HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/29/1990 HEARING 1 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
2
----------------------------------------X
3
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4 HEARING, In the Matter of
5 PORT OF EGYPT, .
6 Applicant. .
7 ----------------------------------------X
8 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
9
March 29, 1990
10 7 : 38 P.M.
11
B E F O R E
12
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
13
Chairman.
14
BOARD MEMBERS:
15
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
16
17 SERGE DOYEN, JR. (Absent)
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
18
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
19
Doreen Ferwerda ,
20 Secretary: to Board
A P P E A R A N C E S
21 MOORE & MOORE, ESQS.
22 Attorneys for the Applicant
Main Road
Mattituck, New York
23 BY: WILLIAM MOORE, ESQ.
24
25 ALSO PRESENT: MERLIN WIGGIN
WILLIAM LIEBLEIN
1 2
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I welcome you all here
3 tonight . This is a special meeting in an
4 attempt to clear up two specific hearings,
5 one of which we have had for quite some
6 time. I just congratulated that particular
7 applicant for being number one on the list
8 tonight. He is smiling, and so is his
9 attorney. So that is a step in the right
10 direction.
11 It is not necessary to read the legal
12 notice. It has been read several times . So
13 we will have simply the reopening of this
14 hearing of the Port of Egypt .
15 I would ask Mr. Moore if he would
16 like to be heard?
17 MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, I have had
18 several conversations with Mr. Lieblein and
19 with his counsel , Merlin Wiggin of Peconic
20 Associates, and I am presenting to you today
21 . . . earlier today I dropped off to your
22 office a . . . I am trying to simplify this
23 application. As it was before, we needed at
24 least four variances to accomplish this dry
25 rack storage building . . . a little arm
�30-
3
1 2 twisting and recalculations and we figured
3 out a way in. which we can reduce the needed
4 variances from four to two.
5 I have proposed, and Mr. Lieblein is
6 ready to agree with me on this suggestion,
7 that he reduced the length of the building
8 such that he could comply with the front
9 yard of the M2 zone. By doing that he
10 reduces the square footage of his buildings
11 covering the property and if my math is
12 correct, I think you can double check it , we
13 don' t go below the 30 percent lot coverage.
14 So there are two variances right there we
15 knocked down by realizing we can still make
16 the building function. We lose slightly
17 more than one full boat storage rack on both
18 sides of the building in length, but we can
19 accomplish the elimination of two variances .
20 We are left with the side yard
21 variances . The variance as related to the
22 distance to the bulkhead is a 75-foot re-
23 quirement from the code.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: What are we doing on
25 the Kapper (phonetic) side in reference to
4
2 distance from that property?
3 MR. 'MOORE: Actually, we will stay
4 with the 15 feet sideline suggested. The
5 reason for that, .as I mentioned, it has -been
g repeated several times . Why that .15 feet is
7 necessary is , number one, we can't reduce
8 the width of our building anything below 125
9 feet that relates to its finality. We
10 have got storage racks 'on both sides of the
11 building and an aisle in .the center. Ideal-
12 ly, the building would be 130 feet in width,.
13 and Mr. Lieblein can squeak and push below
14 . 125 feet in -length . . . it doesn' t work.
15 . .Theoretically, you can move the
16 building and have an additional 10 feet to
1.7 the west and accomplish your side .yards . . .
18 25-foot side yard requirement . However,
19 this plan. has been before this Board for
20 quite some time, as it has been before the
21 Planning Board, and in looking at the park-
22 -ing lot layout and access and traffic flow,
23 it was suggested to the applicant that he
24 keep the building to the one side. You get
25 access in and out on the west side. . ..
(� 5
I -2 parking . . you've got more parking to the
3 west side. It is more functionable for the
4' . traffic flow, as it was suggested by the
5 Planning .Board to encroach on that side
6 yard.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have updated
8 site plans maybe you are going to give us
9 with the "reductions of the front?
10 MR. MOORE: No. We can draw you a
11 line across . You can mark it in red.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: What is the distance
13 now from the old Main Road?
14 MR`.' MOORE: Well , we have it at 35
15 feet . .I think it is presently measured
16 correctly. It is 22 right now. We have got
17 to build back some 13 or 14 feet .
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All right . The length
19 of the storage building is what? .
20 MR. MOORE: I presently presented
21 217 . We reduced that ,to 14 feet to make it
22 213. feet . I am sorry, 203 .
23 THE CHAIRMAN_: All right . Let's do
24 this . Let me go over some of the. square
25 footages I have gotten, and tell me where I
33-
1 6
2 am wrong or where I am right . There may not
3 be a concurrence here and it doesn't have to
4 be tonight . You can come back to us .
5 MR. MOORE: This is with respect to
6 the existing structure.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: The existing struc-
8 ture. Now, the old office in the shop which
9 is adjacent to the building, I have 3,078
10 square feet .
11 MR. MOORE: That is correct .
12 THE CHAIRMAN: And the other, the
13 remaining portion of that building is going
14 to be destroyed, which is the portion
15 towards the proposed new building; is that
16 correct?
17 MR. WIGGIN: That is correct.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, in front of the
19 proposed storage building, which is the
20 existing sales shop, he shows that as 720
21 square feet .
22 MR. WIGGIN: That is correct .
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Is the ramp elevated
24 on that?
25 MR. LIEBLEIN: It starts at the door
7
1 2 height and slopes down.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I am just including it
4 so we have it all in that . I have that as
5 120 .
6 MR. LIEBLEIN: That was not included.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: These are.
8 MR. WIGGIN: Are you suggesting we
9 should put the ramp, as far as the building
10 square footage?
11 THE CHAIRMAN: I am only taking
12 anything above six inches above the ground.
13 I did not include the cement slabbing or the
14 washing platform or the existing concrete
15 area in back. of the sale showroom that you
16 have over there, an so on and so forth. I
17 have square footage on them, but I excluded
18 them because they are on ground level .
19 MR. WIGGIN: That ramp and driveway,
20 that probably would be less than six inches
21 above the ground.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: We are taking this,
23 and then going back and reinspecting it
24 before the decision and we will "X" out
25 anything that is not within that mode.
1 8
2 The existing ramp that sits over on the west
3 side of the proposed storage building is
4 either a macadam or cement ramp, like that
5 of a launching ramp of a boat, that is on
6 ground level . So that is excluded.
7 Let 's go over to the restaurant for
8 the moment. I have the restaurant at 4, 225
9 square feet . I have the boardwalk, which is
10 across to the water, and is that right on
11 the ground?
12 MR. WIGGIN: Yes, sir.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: So that is excluded.
14 The deck however, that is off the building
15 that we granted, is elevated above the
16 ground; is that correct?
17 MR. WIGGIN: That is correct .
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I have that at 2 , 241
19 square feet, and I wish you would change
20 that . . . write that in.
21 MR. WIGGIN: I don't think it is
22 quite that big.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Two thousand two
24 hundred forty one . . . of course, I didn' t
25 figure all the . . .
3(-
1 9
2 MR. WIGGIN: That 's grass .
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We granted some
4 deck in there.
5 MR. LIEBLEIN: No, sir. As far as I
6 know, right now it is all grass .
7 THE CHAIRMAN: That is excluded.
8 That's going all the way around to here. Is
9 that a boardwalk?
10 MR. LIEBLEIN: This is just landscap-
11 ing.
12 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off
13 the record, after which the following oc-
14 curred: )
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Two thousand two
16 hundred forty one is now back out again.
17 That 's out. All right .
18 On the concrete and the porch on the
19 west side of the restaurant, I have 840 plus
20 42 . So the total of that would be 882 .
21 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off
22 the record, after which the following oc-
23 curred: )
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Jimmy has a question.
25 We are going out right now.
_ 37-
1 10
2 Merl , the ramp in front of the build-
3 ing, I 've got 960 .
4 MR. WIGGIN: That is the handicapped
5 ramp.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: They checked that out .
7 Okay. Let ' s run off to the existing metal
8 building that is used for sale and your
9 office. I have two figures on this . The
10 square foot figure on it is 23 ,175 , which is
11 very simply the 103 by 225 , and then eastern
12 extension I have 5,544. The only other .
13 thing, Merl , is the existing shed over there
14 on the west boundary line. Approximately
15 that is 30 feet deep and . . . I 've got 2 ,048 .
16 MR. WIGGIN: That 's when the property
17 line is going through.
18 MR. LIEBLEIN: No. That's 30 and the
19 length is 60 feet .
20 THE CHAIRMAN: That is about 61 feet
21 long.
22
(Whereupon, a discussion was held off
23 the record, after which the following oc-
24 curred: )
25 THE CHAIRMAN: The only other
11
2 question I have is the, ,'tax map
.said 5 . 6
3 acres . I see in here you are referring to
4 the property based upon the square footage
5 of 4. 96-. We ask for' the calculations of
6 underwater land and you came up with 1. 3 .
7 So that- is excluded from . . . so you are
s telling us . .
9 MR,.. ,MOORE:- From the computations you
10 have there. Yes , they have not been in-
11 cluded.'. Y.es. Right . In fact, did I give
12 you a map of . . . here we go. I gave you a
13 map of� the survey of the property, in which
14 we .have shown the two bases, incomplete and.
15 completed, the acreage of each, and that
16 acreage is not included in computing the
17 upland lot coverage.
is 'THE, CHAIRMAN: You are saying. it is
19 4. 96 plus 1.33 of actual taxable land,
20 that's gross land?
21 MR., LIEBLEIN: If ' that is what it
22 comes out to.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: M y problem is I have
24 5 . 6 minus 1.33, or, 4. 33, and 'that's where
25 the problem came up. Because I am coming up
Of
1 12
2 around 36 percent . All right . But remem-
3 ber, I have added in 2 ,000 feet and on the
4 south side of the restaurant .
5 MR. MOORE: I don't know if you were
6 satisfied with the copies of the deeds I
7 gave. I was not aware. I went back and
8 read a transcript earlier this week, and I
9 think you are looking for a singe and
10 separate search. I was not aware of that .
11 I gave you copies of deeds . If you want a
12 single and separate search we can have that
13 done.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: We have at least two
15 members of the Board that have been here 34
16 years that will attest to the fact that Mr.
17 Lieblein owns the property or his family
18 owned the property prior to zoning, and with
19 those deeds, that I think is basically what
20 we need. We have Mr. Sawicki , who was a
21 police officer in this Town and ex-Chief .
22 MR. MOORE: I don' t want there to be
23 any confusion. I know the issue was raised
24 about the motel facility. I don't want
25 there to be any confusion as to where the
13
2 motel is . It is not included.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Where do you stand on
4 site .plans now with the parking issue across
5 the street? That is the only other thing.
6 MR. MOORE: I think I have done some
7 parking computations there for you, under
8 the code as it presently stands . There are
9 some computations on the site plan before
10 you, we did some wishful thinking, showed
11 computations as we believe the parking ought
12 to be.
13 Referring specifically to the marina
14 slips, should have one-half parking spaces
15 per boat slip; dry dock storage, one-quarter
16 space per dry dock storage. To clarify
17 things in the memo I gave today, I went with
18 the code as it stands today. You have a
19 total required parking spaces of 421, using
20 the numbers of both slips , the exact dry
21 dock storage, the number of employees, the
22 restaurant computation, and his proposed
23 boat storage, which Mr. Lieblein tells me if
24 he scales it down as proposed, it would hold
25 maybe 152 .
1 14
2 I have done exactly as the code calls
3 for and I 've gotten a total of 421 . The
4 site plan before you on the south side of
5 Route 25 has 188 parking spaces . On the
6 north side of the property on which the site
7 plan was a separate item done there showing
8 you can hold 110 parking spaces .
9 That site plan has been before the
10 Planning Board, at this particular point,
11 where we were between the site plan finally
12 getting approval from the Planning Board and
13 a need for the variances from here. Maybe
14 Merl can tell me where we are with the
15 Planning Board's approval of that property
16 for use as parking.
17 MR. WIGGIN: They are waiting for the
18 Planning Board to give a final determination
19 of the revised drainage plan, the planning
20 counsel .
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Right . 5o just say
22 you are aware that this decision is condi-
23 tioned upon the fact that this gentleman
24 will continue retainingthat
property across
25 the street for the purpose of parking.
15
2 MR. MOORE: Right. I understand if
3 we . . .
4 MR. LIEBLEIN: That was my intention
5 when I made it available.
6 MR. MOORE: I think you have gotten
7 provisions in your code requiring certain
8 restrictions as to the use of adjoining
9 property or property across the street. So
10 that will be taken care of .
11 And finally we pick up the arm to
12 replace the boats with cars of the owners ,
13 and the boat storage dry rack can be one for
14 one. So if in fact the code requires one
15 parking space per dry dock storage slip,
16 that facility is designed in such a way that
17 the cars are placed on pallets . And that 's
18 how that system can work.
19 I have given for . . . at least in one
20 copy I have presented this afternoon . . . a
21 copy of the local tax law the Town is con-
22 sidering. I know you can' t think about that
23 now. You don' t have the parking in front of
24 you. We have available, including across
25 the street , 450 spaces . We need 421 .
1 16
2 We have 29 extra parking spaces . The Town
3 is still considering changing the marina
4 parking requirement in which we had more
5 than enough. In fact , I did recompute this,
6 but assuming the Town were to adopt the
7 proposed local law in its present form, we
8 have adequate on-site parking at 188 spaces
9 presently there to satisfy the recomputed
10 parking requirements .
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Right .
12 MR. MOORE: We won' t need across the
13 street . We won' t need the boat storage
14 building or the parking across the street .
15 My final comments are related to . . .
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to say,
17 before you do that, I apologize for jumping
18 in. Any decision from this Board would be
19 subject to the Planning Board's approval for
20 the site plan or ,parking, anyway. As you
21 know, we work very concurrent most of the
22 time, and that would be the situation
23 anyway. So we appreciate the parking
24 situation.
25 MR. MOORE: I just wanted to clarify
1 17
2 with the site plan, showing some wishful
3 thinking on our part, comments were raised
4 here at the public hearing at which they
5 were stating that we were grossly underes-
6 timating the parking needs and we were not
7 providing adequate parking. That' s why I
8 went back and recomputed and show you with
9 the parking across the street we do have
10 adequate parking. We are not here for the
11 parking variances .
12 MR. LIEBLEIN: On that same line, on
13 the existing storage building with its 80
14 spaces, if we palletize cars we would have
15 way over.
16 MR. MOORE: I didn' t include that .
17 That 's true.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
19 MR. MOORE: The other comments I have
20 regarding other variances we need has to do
21 with that setback from the bulkhead require-
22 ment . As I point out, it is a marina re-
23 quirement set for the Zoning Board regard-
24 less of the zoning district in which you are
25 located.
, r
�7J=
1 18
2 M1 . . . M2 residences, no difference
3 whatsoever and, yet the M2 zone itself has a
4 variance setback for structures as 25 feet .
5 Kind of interesting when you think of the
6 rear yards of marinas as being either the
7, creek or bay or whatever water body .they are
8 on, and .the need to get access .
9 The purpose of the boat storage
10 building is to operate in a sense as boat
11 slips , out of water boat sl.ips . The 75-
12 foot-'requirement doesn' t make sense to have
13 a forklift traveling back and -forth that .
14 distance. That property would have to
15 remain-clear to the extent the machinery
16 functions . The forklift. operates in close
.17 proximity to the water. That is the stated
18 purpose -and the intention. of the use of that
19 building, to get access to that boat basin.
20 So - we seek' the variance . . . 40-foot distance
21 from that bulkhead. .
22 We also raised discussions with the
23 Planning' Board that any drainage and runoff
24 has to be retained on the site. So the
25 building is -not going to be running water in
y
19
2 the basin. In fact, I believe the concrete
3 pad can be sloped in such a way that it
a. would have a drain in it, to ensure. that.
5 A couple of. ,final .observations . If .
6 you think from an environmental. concern,
7 when you have boats that are docked, or
8 mooredrin' .water and you have all throughout
9 the boating season, - or in such a position
10 where they can go in there year-round, those
11' boats must have automatic bilge pumps which
12 when, boats Are out in the 'weather, they fill
13 up with rainwater "and you get automatic
14 bilge and pumping that bilge water in the
15 bay, to 'the extent you put boats in dry rack
1.6 you minimize the problem as the boats are
. 17 out of the elements or under cover. So it
18 has a nice side benefit .to it .
19 . Painters have had recent concern
' 20 about 'bottom paints . Some are more con-
21 cerned. about it than others. Dry rack
. 22 storage .reduces. the need for bottom paint,
23 after 'an amount of time the boats have spent,
24 in the water.
25 No one will need to come in if they
1 20
2 are going to use dry rack storage and re-
3 quest additional water boat slips . Boat
4 slips require degradation of water area. We
5 deem to preserve wetlands when using dry
6 dock storage, when possible.
7 The last point , when the boats are
8 outside for the winter storage, most boat
9 owners want to have the boat shrink wrapped.
10 Sometimes that plastic is torn off . To the
11 extent we reduce the amount of plastic, we
12 reduce the waste stream.
13 That 's about all I 've got . If you
14 have any questions , I ' ll get back to you
15 tomorrow with Merl , on the computations , as
16 soon as we can.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: How many boats are you
18 planning to put in this building, at this
19 time, total?
20 MR. MOORE: The capacity of the
21 building . . .
22 MR. LIEBLEIN: Original capacity was
23 going to be 160 . It was designed to be 10
24 double spaces on each side, which is 20
25 boats times four high is 80 . . . two sides
1 21
2 . . . is 160 , by taking 14 feet off . We have
3 taken more than one-half of the end bay
4 away, which is at least eight boats . Now I
5 have to make the decision, do I make the
6 remaining bays all a little bit bigger for
7 larger boats or do I make a few of them a
8 little bit smaller for 18 , in which case I
9 lose only one bay, otherwise I lose two
10 bays . The maximum I have is 152 .
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
12 MR. MOORE: Thank you.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else that
14 would like to speak in favor of this ap-
15 plication?
16 Anybody that would like to speak
17 against the application?
18 MS. SAWASTYNOWICZ : Nancy
19 Sawastynowicz . I just want to add the point
20 that I have worked in boatyards for 12
21 years , and I know how toxic they are. Just
22 to add that many more boats to an already
23 critically impacted bay, I think, is
24 ridiculous . I don' t think putting a 40
25 feet or 75 feet makes a difference. It is
1 22
2 still going to run in the bay, and I would
3 really like to see it be kept the way it is
4 now because that still is huge.
5 So that is my point. I just think it
6 is a real environmental impact .
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
8 MR. LIEBLEIN: I didn' t speak at all
9 at the last two hearings, as I recall ,
10 because I felt there was not any point and I
11 thought I would like to state my own words
12 . . . my feelings .
13 "Dear Members of the Board:
14 Our attorney, Mr. William Moore, has
15 responded in writing to the questions raised
16 during the past four hearings . . . " and he
17 also added to that this evening, and as I
18 said, I would like to state my position
19 here.
20 The successful operation of a full
21 service marina depends on being located on
22 the water, number one. Number -two, it
23 depends on having qualified people; and
24 third, it depends on .having a modern
25 facility in which to work and the dilemma of
1 23
2 all marinas in our area is how to keep our
3 personnel gainfully employed during the
4 winter season. The Port of Egypt 's present
5 economic hardship stems from the fact that
6 during December, January and February, we
7 operate at a loss . During this period, the
8 income generated by storage, sales and
s service has always been exceeded by expen-
10 ses , primarily salaries , health and general
11 insurance. We have been raising our rates
12 to keep up with these rising costs but there
13 is a limit as to how much you can go before
14 you price yourself out of business .
15 Lately, the rise in cost of general
16 and health insurance has rise at a rate far
17 in excess of the inflation rate. For ex-
18 ample, health insurance that cost $6,000 a
19 month just two years ago is now $12 ,000 a
20 month. General insurance that cost $50 ,000
21 per year just five years ago is now $100 ,000
22 a year. As these and other costs go up, it
23 becomes increasingly difficult to cover the
24 losses in the winter months with the income
25 from the other nine months of the year.
1 24
2 I might point out , one of the reasons
3 we lose money in January and February is I
4 send out people to school , and you are not
5 generating any income. We presently employ
6 26 people. Nineteen of these are supporting
7 families in town. Laying off these people
8 and asking them to subsist on unemployment
9 is not an acceptable solution. We count on
10 these people all year and we must be able to
11 provide sufficient work to keep them
12 employed.
13 As Mr. Moore has told you, we have
14 reduced the size of our building so as to
15 eliminate the need for a variance for lot
16 coverage or front yard setback. This change
17 has been made in a spirit of compromise and
18 to reduce the complexity of the factors this
19 Board must consider before making its
20 decision.
21 As one of many small businessmen
22 struggling to survive in this Town, I ask
23 that you consider the facts before you,
24 and make your decision as expeditiously as
25 you can.
1 25
1 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3 The other question I have is , Merl ,
4 if you wouldn' t mind, would you just tell us
5 how you arrived at that 4 . 96 in reference to
6 actual upland area?
7 You don' t have to do it tonight . You
8 can explain to us with a map of it, if you
9 so desire.
10 MR. WIGGIN: This was done by the
11 survey doing a recalculation of the upland.
12 We went down there and physically measured
13 the boundaries of the water lines and recal-
14 culated the upland because there . . . before
15 you there has been minor changes and they
16 took that into consideration.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a map on
18 this area?
19 MR. WIGGIN: You have revised survey
20 that shows you did that .
21 THE CHAIRMAN: That 's 4. 96.
22 MR. WIGGIN: Right .
23 THE CHAIRMAN: We are requesting
24 information from you. I don' t know if we
25 should wait until we receive it to close the
26
2 hearing, or if we should close. the hearing
3 subject to receiving it . I- think what we
4 wil-1 do' is what we -did in December.
5 I make a motion to close the hearing
6 pending the receipt of this 'information.
7 For everybody present, we are requesting
8 information within two weeks . This Board
9 , will not entertain any deliberations of this
10 particular matter until at least the 19th of
11 April , and sometime thereafter, and probably
12 subsequent to the 19th of April , at which
13 time we will have any additional information
14 presented in this file and some of the other
15 things we. have in our office which, are the
16 archives of this particular project and on
17 this particular property. You are welcome
-18 to come in and look at it . So we just ask
19 you to, get it to us within two weeks,. This
20 way we have it .
21 Hearing no further questions , I make
22 a motion closing the hearing,' reserving
23 decision on this and pending the receipt of
24 the additional information' in concurrence
25 with the lot coverage we requested.
1 27
2 MR. DINIZIO: Second.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
4 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
5 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
6 MR. SAWICKI : Aye.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much,
8 gentlemen, for coming in.
s (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken
10 at 8 : 12 p.m. and the hearing resumed at 8 : 18
11 P.M. )
12
13
14
15
16 I , GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that I am
17 an Official Court Reporter and that the foregoing
18 constitutes a true and correct transcript according to my
19 official stenographic notes .
20 /J
21
GAIL ROSCHEN
22 Official Court Reporter
23
24
25
1 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Q
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
2 M120
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4 HEARING, In the Matter of
5 ROBERT OCHSENRETER
AND EDWARD LENCESKI ,
6
Applicants .
7
-----------------------------------------X
8
53095 Main Road
9 Southold, New York 11971
10 March 29, 1990
8 : 18 P.M.
11
12 B E F O R E
13 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
14 Chairman.
15
BOARD MEMBERS:
16
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
17
18 SERGE DOYEN, JR. (Absent)
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
19
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
20
21
A P P E A R A N C E S
22 MOORE & MOORE, ESQS.
23 Attorneys for the Applicants
Main Road
Mattituck, New York
24 BY: WILLIAM MOORE, ESQ.
25
r
2
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I guess we are ready
3 to reconvene the last hearing of the
4 evening, and that is a hearing that we had
5 heard prior to this hearing. So there is no
6 need to read the legal. notice.. There was
7 significant testimony taken at that prelimi-
8 nary hearing, and this is a hearing in
9 behalf of Mr. Ochsenreter and Edward
10 Lenceski . It is Appeal Number 3908 .
11 I have certain questions which I want
12 to mention, but I will start off by saying
13 that we have discussed this hearing with
14 Special Counsel and we have discussed this
15 hearing with the new Town Attorney. It is
16 our opinion, at this particular time, that
17 there is standing for these two gentlemen to
18 come before us and at the culmination of
19 this hearing and encouched within any
20 decision we will have a minimum and maximum
21 time in reference to what we refer to as
22 standing for specific applications and in
23 this particular area which concerns reversal
24 of building permits , and it will be some-
25 thing that we will be dealing with in a
51%
r
1 3
2 precedent basis throughout the remaining
3 seeming years . of our tenure on this Board.
a At this particular time, I will ask
5 Mr. Ochsenreter and Mr. Lenceski if they
6 would like to say anything for the record.
7 MR. OCHSENRETER: Mr. Goehringer, is
8 this reconvening?
9 THE CHAIRMAN: It is a 'continuation,
10 but we have to reconvene it .
11 MR. OCHSENRETER: Robert Ochsenreter,
12 600 Bay Road, Mattituck, New York.
13 Do you want me to repeat my testimony
14 of the last session?
15 THE CHAIRMAN: = No. It is part of the
16 permanent record.
17 MR. OCHSENRETER: I would have noth-
18 ing ' further.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there something you
20 would like to repeat, Mr. Moore?
21 MR. MOORE: William Moore, Clause
22 Commons , Suite 3 , Main Road, Mattituck, from
23 the firm of Moore and Moore. We are being
24 substituted for Mr. Tohill , who was here at
25 the last hearing.
Y
1 4
1 2 At this particular point , let me
3 begin by renewing the motion Mr. Tohill
4 raised at the last hearing. He cited
5 specific sections , Section 267 , Subdivision
6 2 , of the Town Law. The petitioner's
7 failure to obtain a determination from the
8 Building Department before commencing this
9 appeal .
10 There is a memo in the file of the
11 ZBA, from the Southold Town Clerk, which
12 states material being transmitted from the
13 Town Clerk to the ZBA does not include a
14 notice of disapproval from the Building
15 Department . He speaks at length about the
16 failure of the petitioners to come to the
17 Building Department and challenge or request
18 any determination from that department with
19 respect to the permit that was issued. Mr.
20 Tohill previously set forth the basis of the
21 Appellate jurisdiction of this Board and
22 also the Board that had to review prior
23 decisions and asked action of these who are
24 charged with the enforcement of the Town
25 zoning codes .
}
5
2 As he stated and I repeat again, this
3 , jurisdiction has not been established from
4 this appeal . The prerequisite steps have
5 not been taken for this appeal to reach it.
6 The second motion relates to Section
7 267 , Subdivision 3, in that this appeal is
8 untimely as a. matter of law. I appreciate
9 the desire of this Board to at some time . . .
10 I don' t know that within the context of this
11 decision it would be appropriate to hear
112 affidavits .what your rule will be regarding
13 appears . I think that will be a procedure
14 you can use to create a set of rules and
15 procedure to the extent you want to have
16 them regarding the appeals of determinations
17 of the Building Department.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I am reminiscent of
19 saying that we will take these to the legis-
20 lative committee and make them embody within
21 the area of 267 or any applicable areas of
22 which they will pertain.
23 MR. MOORE: The key period of time
24 when you go to make an appeal is when ,the
25 period begins to run. It begins to run when
1 6
2 the person who is going to complain about a
3 decision becomes chargeable with Notice of
4 Issuance ' of the permit of which it
5 complains . Now you have a copy of the
6 building permit in your file, dated August
7 8 , 1989 . Work began on this site with
8 clearing and excavation for the foundation.
9 This work took place August 30 , 1989.
10 Now I have some information that was
11 not presented the last time and they are
12 some bills to support this time frame of
13 which we are speaking. The first is a bill
14 for Robert Chilton and it is in reference to
15 work performed on 8/30 , Bayer Road, for
16 Inland Homes . This is the clearing of the
17 property. Also included in the papers I
18 gave you are receipts from the Southold Town
19 Dump, receipts made out to Robert Chilton
20 for land cleared. The delivery date of
21 receipt is 8/30/89.
22 I have for you a receipt from Eastern
23 Concrete, Incorporated, 9/15/89, indicating
24 their accepting $2 , 400 for work that was
25 done for Inland Homes on Bayer Avenue. I
J
1 (o7
2 mean, I gave you those.
3 The time in which to appeal begins
4 when a person complaining should have
5 notice. If you get a building permit and
6 sit on it for six months, one could not
7 expect anybody to know about it . But when
8 you take action on a permit and the person
9 lives, as the petitioner stated in their
10 petition, on Bayer Road, across the street
11 from this property, you have notice of what
12 is going on.
13 Now, the petition is a sworn state-
14 ment by both petitioners . In that sworn
15 statement they state that their attorneys
16 wrote to the Zoning Board of Appeals in a
17 letter dated September 13 , 1989, with
18 respect to the property which is the
19 subject of this appeal , and that they . . . I
20 mean the attorneys . . . I presume were in-
21 formed that no variances have been granted
22 with respect to this property. So even as
23 of September 13, 1989, inquiries were being
24 made by these petitioners according to their
25 sworn statements to the Zoning Board by
1 8
2 their attorneys .
3 Now, the petitioners never spoke with
4 Inland Homes . Inland Homes never suggested
5 to them that they were not going to take any
6 action on this permit . They were going to
7 sit on it. These petitioners were
8 represented at one point by the office of
9 Wickham, Wickham and Bressler.
10 Mr. Tohill raised briefly a third
11 reason for dismissing, related to Section
12 267 , Subdivision 3 . Mr. Tohill wrote to Mr .
13 Kiernan, the Assistant Town Attorney, on
14 February 1, 1990 , stating forth the basis
15 upon which we have been speaking for dismis-
16 sal , either lack of Appellate jurisdiction
17 . . . because there is no determination from
18 the Building Department on which this appeal
19 was founded. Petitioners contacted the
20 Building Department, and had not requested a
21 decision from the Building Department before
22 they filed their appeal .
23 Mr. Tohill later also addressed the
24 failure to file the appeal in a timely
25 fashion, in which you give permits and the
9
2 basis, rather to show when work was being
3 performed.
4 Lastly, he advised in this letter to
5 the Assistant Town Attorney, dated February
6 1, 1990 , which has the day of the public
7 hearing, that the petitioner had failed to
s file their appeal with the Building Depart-
9 ment . That is a requirement of Section 267 ,
10 Subdivision 3 .
11 Now the Zoning Board of Appeals has a
12 letter in their file indicating that the law
13 firm of Wickham, Wickham and Bressler with-
14 drew as counsel , a letter dated February 1 ,
15 1990 . A copy of that letter was sent to Mr.
16 Garcia, and signed for by Corinne Lessard-
17 Garcia. I have a copy of that letter and
18 the envelope indicating the postdate of
19 January 31 . I would like to give you that
20 as well . . . postmarked letter, January 31,
21 dated February 1 , withdrawing his counsel .
22 Now on the very date of the hearing,
23 February 1, 1990 , after petitioner's counsel
24 was withdrawn, a copy of the appeal
25 miraculously gets filed with the Building
r
1 10
-- 2 Department at 2 : 55 that afternoon. The
3 affidavit of service is sworn to before a
4 notary public who I have reason to believe
5 is the secretary of the law firm of Wickham,
6 Wickham and Bressler. I believe they have
7 withdrawn counsel at that point .
8 I would like to believe the
9 petitioners were aware of that requirement ,
10 and in all good honesty, I would like to
11 believe they knew they had to file that
12 appeal on the day of the hearing. If I
13 believe they have withdrawn counsel at that
14 point, I would like to believe the
15 petitioners were aware of that requirement,
16 and in all good honesty I would like to
17 believe they knew they had to file that
18 appeal on the day of the hearing even though
19 the original was filed January 19, 1990 .
20 This was some last minute housekeep-
21 ing paper work that would have seriously
22 challenged the jurisdiction of this Board,
.23 because Section 267 , Subdivision 3 had not
24 been complied with. I don' t know how that
25 appeal got filed with the Building Depart-
. f
1 11
2 ment in the afternoon of the night of the
3 hearing, after the attorneys had withdrawn
4 as counsel ., . I reserved my motions . They
5 were raised before.
6 I would like to get down to the
7 merits of this a little bit, and to that
8 extent, I would like to call upon .Victor
9 Lessard to describe to the Board the basis
10 . and justification upon which a building
11 permit like this might be issued.
1Z MR. DINI.ZIO: Can I ask a question?
13 I would just like to ask a couple of ques-
14 t ions .
15 Number one is, to. your knowledge, is
16 a building permit required to clear land?
17 In other words, if you want to smooth out
18 your land, take a tree off , are you required
19 to get a building permit?
20 MR. ,MOORE: In residential property, .
21 I don' t believe so.
22 MR. DINIZIO: Number two, does it
23 require the assistance of an attorney to
24 file with the Building Department, the
25 permit?
12
2 MR. MOORE: I am not saying it does .
3 I only question that the appeal was filed
4 January 19th. The hearing was scheduled for
5 February 1 . I 'm sorry . . . February 1 . . .
6 the appeal got filed with the Building
7 Department . I am troubled by the continued
8 appearance of one of the attorneys from the
9 law firm.
10 MR. DINIZIO: But I mean, you don' t
11 have to be represented by an attorney.
12 MR. MOORE: I am not saying you have
13 to be represented by an attorney to appear
14 before the Zoning Board to file papers for
15 the Zoning Board.
16 MR. DINIZIO: Or with the Building
17 Department?
18 MR. MOORE: Or with the Building
19 Department .
20 THE CHAIRMAN: May I clear that one
21 issue up because I had a discussion with Dan
22 Ross , who is a member of the firm of Wick-
23 ham, Wickham and Bressler, in around my
24 lunch period of that particular day of
25 February 1 . He told me he was withdrawing
1 13
2 his counsel as of 4: 30 that afternoon.
3 MR,. MOORE: I had received a copy .of
4 the letter. I am CC on .that letter, as
5 well .
g THE COURT: That's what he told me.
7 He said, "What time does your office close7"
8 I said, "Five o' clock. '
9 He said, "Somebody will be there by
10 4: 30 and they ,will formally withdraw as
11 counsel ."
12 I said, ,"I am just telling you we are
13 having a jurisdictional problem in reference
14 to having this hearing or not having any
15 hearing, and at this particular point we
16 have not determined it. "
17 MR. MOORE: Thank you for the clari-
18 fication.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: That is my only
20 conversation on the letter presented to you
21 with the photocopy of the envelope post-
22 marked January 31, of a lett,er . dated
23 February 1, and the letter makes no
24 reference to the time in which or by which
25 they are withdrawing as counsel . If the
14
. 2 petitioners figured it, out and they brought
3 the papers in, that 's great.
4 I just wanted to mention that, as you
5 know; I have had discussions about this with
6 the new, Town Attorney. We have had in the
7 past sworn witnesses in and attorneys in,
8 and so on and so forth. Everybody here, we
9 know they have been before us before, in-
10 cluding 'a number of attorneys, and so on .and
11 so forth. ' We don't think that is particu-
12 larly necessary. I .just wanted you to be
13 aware of that-, _as well as myself .
14 MR. MOORE: No problem. I won't let
15 it goat that. - If we .can have perhaps
16 Victor explain the policy of the Building
17 Department and explain how the Building
18 ' Department permits get issued. I think we
i9 may be' a' long way to determining how the
20 code is interpreted, in this Town.
21 MR. LESSARD: My name is Victor
22 Lessard. I am the principal Building ,In-
23 spector for the Town of 'Southold.
24 Now would you -please ask me what you
25 want to ask. me?
1 15
2 MR. MOORE: Sure. The building
3 permit in this instant case was signed by
4 Kurt Horton. I think that 's fair to say. A
5 copy is in the file.
6 Do you agree with the decision of Mr.
7 Horton to have issued that building permit?
8 MR. LESSARD: Absolutely.
9 MR. MOORE: Would you explain for the
10 people here the basis upon which that build-
11 ing permit is issued?
12 MR. LESSARD: Before a building
13 permit can be issued, the first thing that
14 has to be researched is the fact that the
15 property that the building permit is being
16 applied for is a single and separate plot
17 that he is building on. This was done by
18 first researching that property back in
19 November of . . . I believe, 1988 . I have the
20 records here to back it up, and found that
21 this subdivision was on a separate list in
22 1966, along with 16 others . . . excepted
23 subdivisions .
24 When I first got here in 1988 , I
25 questioned that then Town Attorney about
l 16
2 these exception lists of subdivisions that
3 come and go, and his interpretation was once
4 they are almost all developed they just take
5 them off the ' list because everybody knows
6 they are excepted and it makes room for
7. others
8 When the vacant land was applied for
9 this, I said no because I had done like I
10 always 'do.. I .went to the codes back, and it
11 was not there under the present list on
12 the present list . The real estate agent:
13 that .was applying for this went down to the
14. Town Clerk's Office, where it was found on
15 this exception list, went over to the Town
16 Attorney; had. a conversation, with him, who
17 verified that it, was good, who then came
18 back to me and stated that . I then got a .
1s hold of the Town Attorney.
20 MR. MOORE: , Would you identify which .
21 Town Attorney that was?
22 MR. LESSARD: Jay Schondebare.
23 I -then verified it with the Town
24 Attorney, and: I' wrote the vacant land.
25 I also would like to say at this
1 17
2 point in time, since 1983 I have written at
3. least 98 percent, of all the .vacant land Co's
4 in Southold Town. In order to -do that you "
5 have to ,go through ,a lot of research. You
6 have to go -to the. Planning Board. You have
7 to find . out if it is an approved subdivision
8 and file. If you can't, find it there, you
9 go 'through the exception list . Ifyouu can' t
10 find it there, you, go over to the Tax Asses-
11 sor's "Office and see what they have . on
12 their's because ,every subdivision in the
13 world ,is. '.filed over there. Then if you
14 can' t find it there, you go back to what is
15 known . as the grandfather list, which I am
16 sure .this Board understands because I under-
17 stand- they were involved in that in the
18 ' 70s .
19 -Once it is found in one of those
20 planes, then I check with the Town Attorney.
21 and tell him what I have found and I get the '
22 green light from him. That is what Town
23 Attorneys are for, as far as' I am concerned.
24 They are the legal arm. This is how this
25 was. done.
1 18
1 2 While I am at it , there was reference
3 to an article in a November rag known as the
4 newspaper out here, who indicated that I had
5 done something crooked because my daughter
6 was involved in this . I want the record to
7 show that my daughter knew nothing about
8 this property until three months after that
9 vacant land was issued. Now I can under-
10 stand why this factory publishes this crap .
11 It sells newspapers and they have no regard
12 for somebody's character or whatever. But
13 again, I will state, I wrote 99 percent of
14 all of the vacant land CO' s in this Town
15 since 1983 . Okay? What else can I tell
16 you?
17 MR. MOORE: Was this property from
18 the excepted subdivision list?
19 MR. LESSARD: Yes , it was under May.
20 On the May 24, 1966 zoning code, on the last
21 page. I believe I gave the Zoning Board of
22 Appeals a copy of that .
23 THE CHAIRMAN: I never received one.
24 MR. LESSARD: I am sorry. I gave it
25 to Jim. I have it anyway.
1 19
2 MR. DINIZIO: I saw it , but I have
3 not . . .
4 MR. LESSARD: I gave a copy. I gave
5 it to you. I would also state that the
6 research goes back to 1980, about the time .
7 the grandfather list died. On a quick
8 reference, there has been at least 50 of
9 these vacant lands written, okay? I want
10 the Board to understand that .
11 MR. MOORE: Does this refer to vacant
12 land CO's on subdivisions that were on the
13 exception list but don' t appear on the list
14 now?
15 MR. LESSARD: That is correct . The
16 list that we are referring to in 1966 had 16
17 listed, and of those 16 there are three left
_18 today. These three did not move like the
19 rest of them. So they kept them, and new
20 ones were put on. Somewhere in 1970 ,
21 probably in November when the Town flipped
22 over to one acre zoning, this list was
23 changed. I am only guessing. There is no
24 resolution or anything to put on, take off ,
25 or move around.
1 20
2 I would also state, and that is in
3 1970 , the names that were added had lots
4 smaller than this one. Even though we went
5 to one acre zoning.
6 . MR. MOORE: So if I understand, there
7 were subdivisions added in 1970 . I can
8 think of one in particular, the Tuthill
9 (phonetic spelling) subdivision. Is that
10 the one you are referring to?
11 MR. LESSARD: That is one of them.
12 Yes, sir. That is five houses, I believe,
13 quarter lots off of Bray Avenue.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: In Laurel .
15 MR. MOORE: That subdivision had been
16 on the previous exception list .
17 MR. LESSARD: No, it had, not .
18 MR. MOORE: There are subdivisions on
19 the exception list today that have been on
20 the exception list since 1958 .
21 MR. LESSARD: In all probability, I
22 didn' t bother to research that . I couldn' t
23 answer that .
24 MR. MOORE: I haven't got any further
25 questions for you.
21
2 THE. CHAIRMAN: I have a couple of
3 questions . My problem is that I want the
4 code book, and it is locked in my office.
5 So if . you .wouldn' t mind . . .
6 MR.' MOORE: I have it.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Vhank' you.
8 MR. DINIZIO:, Can I ask a question?
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Of Victor?
10 MR. DINIZIO: Yes .
11 THE. CHAIRMAN: Sure.
12 MR. DINIZIO:' I just want to ask one ,.
13 question. Have you issued any vacant land
14 CO for this subdivision in -the past that
15 you can recall?
16 MR. LESSARD: I believe' I issued two
17 of them to a ,Rudy Johnson (phonetic spel,l-
18 , ing) .
19 MR,. DINIZIO: A situation adjacent to
20' the . . .
21 MR. LESSARD: Yes, they are all
22 connected, I believe: Rudy Johnson wanted
23 them because. he knew he was ,dying and he
24 wanted , to get this cleared away- for his
25 nephew and niece.
22
2 MR.' DINIZIO: You know about the
3 date what time it was?
4 _ MR.` LESSARD: Two years ago . . . three
5 years ago. There was also a house. There
s is also a vacant lot across the street from
7 in fact right next-door to. one of
8 these gentlemen here. There was issued ' a
9 permit and a brand new house went up in
10 1984. I. had no problem with it .
MR. DINIZIO: - Could you get copies of
12 that?
13 MR: LESSARD•: What's that, sir?
14 MR. . DINIZIO: Of the building permits
15 and the plans of `the vacant land CO's?
16 . ,MR. LESSARD: I will try. I will ,
17 try, certainly.
18 MR., DINIZIO: Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything
20 else, Mr. Moore? ,
21 .'MR. MOORE: Nothing for .Mr. Lessard.
22 THE. CHAIRMAN: I still have , a ques-
. 23 tion I - would like. to ask him. I am still
. 24 searching , for it, and I will be with you in
25 a moment. This is highly ,irregular, but . . .
7�7-
1 23
2 MR. MOORE: Maybe we can help you
3 find the section.
. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: No. It is not the
5 section: It .is something else . I want to,
6 look- .for,, but 'I will do it' from the top.
T. Okay. It ,is highly irregular that I do
8 this; but I- have a particular problem with
9 these vacant land CO's and this is . the
10 -second time in my history of the ten years
11 on the Zoning Board of Appeals that I have
12 comedown. One was for the code ' condos and .
13 you must excuse my writing.
14 (Whereupon.- -the Chairman began to
15 draw- on 'a blackboard..) • .
16 THE CHAIRMAN: What we have here is
17 basically two lots . We really have four
18 lots, .and truthfully, what, Vi,ctor has said
19 is exactly correct in ,reference to some of
20 . the procedures that have gone on in the past
21 within this Town in reference to grand-
22 fathers of subdivisions, and so on and so
23 forth. I can remember there .was a last
24 grandfathering of subdivisions; some 340
25 lots at one time that the Planning, Board
1 24
2 very simply ran through as an agenda item
3 and I believe I presently have them.
4 My ultimate concern is the fact that
5 many times I have felt, and it is not neces-
6 sarily this particular time, this is a
7 generalization which I am dealing with,
g that Building Departments deal with a single
9 and separate issue based upon the way they
10 perceive those particular lots to be as this
11 comes out of the Suffolk County Real Proper-
12 ty Tax Services in Riverhead and they are
13 the mappers for Suffolk County and those
14 maps are the ones that all the ten Towns
15 have and are presently contained in the
16 office of our Building Inspectors .
17 1 If we could, for a moment, deal with
18 these particular two parcels which again
19 could be four. This particular one over
20 here, which we will refer to as Parcel A,
21 Sub 1, Sub 2 and Parcel B . . . Sub 1 . . . Sub
22 2 . . . is basically one issue that I have
23 seen in the past as being somewhat of the
24 pitfall of maybe this Building Department
25 and others in question.
1 25
4
2, Parcel Avery. simply denotes two
3 lots . For the purpose of an explanation,
4 they are 50 by' 150 foot lots . The straight
5 line down the middle "of these lots very
6 simply means that these particular lots,
7 based upon the Suffolk County Property
s Services, and I am not speaking for them,
s but I happen to' know several mappers and. I
10 usetheir office quite. a lot in my
11 particular position with the County, very
12 simply means that these two lots were pur-
13 chased separately. They were purchased
14 separately.
15 There is no indication of when they
16 were purchased. If i.t was prior to zoning,
17 subsequent t.o zoning, prior to one acre
18 subdivisions, ,subsequent to two acre
19 subdivisions. " This particular. one, if we
20 can perceive it also showing the fine. dotted
21 1ine.,,''is, 1M by 150 and there is a fine. .
.22 dotted line down the center of this par
23 ticular one.
24 What this very simply means is. that
25 this parcel was bought at the same time in
1 26
2 one particular block on one particular
3 piece.
4 Now what concerns me an awful lot
5 regarding this, some of the problems we have
6 with the vacant land CO's, is that when the
7 subdivision is shown with a full line down
8 the center, and now remember these do not
9 show any improvements on them, they are
10 solid black lines, that they are perceived
11 to be in single and separate ownership
12 because that is the way they are shown in
13 the individual maps . When you have the
14 dotted line we assume that it is one piece.
15 Now in the encroachment there would be a
16 house here or there would be a house over
17 the whole center of the line . . . same situa-
18 tion over here. The house could be in the
19 center and we wouldn' t know that unless we
20 had a survey.
21 What , in effect , I have been saying
22 is that this is not a proper procedure in
23 dealing with the application by an outside
24 applicant or person in this Town or out of
25 this Town in requesting a vacant land CO.
27
2 I thank you" for ,.bearing with me and
3 my illustrations. The only question `I have
4 of Mr. Lessard is that it is my understand-
5 ing in the code respective of the issue of a
6 1966. exception list or 1989 exception list, .
7 it is clearly ,stated, in my understanding,
8 that. the Building Inspector is to request a
s single and separate search for the
10 particular; parcel that is requesting that
11 vacant land CO. That is my understanding.
12 Now -if .I am incorrect in. that; why am I
13 incorrect -in that?
14 MR. LESSARD:, It is my understanding,
15 through three attorneys now that work for
16 the Town, that if it is an improved sub-
17 division, ;if'. it is-,an excepted subdivision,
18 it doesn't need a title search, number one.
19 We put that in. We put that in two years
20 ago or whatever it was, Gerry, and, if you go
21 see the. so-called title searches that I have
22 . looked at, I believe I found one in the last
23 15 that were zoned bogus :
24 As far as. this diagram is concerned,
25 yes, if you have 'two lots indicated with a
1 28
2 solid line, the control factor on that would
3 be subdivision or no, where that house is .
4 If that house is going through that middle
5 line, that person will not get a permit
6 until he gets an attorney who files a paper
7 with the surveyor's office merging those two
8 lots .
s The dotted lines are good examples of
10 that . . The Nassau Point properties show up
11 to six dotted lines on what the County
12 considers one piece. We have Nassau Point
13 properties, one, two, three and four ex-
14 cepted. It tears me up to have to say yes .
15 They are separate lots . Okay. Some of them
16 are 40 feet wide, but the law is the law.
17 Now as far as the County is con-
18 cerned, this is the greatest problem in the
19 world for the Building Department because
20 back in the '70s, in the grandfather list
21 and all of that, people had the bad habit of
22 hiring an attorney, laying out the property,
23 circumventing the Town, filing with the
24 County, and we have to pick that up and say,
25 "Fine, but now you have to come here to the
83
29
a
2 Planning Board and property subdivide ac-
3 cording to the Town rules . "
4 Case in point, Blue Horizons up here
5 in Peconic, even when we had accepted the
g Master Plan and you can see it on the map.
7 I will take you right out there. There are
8 48 lots in Blue Horizons, but there isn' t .
9 There are eight lots up on the Sound. The
10 rest is laid out to preserve, but that was a
11 bad habit here in the '70s . To hell with
12 the Town. We will circumvent them, get an
13 attorney for help, and bound file them with
14 the County.
15 Another problem I had in the early
16 part of the ' 80s, the law says when you have
17 a minor subdivision, the applicants , not the
18 Planning Board, the applicants must file
19 with the County within 90 days or the sub-
20 division becomes mute. I can take you in
21 the Planning Board and show you 200 lots
22 that never hit the County, the so-called set
23 off nonsense they were doing out here. That
24 is another problem. It is not an easy
25 matter. In fact , we talked to the attorney.
r
_ 30
2 I don' t believe this Town will ever
3 issue any more vacant lands. It isn' t worth
4 it .
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that ,
6 Victor, but I thought the reason for the
7 single and separate search was to clear that
8 matter up. I. thought that was the reason
9 for . . . in 1988 , the reason for making that .
10 MR. LESSARD: That is true, Gerry,
11 but this Town Attorney said to me if it is
12 an improved subdivision or on the excepted
13 list there is no need for the search. It is
14 there. The record is there. The record is
15 in the assessor's office. The only time
16 that you go for that is if there is no clear
17 subdivision that has been approved. Now you
18 want to know how that lot got there and the
19 chain of command obviously.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: You are referring to
21 prescribed property only.
22 MR. LESSARD: Absolutely.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: The problem I have is
24 that when I discussed this with Mr. Hills
25 (phonetic spelling) on or about the loth of
4
31
2 December" 1989, I turned' to the excepted list
3 and the present code and, . of course, did not
a "" "find the amended map of Mattituck' Properties
5 on that . On that basis I called and said to
6 him, at . that particular time,. that I didn' t
7 see it there -and it _does. not appear to be.
8 excepted" at this- particular point, meaning
. 9 excepted;, . and for the life of me I don'.t
10 'know "how " one can go back to a 1966 code.
11 Now I understand that is what Jay"
12 Schondebare did,, because. I spoke to him
13 concurrently the next" day after " I spoke to
14 Mr. Hills And he told me he spoke to the
15 . prior surveyor who was imported by the Town ,
16 at one time, and he indicated to me that
17 what you .had given as testimony tonight" was
18 the reason for these excepted lists, or.
19 excepting them, and therefore the loss of
20 these will. not., be carried through to the
21 entire `code up to ,the present day.
22 The only probl,em I have with - that is
23 that in 1966 'it would be assumed that this'
24 " particular subdivision could be on the
25 excepted list, because we had 12 ,500. square .
l
1 32
2 foot zoning at that time. Our zoning .was
3 100 by 125 . Those lots are 50 by 150 . So
4 they have very simply lacked by 5,000 square
5 feet, the normal square footage that would
6 have made them actually legal . That was the
7 reason why I assumed they were on the 1966
8 code. I mean, I could be wrong.
9 MR. MOORE: If I could interject . If
10 I understand you, doesn' t it make a lot of
11 sense to be on the excepted list if the
12 subdivision at the time comprise what the
13 zoning at that time?
14 THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. That
15 is the reason they were on it .
16 MR. MOORE: You have identified the
17 problem here, which is the January 1989
18 adoption of the new Master Plan included in
19 this new version of 100-244. That section
20 of the code doesn' t work with the exception
21 list . It just doesn't make sense. One of
22 it has to go, and you hear the Building
23 Department is doing its very best to inter-
24 pret and apply the code, and the back end of
25 the new code is this nonconforming lot
r �t
—lJ f
1 33
2 provision requiring single and separate
3 search. If the Building Department inter-
4 pretation is that it was from the exception
5 list and those 1966 lists are still good, he
6 is not going to say I need a single and
7 separate search. That 's where you get the
8 problem with the code, in that respect.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: We don' t have a
10 problem with the code, because I said to Jay
11 Schondebare at that particular point . . . I
12 said I will take it to the Board. But in
13 his office, at that particular point , as I
14 sat in his office I told him that the 1966
15 code no longer applies . It is phased out .
16 It is no longer with us . We are dealing
17 with it based upon the 1989 code. There-
1s fore, this lot to stand would require a set
19 off by this Board and very simply a process
20 of the Planning Board, which you are aware
21 of , because we do it concurrently.
22 MR. LESSARD: Two things , Gerry, so
23 we don' t go too far afield here. The vacant
24 land was issued under the other code, not
25 the Master Plan code. Going back to our
i
_0
34
2 theory of this 1966 lot being X amount of
3 feet short of 12, 500 , using that theory, how
4 do "you justify going into 1971,, or November
5 20, 1970., intd. one acre zoning by putting on
6 the, exception list something that goes down
7 to- 51000 feet, one-third smaller than the ,
8 ones that were on there? I don't understand
9 the theory '. ,
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Well , the only thing I
1) can; tell you, if this is a historical docu-
12: ment, of, what- is happening in this Town, very
13 simply, before the adoption of that par--
14 ticular -situation - of going from 12 ,500 to
15 20 ,000 square foot lots, which was a re-
16 quirement by the Health Department, then to
17 one acre zoning. That was in 1971, as of
18 January' l; 1971 . . . ,was prior to that date
19 the Planning Board was asked to. look at all
20 the subdivisions and to make a determination
211, in 45 ' percent.. Those subdivisions were
22. built, were improved, and that is what
23 basically ended 'up on. the accepted list for
24 the new code in 1971.
25. Now; if you ask me -presently what
r
1 35
2 that means , I don' t know. I assume whatever
3 ended up on that accepted list in 1971, that
4 is what they had simply looked at . Now they
5 may have missed one or two, but John Wickham
6 who was the Chairman at that time, or Henry
7 Raynor (phonetic spelling) could probably
8 answer the question better than I could.
9 All I can tell you is there was one, and
10 there was subdivisions on that list . They
11 are available.
12 It was not my suggestion that the
13 prior Town Attorney should be asking a
14 surveyor in this Town how that was arrived
15 at. That person was not an employee of that
16 Town at the time that either the ' 66 sub-
17 division exception list was produced, or the
18 '71, or ' 72 , or ' 73 . . . whatever the situa-
19 tion is when those areas were revised and
20 that is what concerns me. Because I think,
21 Victor, you got bad information. I mean, I
22 really do. I think he should have come to
23 us first before he issued that letter and he
24 should have asked us .
25 MR. LESSARD: Who is that?
Y
1 36
2 THE CHAIRMAN: The prior Town Attor-
3 ney, and he should have said to us what do
a you think, because I really don' t think that
5 information was correct because he was
6 relying on a person who is not an employee
7 of the Town . . . certainly had tremendous
8 things for historic value to what exists . . .
9 but was not from the inside of the Town . . .
10 was not a member of the Planning Board and
11 certainly . . . I mean, if I was going to ask
12 a question, I would call John Wickham.
13 He is the biggest source of informa-
14 tion. The man is 76 years old and he is a
15 tremendous reference to historical back-
16 ground, just as Charlie is . . . excuse me for
17 mentioning . . . at 73 . Serge is in Europe
18 now. He is not with us .
19 MR. LESSARD: I have a problem in
20 this respect . This was started, a practice
21 long before I got here, because it was a
22 standard practice. I don' t know what the
23 Town is going to do, because now we are
24 going one step further. You could have as
25 many as 100 . . . 150 of these not acceptable
1 37
2 vacant land that had been built on. Do you
3 realize the chaos it is going to start and
4 what legal basis are you going to rely on?
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have to
6 rely on the fact that the vacant land CO is
7 really not worth the paper it is written on.
8 MR. LESSARD: I knew that part .
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Number two, that every
10 one of these vacant land CO' s should require
11 a set off by this Board and concurrently by
12 the Planning Board, and that is really the
13 only way you can deal with it . So what I am
14 asking is that from this particular point
15 on, that is basically the area that is
16 adhered to so we don' t have any more of
17 these problems . And if the legislative
18 committee, which was organized and used to
19 be the committee, which is part of this town
20 which alters or modifies this particular
21 code, feels that there are other
22 subdivisions that should be placed on this
23 exception list, or accepted list, meaning
24 existing subdivisions we add to the list , we
25 run over it and add to the list .
38
If 2 My concern is that at - 80.,000 square
3 feet this particular subdivision is not in
4 that exception list . - Very simply, we have
5 7 ,500- square foot lots, and that I assume is
6 the reason why it is not there.
7 MR., LESSARD: We have a lot of 5 ,000
8 square foot lots that are on -that list . If
9 we a're 'going to take that- attitude . . . we,
10 the, Town, :;then I strongly suggest. we
11 eliminate all exceptions, all accepted
12 lists. There is no way in my mind that you
13, can take the 10 or 12 or whatever thousand
14 square, foot lot -and say we are in two acre
15 zoning 'because the next thing that follows
16 is the guy next-door wants . to cut his in
17 half because it is inconsistent with the
18 area.. With the domino theory and without
19 realizing, you. can forget the two acre
20 - zoning. -You are down to all quarter acres .
21 I. don't know what is going to come
r ,
22 out of this . All I can see, at this point ,
23 is there is going to be one hell of a lot of
24 chaos, around here. All I, did, I . . . the
25 Building Department did, was follow practice
y
_93
1 39
2 that was set long before I got here. I used
3 the Town Attorneys . Mr. Tacka (phonetic
4 spelling) mostly. Bless him. He is gone.
5 That is where I learned my business from.
6 He wrote the book, and subsequently I worked
7 through three other Town Attorneys .
8 I don' t know what else I can tell
s you. I live with this thing seven days a
10 week. That may be where the difference is .
11 I don' t know.
12 MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, you have
13 made some comments this evening which have
14 given me some food for thought , some avenues
15 of research and some I would like to look
16 into if I may.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Concerning this hear-
18 ing?
19 MR. MOORE: Yes . You raised some
20 information here which could help me. I
21 would like to explore it . My request would
22 be to adjourn the hearing, not to close it,
23 tonight . So perhaps we can explore this
24 matter a little further.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: We will see who else
' 40
2 wants to speak, and we will discuss it after
3 that . The- purpose of this hearing tonight
4 was to include this one and the other one. '
5 MR. MOORE: I am sorry. I didn't
g gather than from the information I had , in
7 the transcript or otherwise.
8 MR: 'LESSARD: So there is no con-
9 fusion, I had a letter from the Town to be
10 here. I am not here to take either side. I
11 want that very clearly understood here.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. I appreciate
13 that, Victor. I don't think there is any
14 animosity.
15 MR. LESSARD: -, I don't want animosity.
16 That is not why I am here. We have a
17 problem and I want the answer to it.
18 THE..CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there any-
19 thing you would like to say, gentlemen?
20 MR. OCHSENRETER: Yes . I do not
21 object to the building permit that was
1
22 issued in 1984, two houses down from me,
23 because I understood that, the single and
24 separate ownership. I didn' t get into this
25 on personalities, relationships, real or
1 41
2 imagined. I felt because 1 owned a piece
3 of property contiguous to mine , that,
4 that lot was not built on the same as my lot
5 was . . . not buildable . . . because when we
6 first bought it in 1973 we got two tax bills
7 and those properties were merged sometime
8 after that . We: get one tax bill .
g There has been a lot of property sold
10 in that neighborhood where people in goon
11 faith believed they could not build on, them.
12 and that was my understanding and that is
13 the basis that I presented this petition. on.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you; sir .
15 Is there anything you want to say for
16 the record' You called me .
17 MS . ARMBRUST: Dorothy Armbrust , 595
18 Bayer road, adjacent to the property in.
19 question . 1 have lived there since 1930 ,
20 The house has keen up there since 1972 , and
21 I sold the property . The lot was left to me
22 by my mother in 1950 , and her name was hatey
23 Parizot , and in 1950 . . . and I held onto it ,
24 the lot , until I felt that I could not tale
25 care of it myself .
42
2 The Bettners (phonetic spelling)
3 inquired about it, and I sold it to the
a Bettners . ' I inquired at the Town Hall and
5 was told as long as -I held the lot I could
6 build on it, but after it was once sold to
the Bettners, it could not be built on any
8 longer because that was the law at the time.
9 I don't know who I spoke with.
10 My husband was alive at the time and
11 he is now deceased 11 years . So he probably
12 knows what . date it was, and I think it was
13 about .' 68 . The Bettners held it, I believe,
14 until 1972 when they sold it to the Spanos ,
15 and that was the way the property stood
16 until the Spanos sold it in June of '89. I
17 had been in the hospital and I did not know
18 too much about it; but they came and sur-
19 veyed and said that property couldn't be
20 built upon because I. was told it could not
21 be built on once it left my hands.
22 I . don' t know if there is something
23 wrong in the Town Board, as far as I can
24 see, if they changed their minds . I was not
25 notified that it was bought separately to be
_9 -
43
2 a lot to be built on. Had I been notified
3 . . . but then I had been in the hospital . . .
4 but there was no mail to that effect . So I
5 did not know.
6 That 's all I can say. I really don' t
7 approve of the property, but . . .
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
9 MS. ARMBRUST: Because I think I
10 should have been contacted before it was to
11 be built on, but I did not receive any
12 information beforehand.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you
14 for coming out tonight .
15 Is there anybody else that would like
16 to speak in the applicant's behalf?
17 MR. LENCESKI : Edward Lenceski .
18 Specifically looking at the situation which
19 our petition presented to the Zoning Board,
20 okay, is a situation where Lot Numbers 35
21 and 36 were deeded as one single lot of
22 dimensions 100 by 150 to the Spanos back in
23 1972 . In 1972 a certificate of occupancy
24 for a one family dwelling on a lot 100 by
25 150 was issued by the Building Department .
i
44
2 In November of 1989, a vacant land CO
3 was issued by Mr. Lessard. We do not know
4 who applied for that permit . My understand-
s ing when I contacted the Town concerning
6 dividing my property which is across the
7 street, which is a very similar situation, I
8 was told that, number one, I would have to
9 apply for the variance through the Town.
10 For what? From what I understand, a
11 variance means notifying all the neighbors
12 and having a hearing from the Zoning Board
13 to see if this would be approved.
14 Now this situation, a lot across the
15 street, Lot Numbers 35 and 36, none of the
16 neighbors were notified. This miraculously
17 was done. This lot was split into two. We
18 don' t know how it was done. No variance was
19 ever applied for, from what I understand.
20 We talk about an exception list. We
21 know in January of ' 89, that Mattituck
22 Heights subdivision was deleted. Our peti-
23 tion is how was any building permit issued
24 by the Building Department?
25 At the last hearing we had discussed
1 45
2 our timeliness and why did we wait so long
3 to do this . I remember when, when that
4 foundation went in, in August of '89, we had
5 no idea what was going up there. When the
6 building permit was posted, we could have
7 gone to the Town and questioned under that
8 building permit what was going on there.
9 We didn't know if it was a garage.
10 There was a rumor in the neighborhood it was
11 going to be a swimming pool . This was a
12 rumor. We did not understand. We did not
13 know what was going on. There was a period
14 of time, from August until February, when no
15 construction at all was done. We do not
16 understand why, if somebody was putting up a
17 house, why there was such a long delay. I
18 don' t know . . . about a foundation took that
19 long to cure . . . but that is not the point
20 here.
21 Getting back to the originally deeded
22 lot that was in the name of Spano, our
23 petition asked the Town Board how a permit
24 was issued and how is this subdivided in
25 this respect? That 's all I can say at
1 46
2 this time.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
4 MR. LENCESKI : Thank you.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else?
6 Is there anything you would like to say in
7 rebuttal?
8 MR. ZAHRA: Charles Zahra: I have
9 been going through this for three years . It
10 is a matter of record that I have viewed
11 many documents in Town Hall over this period
12 of time. I have been observing this case
13 and I think the merits of this case fall on
14 two documents . They are the building zone
15 ordinances of the Town of Southold, which is
16 one dated May 24, 1966, and it lists all the
17 subdivision exceptions, including the
18 property in question.
f
19 As was mentioned before, and the
20 amendment of 10/30/73 , which is, I believe,
E
i
21 was incorrectly stated before . . . I think
22 someone mentioned 1970 . . . and you will find
23 you won' t find any of the subdivision lists
24 from 1966 on this.. Basically, that means
l
25 that in this amendment it caused the
f
47
2 subdivisions to be completely deleted just
3 as any other ordinance would have the same
4 effect . I have two copies to submit to you.
5 Mr. Lessard mentioned one of the
6 problems he foresees is a lot of these
7 houses have been built and now could be
s deemed illegally built . I would think the
s more serious problem is if this Board
10 upholds what Mr. Lessard has done, I think
11 it opens the floodgates to all of the sub-
12 divisions to now come in and apply to have
13 to build homes. Even to the extent of an
14 individual having a house up, now having it
15 torn down. He may try possibly.
16 I know of a situation where houses
17 have been built on four and five lots, one
18 house with maybe a swimming pool . It would
19 behoove him to level that property and now
20 built four or five houses , and I think we
21 are talking about many homes . . . one
22 hundred. That is basically all I have to
23 say.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
25 MS. GARCIA: Corrine Lessard-Garcia.
r
48
2 I own the property adjacent to the Inland
3 Home house. Clearing up a couple of mat-
4 ters, at my closing, first, my sister-in-
5 law Susan Lessard researched it . There were
g two separate deeds at my closing. We paid
7 two separate tax bills, single and separate.
8 There was never a rumor going around in the
s neighborhood of a swimming pool . Mr. Zahra
10 was overhead at the last hearing telling Mr.
11 Lenceski , "You should have told him it was a
12 swimming pool . " That is what we are dealing
13 with here. It is not all facts .
14 The facts are there are two separate
15 tax bills . I paid two separate tax bills at
16 the closing, Town and County. That is all I
17 have to say.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
19 MS. GARCIA: Also, one more thing.
20 Mr. Ochsenreter is an employee of the
21 Health Department. Now if they were so
22 worried about what I was doing across the
23 street, I went through the Health Department
24 . . . Mr. Raynor (phonetic spelling) , I
25 believe in January, before I even bought the
7
t
/a3
49
2 property, and got their approval . Now it is
3 professional courtesy for him to go and find
4 out these are the systems you have to go
5 through. You have to go to the Health
g Department to get permission to do these
7 things . If there was something going on,
8 the paper work was finished in January. He
9 could have very easily gone and looked it
10 up. Thank you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
12 MR. OCHSENRETER: I would like to say
13 something. I do separate my private life
14 from my business life. I work for the
15 swimming pool and bathing beach section. I
16 have nothing to do with wastewater manage-
17 ment . I keep them separate.
18 MR. ZAHRA: This lady just mentioned
19 that she overhead me speaking to Mr. Lences-
20 ki , instructing him to tell the Board it was
21 in fact a swimming pool . This is totally
22 incorrect . If she wanted to join in the
23 conversation, I would have invited her in.
24 What basically had been said . . . Mr.
25 Lenceski at an earlier moment mentioned to
f
Y
1 50
2 me that he was told, as well as Mr. Ochsen-
3 reter, that it was a swimming pool . That is
4 what she overheard me saying . . . was to Mr .
5 Lenceski : Sure. Go tell the Board what was
6 told to you. That it was a swimming pool .
7 Okay.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
s MR. ZAHRA: Now she mentioned a point
10 on having single and separate tax deeds on
11 the property. And this brings up . . . I
12 didn't want to bring this up. I didn' t
13 think it was necessary because it is not a
14 subdivision, but I find a lot of
15 similarities in this case, that is of Mr.
16 Hines, better known to everyone here as The
17 Candy Man, out in East Marion. I would also
18 like to mention Mr. Tohill defended The
19 Candy Man in an article that was an Article
20 78 proceeding and he lost. I would just
21 like to mention, and enter into the record,
22 a couple of articles from that Article 78
23 proceeding stating why he lost . as well
24 . . . why the petitioner lost.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you just give a
r
r
/Q S-
1 51
2 little foundation on how you do show a
3 similarity?
4 MR. ZAHRA: I compare the Hines case
5 in Orient to this case with regards to the
6 property being single and separate. It did
7 have single and separate tax cards . I have
8 copies of them here. I will submit them.
9 Mr . Hines also had single and separate tax
10 cards when he went in to fight his rights
11 and was denied them. It is an Article 78
12 proceeding. I just jumped around here in
13 the interest of time.
14 In one paragraph it says that
15 petitioner's property was purchased as two
16 separate parcels . One was purchased in ' 82 ,
17 and the second parcel purchased in '84. The
18 Clerk includes that merge, did a hear by
19 operation of 100-31 of the Zoning Ordinance
20 of the Town of Southold, which excepts lots
21 held in single and separate ownership prior
22 to '71 , from the new one acre requirement .
23 Since petitioner's parcels were purchased in
24 ' 62 and ' 64, merge occurred in ' 64.
25 I ' ll hand that up, if you will give
all
52
2 me a second to get this stuff together.
3 I want to mention one other thing
4 with regards to being timely, as Mr . Tohill
5 said, and Mr. Moore tonight again. In Mr.
6 Hines' case, the building permit was issued
7 on March 22 , 1985 to contract a one family
8 dwelling on this parcel . December 23, 1985,
9 Mr. Hines received the stop work order and
10 revocation of his permit from the Building
11 Department or with taxes being timely, with
12 taxes being eight months later. I just want
13 to mention that for the record. These are
14 single and separate tax cards of Mr. Hines ,
15 basically the same as the Garcias . . . who
16 are now Mr. Hines . I will just hand this
17 stuff up and I will be finished here.
18 One other item I would like to hand
19 up is Exhibit B of Mr. Tohill 's Article 78
20 to the Court . You have a record of this,
21 Gerry, in your office. This is where I
22 copied this material from, for the benefit
23 of Mr. Moore. One paragraph, it says : Each
24 parcel has received a single tax invoice
25 from the Town of Southold.
53
2 I am finished, Gerry. I will just
3 get this together.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Lessard?
5 MR. LESSARD: I did not want to stick
6 my nose into this latest thing, but I
7 couldn't let this thing go by and confuse
8 the issue here tonight .
9 First of all , Mr. Hines did not have
10 an approved or excepted subdivision. Mr.
11 Hines had two lots that he put in the iden-
12 tical name, as this Board is very well aware
13 of, because it came to this Board. Mr.
14 Hines came in and said to me, because I
15 wrote the permit, that they were single and
16 separate and he flashed two tax things I saw
17 here. Mr. Hines got his permit and sat on
18 it until after the fruit crop that he had on
19 that second piece of property had matured,
20 which put him into late October.
21 So that knocked the hell out of that
22 time argument I just heard as to bearing on
23 what we are talking about tonight . We are
24 mixing apples and oranges here, and I damn
25 well don't believe it should crowd this
r
54
2 issue at all . Otherwise, I wouldn' t have
3 said anything.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
5 MR. DINIZIO: Can I ask you a ques-
6 tion?
7 What was the outcome of the Zoning
8 Board's hearing on Mr. Hines?
9 MR. LESSARD: What was the outcome?
10 He had bogus applications . He did not have
11 an approved subdivision. He already had two
12 or maybe three houses on the other one lot .
13 There was a lot of reasons why the Board . . .
14 if you check the records in the Zoning Board
15 of Appeals you find out right away what it
16 is all about.
17 MR. DINIZIO: Article 78 we just
18 heard about was after that .
19 MR. LESSARD: Yes .
20 THE CHAIRMAN: It went to the Supreme
21 Court and they reaffirmed our decision.
22 Mr. Moore, is there something you
23 would like to tell us on what you are look-
24 ing into? I would really dearly like to
25 close this hearing.
r,
1 55
2 MR. MOORE: I understand. I would
3 like to explore that exception list, and you
4 have indicated some fruitful avenues of
5 information.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you do that?
7 MR. MOORE: The other half was, Mr.
8 Lessard mentioned issuing several , I don't
9 know, vacant land CO's or building permits
10 on similarly situated exception area sub-
11 divisions . I would like to explore that
12 fully. That may take time.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: We will put you on for
14 the last hearing on the 19th, but I want to
15 keep the testimony brief so that we can wrap
16 it up.
17 MR. MOORE: That would be fine.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I don' t say that it 's
19 going to be a pretty good hearing. There is
20 going to be a lot of people here. I don' t
21 mean in reference to the numbers. I am
22 talking the length of time of hearings and
23 that is the only thing I can offer you at
24 this particular point .
25 Does anybody have any objections
—//6
1 56
2 to that?
3 MR. DINIZIO: No. I would like to
4 have the tax, accurate tax . . .
5 THE CHAIRMAN: You want a bill?
6 MR. DINIZIO: The bills .
7 MR. MOORE: Tax bills we can get you.
8 MR. DINIZIO: I would just like to
9 have copies of them.
10 MR. MOORE: That can be easily accom-
11 modated.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Zahra has one
13 other question or statement, if you wouldn' t
14 mind.
15 MR. ZAHRA: I would just like to say
16 one other thing with regard to the material
17 I submitted to you, with reference to The
18 Candy Man or Mr. Hines ' property. My focus
19 of attention was on the fact that he had
20 single and separate tax codes .
21 That is basically it , Gerry, okay?
22 And you have to understand I know so little
23 about zoning.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
25 Anything further from anyone that
r
M
1 57
2 might not be here on the 19th or there-
3 abouts?
4 Hearing nothing further, seeing no
5 further hands, I make a motion recessing the
6 hearing until the 19th, which we will
7 readvertise if there is a minor change in
8 the date, along with all the other hearings .
9 MR. DINIZIO: Second.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
11 MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
12 MR. SAWICKI : Aye.
13 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much
15 for your courtesy and for coming in.
16 Thank you, Victor, for your opinion
17 and concern in stating the case.
18 (Time noted: 9: 34 p.m. )
19
20
21
I , GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that
22 I am an Official Court Reporter, and that the foregoing
constitutes a true and correct transcript according to my
23 official stenographic notes .
24
GAIL ROSCHEN
25 Official Court Reporter