abuse of any discretion vested in the
Respndent Board, in that:
a)
the record of the hearing as to whether the
structures owned by ABBOTT and SWANSON were altered
pursuant to Code 100-13 is contrary to the Board of
Appeals' determination.
b)
the record of the hearing as to the continued and/or
discontinued and abandoned use of the premises as a
non-conforming use pursuant to Code 100-118 (d) is
contrary to the Board of Appeals' determination.
c)
The record of the hearing as to whether the
property of ABBOTT and SWANSON is a tourist camp
and/or tourist cottages pursuant to Code 100-100
seq, is contrary to the Board of Appeals'
determination.
et
d)
The determination is based upon a misapplication of
the law to the facts as found by Respondent Board of
Appeals; and
e)
That Respondent Board based its determination upon
certain factors which are not legally cognizable in
deciding their determination.
EIGHTH: That the petitioners are aggrieved by the
determination of the Respondent Board in that petitioners will
suffer a diminution in the value of their property by reason of
Respondents', determination permitting the continued use of ABBOTT
and SWANSON property in violation of the zoning code.
NINTH: That the action and determination by Respondent under
said application was and is unsupported by substantial evidence and
is illegal, improper, arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of its
discretion, in that Respondents' determination is in conflict with
the canons of constructions, not warranted by the facts, not
warranted by the laws applicable to ABBOTT and SWANSON's property,is
-4-
unjust and a hardship
petitioners' property
improper, extraneous,
and rules in arriving
TENTH: That
was not made in a
record or a judge
to Petitioners and in disregard of
rights; and that said Respondents have applied
erroneous, and irrelvent criteria, standards
at its determination.
the determination made as hereinbefore described
civil action or special proceeding by a court of
of a court of record; that it was not made in a
criminal matter; that it
Petitioners with respect
cannot be adequately reviewed by an appeal
body or officer. That this said petition
finally determined the rights of the
to the matter to be reviewed; that it
to a court or some other
is brought within a period
of thirty (30)
the filing of
Town Clerk of the Town of Southold.
ELEVENTH: That no previous
decision of the Respondent Board
days from the 28th day of January, 1985, the date of
the aforesaid determination of the said Board with the
application for review of this
has been made by or on behalf of
the Peitiioners herein to any Court or Judge.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that a judgment be granted herein
reversing and setting aside the aforesaid determination of the
Respondent Board of Appeals, insofar as it grants a variance as to
lot coverage dated the
granted such other and
and proper.
26/28 da~ of January, 1985, the petitioner be
further relief as to the Court may seem just
Dated: Commack, New York
Feb. '25 , 1985.
-5-
State of New york )
) ss.:
County of )
patrick E. Lyons, being duly sworn, says:
I am one of the defendants in the within action. I have read
the foregoing petifion 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.
The grounds of my belief
own knowledge are as follows:
as to all file'~,~c.- ~
records, matter_~_~.ot ~stated upon my
'Patrick E. Lyons
Sworn to before me this ~ ..
~o~/~30day of~?~ 1985
Notary Public / N~.~ Pu~c, S+~e 0fNew
No. 31-5'748! 50
Oualtfled In Ne~' York County
State of New York )
/% $. ) ss.:
County of Su££ulk )
Richard E. Leslie, being duly sworn, says:
I am one of the defendants in the within action. I 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.
The grounds of my belief as to all matters ~ot-- ~//~.,st{~ted Af~Pn my
own knowledge are as follows: records, f~e~.~c.~ ///
~/c~J~d E. L~sl'~_
Sworn to before ~ne_this
_~/ ~ay of Ma~/~, 1985
-- - otary Public'-"
No. 'l 1-4806220
Ouahf+ed ~n Oueen~ Co~rt~
--6--
FORM NO. 6
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
Building Department
Town Hall
$outhold, N.Y. 11971
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Instructions
This application must be filled in typewriter OR ink, and submitted in duplicate to the Building Inspec-
tot with the following; for new buildings or new use:
1. 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-
lions, 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.
For existing buildings (prior to April 1957), Non-conforming uses, or buildings and 'pre-existing'
land uses:
1. Accurate survey of peoperty showing ail 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.
New Building ............. Old or Pre-exbting BuildJng('~) . (~./,,/~_/ = ~Vacant Land ' '
Location of Property .... .,~.~ '~,~ ~,~ ............
~tree t
.... . ..... ......... z
County Tax Map No. 1000 Section /
Subdivision .... ' ' · . ...........
........................... Filed Map No ........... Lot No ..............
Permit No.
.......... Date of Permi~ .......... Applicant .. ........
Heahh DepL Approval .................
........................ Labor Dept. Approval
Unde~riters Approval ........................ Planning Board Approval ..
Request for Temporary Certificate ......... ' '" ........
............. Final Certificate ..
Fee Submitted S.. ' ..............
Co:~struc~ion on above described building and per~meets all ppp~c~bl~o~os and ragu ahons
A ' ' ' '
C. Fees:
1. Certificate of occupancy $5.00
2. Certificate of occupancy on pre-existing dwelling/
3. Copy of certificate of occupancy $1.00
land use $/,c/$5.00
TO%VN OF sOUTIIOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
TOWN IhlLL
SOUTitOLD, NEW YOPJ<
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
NONCONFOILMING PREMISES
IS TO CERTIFY that the
Land
Building( s )
U~e(s)
located at
No. Z11736
June 21 ) 1983
Private Rd. t~7, Diederick$ lid. Orient
Street Hamlet
shown on County tax map as District 1000, Section 018 , Block
O3
Lot 005 . does{not)conform to the present Building Zone Code of the
Town of Southold for the following reasons:
'a lot with a dwelling and four (4) cottages.
On the basis of information presented to the Building Inspector's Office,
it has been determined that the above nonconforming /~'/Land /i-/Building(s)
/i-/Use(s) existed on the effective date the present Building Zone Code of the
Town of Southold, and may be continued pursuant to and subject to the appli-
cable provisions of said Code.
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that, based upon information presented to
the Building Inspector's'Office, the occupancy and use for which this Certifi-
cate is issued is as follows: a one-family dwelling and four (q)
accessory cottages.
The Certificate is issued to
of the aforesaid building.
EURYDICE LOUCO?OULOS & HERODOTOS
(owner,
DAMIANOS
Suffolk County Department of Health Approval N/A
· C
UNDER\VRITEf{S CERFIFI ATE NO.
N/A
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the owner of the above premises I-L\S
NOT CONSENTED TO AN INSPECTION of the premises by the Building Inspec-
tor to determine ff the premises comply with all applicable codes and ordin-
ances, other than the Building Zone Code, and therefore, no such inspection
has been conducted. This Certificate, therefore, does not, and is not intended
to certify that the premises comply with all other applicable codes and regula-
tions.
COUNTY OF SUF OL )
EURYDICE LOUCOPOULOS, being duly sworn, deposes and
says:
1. I am co-owner with my brother, Herodotos Damianos
of the following described real property located in the Hamlet of
Orient, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk:
BEGII~INGat a post set at the southeast corner' of the premises about
to be described, said point being the northeast corner of land no%~
or formerly of Go~itz and Barnett;
RU~IING THENCE from said point or place of beginning, along land
nov; or formerly of Gom~itz and Barnett the following two (2) courses
and distances:
/21t South ~0 degrees 17 minutes ~0
South ~9 degrees 04 minutes ~0
now or formerly of R. Leslie;
seconds West 287.38 feet;
seconds West 185.55 feet to land
THENCE along said land the following nine (9) courses and distances:
/iI North 15 degrees ll minutes West 58.21 feet;
North 34 degrees 30 minutes west 54 feet;
North 51 degrees O0 minutes West 105 feet; ..
.......... ~ West, 68 feet;
North 40 degrees ~:, :u~ .'~.~ 40 se~ .....
North 4t degrees 17 minutes West 70 feet;
North 41 degrees 17 minutes West 20 feet; ''
south 48 degrees 43 minutes West ~5 feet;
THENCE along
D. Gullaks un
(]) ,North ~l
(2)South 58
(3) North 31
orth
land now or formerly of R. L~slie,.K. Mearns,,B. Hess,
and H. Mearns the follov~ing four' (4) co~urses:and d~stances:
degrees 17 minutes O0 seconds West, 595.95 feet;
degrees 52 minutes West [.1~ feet;
degrees 08 minutes West 39.U3 f~[et; ~ ..
degrees 17 minutes West 181.13 leer to ~ng Island Somnd,
Ti~NCE along the ordinary highwatcr mark of [long Island sound on a
tle line course of North 59 degrees 55 minutes 20 seconds East~ a
distance of ~35.77 feet to land now or formerly of Phyllis E. Hale;
TI~.NCE along said land now or formerly of Phyllis E. Hale~ South 38
degrees 08 minutes 20 seconds .East 1200 feet to land now or formerly
of G. Holly;
TF2~NCE along said land of G. Holly the following two (2) courses
and distances:
(1) South 5~ degrees 37 minutes West 7.70 feet;
(2) South 3~ degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds Zmst 26.31 feet to the
pomnt or place of BEGII~ING.
2. I make this affidavit in support of our request of the
Town of Southold to issue a Pre-Existing Certificate of Occupancy for
the above described property and have knowledge of the facts stated
herein.
3. The premises and buildings thereon did exist prior to
April, 1957 and were used with no changes, other than what zoning
has permitted.
4. That a survey by Roderick Van Tuyl P.C. dated 9/17/73
shows a two story frame house and four cottages.
Sworn to before me
this ~ day of May ,1983
IIt1~ J. De~ANA
No. 5,~.4~,..~3. :iulloll~ £~,4Y .~-
- 2 -
Exhibit A
Rev. Bradford N. Hess
Box 18A
Main Road
Orient, NY 11957
Mr. Harry Mearns
Box 18
Main Road
Orient, NY 11957
Mrs. Irene Singerman
115 East 87th Street
New York, NY 10028
Mr. Patrick E. Lyons
203 East 29th Street
New York, NY 10016
Mr. Richard Leslie
Private Road
Orient, NY 11957
Dr. John Pung
75 Bacon Road
Old Westbury,
NY 11568
Mr. Robert Kulpa
32 Highwood Avenue
Leonia, NJ 07605
Mr. Donald Bayles
Middle Country Road
Middle Island, NY 11953
EXHIBIT B
The applicant and other adjacent property owners
similarly situated object to the use of the property by
Janet T. Swanson and Dorothy Abbott, in violation of the
zoning ordinance of the Town of Southold, more particularly
Chapter 100, as more specifically hereinafter set forth.
The appeal is from a determination made by the Office of
the Building Inspector, by Victor G. Lessard, Executive
Administrator, dated February 21, 1984 (Exhibit B-l) and his
letter of March 2, 1984 (Exhibit B-2), the latter of which is
in response to the letter of Pachman, Oshrin & Block, P.C.,
attorney for the appellants, dated February 24, 1984 (Exhibit
B-3).
The appeal concerns the interpretation of the Building
Department which permitted the issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy for Non-Conforming Use on June 21, 1983 bearing No.
Z11736, based upon an application dated June 21, 1983, which
certificate was improperly issued on incorrect information
and violates Section 100-118(D)(1) of the zoning ordinance
entitled "Non-Conforming Uses".
The Building Department file contains many letters and
affidavits of adjacent property owners who are personally
familiar with the past and present use of the property. All
indicate that the property was not used as outlined in the
underlying affidavit attached to the permit. (Samples of
such contrary documents are attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit B-4).
In addition, application for building permits to erect a
fence, dated November 15, 1983 under Permit No. 12828Z,
(attached hereto as Exhibit B- ) violates Section 100-119.1,
in that it permits the erection of a fence within one foot of
the property line, without obtaining a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals, in violation of Section
100-119.1(A).
Further, it appears that Swanson and Abbott are
operating or intend to operate their property in violation of
Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, by maintaining a tourist
camp/cottage colony without benefit of permits.
Swanson and Abbott are also violating Section 100-23(A) of
the Zoning Ordinance, by utilizing buildings which are being restored,
altered or rebuilt, and are in violation of Section 100-141
because they have not obtained building permits for the
reconstruction, restoration and' structural rea]terat]on of
certain other buildings in and about the premises, and the
improvements do not appear on the Assessor's roles.
-2-
February 21, 1984
~ichard Leslie
~rick E. Lyons
Pa~d Hess
Brau~--~ Truckenbrodt
Arthur m' ---
attorney or you may appeal my determination to the Southold Town
Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 100-121(D)1 of the Code of
the Town of Southold.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Victor G. Lessard
Executive Administrator
VGL:bc
TO~'N OF SOUTIIOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD. N.Y. 11971
TEL. 765-1802
March 2, 1984
Pachman, Oshrin & Block,
6080 Jericho Turnpike
P. O. Box 273
Commack, New York 11725
PoC.
ATT: Howard E. Pachman, Esq.
RE: Tax Map No. 1000-18-3-5
Truckenbrodt - Abbott & Swanson
Dear Mr. Pachman:
Thank you very much for your letter of February 24,
1984.
As I previously indicated to your client in my letter
of February 21, 1984, if you do not agree with my prior
determinations, you should appeal them to the Southold
To~ Board of Appeals.
Very truly yours,
Victor G. Lessard
Executive Administrator
VGL:bc
cc: Robert W. Tasker, Esq.
Exhibit B-2
TOWN Ol~ SOUTHOLD
OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR
P.O. BOX 728
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, N.Y. ! 1971
TEL. 765-1802
February 21, 1984
Mr. Richard Leslie
Box 831
Orient, New York 11957
Mr. Patrick E. Lyons
203 East 29th Street
New York, New York 10016
Mr. Bradford Hess
Private Road
Orient, New Yor~ 11957
Y/Mr. Arthur R. Truckenbrodt
Private Road, Box 2016
Orient, New York 11957
Dear Messrs:
I am in receipt of your recent letters concerning property owned
by Dorothy Abbot and Janet T. Swanson (Suffolk County Tax Map No.
1000-18-3-5) upon which there is located a principal dwelling and
four nonconforming accessory cottages. I have checked into this
matter and find the prior owners, Eurydice Loucopoulos and Herodotos
Damianos were issued a Certificate of Occupancy Nonconforming Premises
on June 21, 1983 (Zl1736). This Certificate was issued on the basis
of an affidavit of Eurydice Loucopoulos that the premises and the
accessory buildings were in existence prior to April, 1957, and have
been used continuously to the present time. In addition, our files
indicate Eurydice Loucopoulos executed another affidavit on November 3,
1983, stating "that within the last 2 years the cottages on the above
described property were used by families different and other than the
owners or their families for which the undersigned received considera-
tion.''
A Building Permit was issued to Dorothy Abbot and Janet Swanson
on December 15, 1983 (No. 12837Z) for permission to construct addition
and alterations to existing principal dwelling. An inspection of the
entire premises was performed on February 10,1984, and it was found
the present owners are not in violation of the zoning ordinance.
Based upon the recent inspection and the information I have in my
file, I have determined the existing Certificate of Occupancy dated
June 21, 1983, (Zl1736) is valid. Until such time as a zoning viola-
tion is brought to my attention, my department will not proceed any
further with this matter.
If you want to proceed further, you should consult with your
EXHIBIT B-1
Lastly, Swanson and Abbott appear to be doing work in
and about the premises without having obtained permits from
the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Ail of the above has been brought to the attention of
the Office of the Building Inspector, and his response was
that these items should be appealed to the Board of Appeals
puruant to Section 100-118(D)(1).
February 24, 1984
Victor G. Lessard
Executive Administrator
Office of Building Inspector
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 728
Southold, NY 11971
Re:
Tax Map No. 1000-18-3-5
Truckenbrodt - Abbot & Swanson
Dear Mr. Lessard:
As the attorneys for Arthur R. Truckenbrodt and others,
I should like to thank you for the courtesies you extended to
me during our meeting of Thursday, February 23rd.
As I indicated to you at that time, I was somewhat
dismayed to find that there were no building permits applied
for or required by the Town of Southold for the work that was
being performed on the above-captioned property, which is
adjacent to my client's parcel.
The Southold Town Ordinance clearly states that building
permits are necessary when a building is restored or
structurally altered as set forth in Section 100-141.
Obviously, the installation of new roofs, new siding and
interior changes in the room dimenions of the cottage
premises come under this category.
In addition, based upon an application dated November
15, 1983, the Town oranted Permit No. ]2828Z, dated January
5, 1984, for the erection of a fence, 150 feet in length, to
be placed one foot east of the property line. Section ]00-35
of the Town Code requires fences to be placed within five
feet of property lines. It would, therefore, appear that a
variance has been granted without the benefit of the Board of
Appeals.
Lastly, my client received your letter of February 21,
1984, which i~dicated that a Certificate of Occupancy for
non-conforminG premises, dated June 2], ]983, bearinq No.
Z]]736, had been issued to the prev~oun owners, []urydice
Loucopou]os and HeIodotoF; I)a~,iano~. A ~evi~w of the
Exhibit B-3
Victor G. Lessard -2- February 24, 1984
supporting affidavit does not justify the issuance of such
certificate, since, in Paragraph 3, there is no affirmative
statement satisfying Section 100-118(D), to-wit: that the
premises have been used continuously for a period of two
years prior thereto. Nor doe the subsequent affidavit of
Eurydice Loucopoulos, dated November 3, 1983, satisfy'the
basis for issuing the certificate dated June 21, 1983.
This becomes more glaring in light of the fact that you
have on file a series of at least six statements by others
indicatinG that these premises have not been used and the
non-conforming use, if any, has been abandoned.
We urge
light of the
convenience.
that you reconsider this whole situation in
above and respond to us at your earliest
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
HEP:ss
CC:
Mr. Arthur Truckenbrodt
Robert Taska, Esq.
Southold Town Attorney
Howard E. Pachman
Nr. Howard Pachman
Pachman Oshrin & Block
6080 Jericho Tpke.
P.0.~ox 273
Commack, N.Y. 11725
2510 Edwards Iane P0~
Orient, N.Y. 11957
Narch 14, 19S4
231
Dear Sir,
At the request of Arthur Truckenbrodt snd others
I am enclosing a statement regarding the use of the cottages
on the former Damianos property.
If there is any other information you think we
can supply in this mstter, ~]ease feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Rode ~.~. Hale
Exhibit B-4
March 14;1984
To whom it may concern;
It is our understanding that information is sought as to the
occupancy of several cottages located just off the Zong Island Sound
beach on the former Damianos property in Orient,L.I.
We are the o~mers of 5 acres of property at 25]0 Edwards Lane
Orient,N.y. with 305 feet of beach front which lie.,~ 500 feet Northeast
of the oroperties in euestion,the intervening .~OOfeet of property
being owned by Dr. John !~ung since 1979.
Our property, which we have owned outright since 1975, and Dr. Pttng, s
property was o~med Joint./y by ourselves and another since 195t.
In January 1980 construction was started on our property to
winterize a summer bungalow, built in 1935, and to construct an
addition to it for our perm~ment home. he moved into this permanent
home in August 1980.
Our property and the house are situated at an elevation of over
35 feet above Sea levelas compared to the beach off which the
cottages are located of ]ess than 10 feet. With this topographies1
perspective, we have an overview of the beach of the former Dami~nos
property and also the cottages in question.
Durin~ the period of time we have lived here permanently and prior
thereto when our permanent home was on Vi]].a~e Lane in Orient, we
have been in the habit, year round, of wal~ing our dogs on the
beachfront. During the sttmmer our children and grandchildren as well
\s? others have been our guests and have joined us in avai3ing
themselves o~ our beach for swimming, boating, picnics, and fishing.
With the ~bove e~osure more th~n a little opportunity has been
provided to observe an~ to become aware of activities in so far as
th~ cottages are concerned.
Certainly from th~ time ~e start~ to build in J~nuary 3980
~nd dur~n~ the entire s'~33~mer of ]q79 when we occulted our bungs!ow
from M~y to October we not only were not ~ware of any occupancy of the
cottages hut we v., .re swere that they were variously boarded
broken into ~nd g~n~r~]]y p~rmitt~ ±o run do~,,m and deteriorate.
Box 831
Orient, New York 11957
January 12, 1984
Mr. Victor Lessard
Executive Administration
Buildings Department
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, New York
Dear Mr. Lessard:
I am a property owner in Orient with a home on a
private road known locally as "Dedricks Road" or "Green
Acres Road". My wife and I have owned and resided in
this house since 1973.
At the head of this road fronting on the Sound there
is a parcel of land formerly owned by Damianos, and prior
to that by Dedricks. This parcel contains several small
abandoned cabins which I understand formerly had protected
status even though they did not conform to our local zoning
laws.
Of my own personal knowledge no one has occupied any
of these s{ructures since ]976. Over the years they have
been repeatedly vandalized by humans, animals and the envi-
ronment. They are, and have been for many years, in such an
uninhabitable condition that they remain a hazard to adven-
turesome children in the area. I believe they should be
'razed for the safety of the community and the sanctity of
our zoning laws.
It is my understanding that the present owners may at-
tempt to rehabilitate them for rental use. Since these
structures bare been abandoned for many years, ~e would vig-
orously oppose any rehabilitation of them in contravention
to the laws of the Town of Southold.
Sincerely, / /
RiChard E. Leslie
REL/msg
~~4D ~0 ~D ~