HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/25/1990 HEARING T
1
w 1 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --?-
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
2
-------------------------------------x
3
4 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
HEARING,
5
-------------------------------------x
6 Town Hall
53095 Main Road
7
P.O. Box 1179
a 8 Southold, New York
9 July 25, 1990
9 : 00 P.M.
10
11 B E R 0 R E:
12 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman
13
14 BOARD MEMBERS:
15 CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. , Absent
16 SERGE DOYEN, JR.
0
17 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI , Absent
0
18 JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
0
19
m
20 A L S 0 P R E S E N T:
0
21 DOREEN FERWERDA, Secretary
W
6
22
23
_24 GAIL ROSCHEN
Official Court Reporter
25
1 2
2 (Continuing hearing of Applicant Number
3 3955, in behalf of Dominick Sblendido and
4 A. Auricchio)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I need a motion to
6 reconvene.
7 MR. DOYEN: Second.
m
a
8 THE CHAIRMAN: There is a gentleman in
9 the center of the room that would like to speak
10 DR. ROCHE: Dr. Marvin Roche, 480 Inlet
11 Lane, corner. house..
12 I don' t understand all these legal terms
13 I am not so smart. I don' t think that I can
14 cast any light on these issues. I feel very
15 emotional about the whole deal, and I hope that
16 an expression of emotion might help the
m
0
17 committee reach a proper conclusion.
0
18 I live on Inlet Lane, and everybody
s
19 coming to visit me feels the same. Half the
W
Z
a
20 houses are waterfront. Each house has a
m
0
21 beautiful lawn full of trees and shrubs, and
a
22 the trunks of the trees cast shadows in the
23 day and in the night from the street lamps.
24 There are 10 , 672 birds, and we all love them.
25 Into that country atmosphere comes
1 3
2 this, what is going on now. It is a house
3 right on top of the street and, hard to
4 believe, they cut down every blessed tree
5 front and back. Could there be a human being
6 that hates trees and birds? No. Why were
7 these trees cut down? Well, if they are going
m
m
a
8 to have a two-family house, how many people
9 live in each one of these two families? Two
10 people? Don' t you believe it. There is going
11 to be many more. There is going to be six,
12 eight, God knows how many cars parked out
13 there. Well, you cannot park in the street
14 in Inlet Lane. Where are they going to park,
15 on the beach? No. They are going to park on
16 their lawn. They have to get rid of their
0
0
17 trees . Well, I just spent $300 , 000 renovating
a
18 my house because I love the area, because I
0
19 can' t find any area I would rather be in. But
w
20 I don' t want to live in this house, which is
m
s 21 quite a gorgeous house, in a multiple dwelling
0
Z
22 block.
23 Not multiple dwelling. It is just one
24 house made into two families. Well, don' t
25 you believe it. If I want to sell my house
• S-
1 4
2 because I .don' t want to live there now, if that
3 is the way the streets are going to be, you
4 can' t sell houses now. I would have to take
5 a heck of a loss, if I sold it now.
6 Well, I have a way out, just like the
7 people across the way from me took a way out.
m
m
a
8 They rented their house. Well, if I was going
9 to rent my house because I want to get out,
10 I would never make enough money to cover any-
11 thing in the house. But I sure would better
12 my situation if I made it a multiple dwelling.
13 I don' t know the difference between multiple
14 dwelling and two-family, but I do know I
15 have a very large beautiful library, as big
16 as this room -- not the whole room -- well, I
0
m
17 could convert that libary into a kitchen, a
0
0
18 living room, and a bedroom. It would be
o r
19 gorgeous, and I have many other rooms in the
W
20 house. I could twist that around and take a
'a
m
s 21 lot of people in and call it a two-family.
m
a
22 I would request a variance. What right
23 have you to give them a variance and not me?
_ 24 You do not have such a right. It would be
25 discriminatory to everybody. Those that are
1 5
2 disgusted with what is happening in' Inlet Lane
3 and want to get out would request a variance.
4 So this Board is being asked to give anyone
5 on Inlet Lane the right to a variance to
6 change their house to a money-making situation.
m
7 So I say that it would be a terrible
m
a
8 mistake; but I' also see that these people who
9 built this house are having a hardship. They
10 went ahead and built a monstrosity right on
11 top of the road and now what are they going to
12 do? Should we say you can' t live in it? Should
13 we say you have to tear it down? I think that
14 would be a terrible hardship. Do _you? The
15 original mistake was, why on earth were they
16 given permission to do it from scratch?
0
= 17 When they first started to build that
0
0
18 house and I saw two doors, two entrances, two
s
19 hallways, obviously a two-family house regard-
m
20 less of -what the legal definition is . So I
0
21 went to the builder and I asked him, "Is this
22 going to be a two-family house?"
23 He said, "Absolutely not. "
24 So I said to my neighbors it is not
25 going to be a two-family, but it sure is clear.
6
2 Who needs two doors in one hall exactly alike?
3 Any way you twist it, with the kitchen or
4 without a kitchen, that house is a two-family
5 house and there should be some way that this
6 Board prevents two families from living in that
m
7 house.
m
a
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Doctor.
9 Is, there anybody else that would like to
10 speak in opposition? Sir?
11 MR. TASKER: Arthur Tasker. I live at
12 17 Beach Road, Greenport, where I have spent
13 the summers there for the last 45 years in a
14 little cottage colony of about 100 -- 150 .
15 As I say, I have spent the last 45 summers
16 there and it is a place we love very well. I
0
0
17 am also the Vice President of the Property
0
18 Owners' Association there, an 'informal group,
19 and although I do not speak tonight for the
W
20 Association, I know I have the support of many
m
0
21 residents in Sandy Beach as the area is known.
22 I don' t think I can add anything specifically
23 in addition to what Ms. Ongioni said and Dr.
24 Roche spoke of. I just want to add that I am
25 very strongly opposed to the project as it was
Ir r
7
2 proposed and it was permitted, and as it was
3 demonstrated. I make the distinction because
4 each is different.
5 This project has been led down the
6 garden path every step of the way. I think that
7 has to present a couple of questions we need
a
$ to look at. First of all, why was zoning
9 actually -- construction should be checked for
10 conformity with the site plan and on the
11 construction drawing. Why weren' t the various
12 aspects of the house, where it clearly indicate
13 it is a two-family house -- why weren' t these
14 factors noticed and questioned at the time the
15 Building Department inspected the layout or
16 inspected the foundation or inspected the
0
E 17 framing, or the rough wiring or the plumbing?
0
0
18 After all, if these were evident to people who
s
19 are not in the construction, they should have
W
m
20 been evident to the Building Department.
0
21 If the building does comply with the
Z
W
22 plans which were submitted, how is it that the
23 Building Department approved these plans in
24 the first place? Even to a lay person they
25 are not in conformity with the Building Codes
1 8_
2 and zoning regulations of the Town.
3 I suggest possible answers. First,
4 what I call the Chinatown attitude. I am not
5 sure 'how many of you recall the movie China-
6 town, where Jack Nicholson was intending to
m
7 investigate an incident that took place in
m
a
8 Chinatown. Leave it alone. It is Chinatown.
9 I suggest 'the situation here might be,
10 well, leave it alone. It is Greenport. Possib y
11 the Building Department is so preoccupied with
12 its war with Mr. Zahra with issues of question-
13 able vacant land certificates, occupancy, and
14 erroneous building permits on land which is
15 invalid, in which is involved a relative of
16 the Building Department and also the issue of
0
17 construction permits on another road on Main
18 Street which flies in the face of the master
S
19 plan and zoning ordinances. I suggest that
20 in this application, on Inlet Lane, the Town
0
21 will again be in a no win situation, which
22 ever way this is decided. The loser will file
23 another Article 78 proceeding and we residents
:24 will once again shoulder. "the .burden of
25 financing another lawsuit arising from the
9
2 alleged malfeasance of the Building Department.
3 I think Mr. Tober, in his remarks,
4 said obviously the Board cannot undo everything
5 that was done. In fact, the Board can undo
6 what has been done. Ms. Ongioni cited a
m
7 situation in which the building was required
a
S to go down when it was not in confirmation.
9 I suggest that at least the permit or the
10 application should be denied, and further I
11 would strongly urge this Board to require that
12 the building be brought in confirmation with
13 the building zoning in all respects.
14 Thank you.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
16 Is there anybody else that would like
0
0
17 to speak?
0
18 DR. MACY: Joseph Macy, 129 Inlet Lane.
s
= 19 We have been there for over 20 years . A year
W
Z
m
20 ago we completed the extension and building
0
a
21 of .our house and conformed with all the
W
22 building requirements that the Town of Southold
23 asked for. It is quite obvious this is very
_24 upsetting to us. I would just like to echo
25 what Dr. Roche has said. I would like to say
10
2 I agree with all of his statements.
3 I believe Mrs. Macy would also like to
4 speak.
5 MRS. MACY: I am Mrs. Macy. I reside
6 at the same address, 129 Inlet Lane.
m
7 I would like to address the Board this
m
a
8 evening, personally, because during the period
9 of time our home was being constructed by
10 Richard Siata (phonetic) , and his brother,
11 Robert who is here this evening, I was the one
12 that actually did most of the overview of the
13 project. During that period of time several
14 things were very evident:
15 1) I am astonished that something
16 like this can happen on the basis of my own
0
0
17 experience. I have to say that when we started
4
18 this project, we had completely different
19 plans that evolved to the house we finally
w
20 built. The reason the plans changed was
m
0
21 because the Town of Southold came in and said,
u
z
W
22 no, I couldn' t do that. There were changes
23 in the Department of Environmental Conser-
_24 vation rulings. There were all sorts of things
25 that had to be complied with, and the Town of
11
2 Southold was extremely strict with us and we
3 complied and we complied willingly because we
4 love the area. We intend to be there, or had
5 intended to be there, for many years and we
6 wanted to do things the right way.
m
7 Now when we did evolve to the second
m
a
8 plan, the second plan was extremely costly
9 and it involved a need for further financing
10 of the project. We went to the Bank of New
11 York, one of the primary banks we deal with,
12 and requested additional financing. We sub-
13 sequently had an inspection of the premises
14 and of the . plans and of what we were going to
15 do. We were granted the monies we needed to
16 do this, 'no problem. The reason I bring this
= 17 up is because something very interesting
o -
g 18 happened, at that time, when we spoke to a
0
19 gentleman at the bank. ,He informed me that
W
_
20 the banks were so happy to come to the Town of
m
0
21 Southold. They felt very secure giving
_
W
22 financing to projects that were done within
23 the Town of Southold, unlike many of the
,-_24 projects that were being initiated on the South
25 Fork. They felt the Town of Southold was
/Z-
1 12
2 extremely vigilant and they were doing a good
3 job, and that the bank was doing good business
4 by putting their monies in community projects,
5 building homes, in the Town of Southold. I
6 ask you then, please, could someone explain to
m
7 me how we have a Building Department that' s
m
a
8 been investigating all of the allegations
9 being made here tonight, which obviously many
10 of them can be substantiated, and how is it
11 that we can be witness to something like that
12 happening less than a year later across the
13 street?
14 What has happened to the Town of
15 Southold, or was this another Town of Southold
16 I was dealing with? It doesn't make any sense
0
0
17 to me. I find it very upsetting. I have to
18 agree with Dr. Roche, because we, too, have
s
19 poured several hundred thousand dollars into
m
20 our project with the intent our family would
a
21 enjoy for many years. It has been soured. We
u
z
22 are bitter, and we are deeply concerned about
23 all of the things that have been discussed
,, 24 here tonight.
25 This is like cancer. It will not stop.
-17
1 13
2 Believe me, it will not stop. There is no
3 reason why these people should be allowed to
4 build this house. Now I am not going to
5 minimize what I am saying. I said "build this
6 house" and I meant it. The plans speak for
m
7 themselves. When it looks like a duck and it
a
S walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck,
9 it is a duck. That is a duck, folks; that
10 house with its double stairway up and down
11 to the basement, the double entrances and all
12 of the above; its trees that were raped off
13 the land to make room for God knows what,
14 parking cars? Good thought, Doctor. That
15 speaks for itself.
16 Now I don' t know how this plan went
0
0
17 through. I don' t know how this plan was
18 inspected. I spoke to Gary Fish (phonetic)
's
= 19 myself months ago. I called the Town of
z
20 Southold and spoke to him, and said, "Gary,
o
0
21 what .is happening here? I .am living through
22 this . I can' t believe what I am looking at. "
23 He said, "No way. It will comply with
,;24 everything. "
25 I have a problem with this. I think
1 14
2 we are all here because we have a problem with
3 this.
4 I ask you please to consider that we
5 are very serious about this. This is not
6 going to go away. Think about this, please,
m
7 and let' s get this straightened out because
m
a
8 we have a problem. All of us.
9 Thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
11 MR. ZAHRA: Charles Zahra, from Mattituc .
12 I am not going to speak for or against.
13 What I have to say I hope will be for the
14 benefit of the entire Town. As I stated many
15 times before, that at the early work session,
16 August . 8, 1988 was a work session. I, myself,
a
0
17 brought manV files before the Town, the Town
0
18 Board, and I went over all these instances
S
19 such as what is happening here this evening.
m
20 Nothing was done. I have been pressing for
0
0
21 three and a half years to get the Town Board
22 -- it took me three and a half years to get
23 the Town Board to realize I was not going to go
,. 24 away and that an investigation was necessary.
25 Hence it is here. I can understand the
1 15
2 neighbors' feelings and I can understand the
3 Applicant' s feelings.
4 I am on tonight for a similar situation.
5 Precedent has already been set in the Town,
6 I am afraid. There are a number of projects
7 like this that have been approved and, again,
m
a
8 I want to stress that I am not for or against.
9 I feel in this case the problem lies with the
10 Building Department. Step One was never gone
11 through. All of this would not have been
12 necessary had these people gone in with this
13 plan, which I have looked at tonight for the
14 first time, and the Building Department doing
15 their job the way they should would have
16 viewed that plan and realized the problem with
0
0
17 it and would have given them a disapproval and
0
18 sent them to your office, the Zoning Board of
s
19 Appeals, for a variance. Maybe they would not
o
20 be here tonight asking, "Can we do it, " and
0
21 maybe. these people would not be here -tonight
W
22 saying, "We don' t want it. "
23 As a matter of law, maybe they could
_ 24 have gotten it. Maybe they couldn' t have.
25 But it would have been finished. $200 , 000
1 16
2 would...no.t have been spent. These neighbors
3 would not be mad at these neighbors.
4 I am not surprised she said, Mrs. Macy
5 said she was surprised. I am not surprised.
6 That' s the way it has been for years here.
7 I have looked at thousands of files. I have
m
a
8 two hundred files here now. If you want to
9 sit here, I will go through them with you and
10 show you the inconsistencies, the abuse of the
11 law. Hopefully, it will be confirmed by an
12 unbiased party. I am going to hand up three
13 files . I don' t have enough time to review all
14 my files, because I have to review a few myself ,
15 and I am not going to mention name.s.• I am
16 going to give numbers. If someone wants to
0
0
17 access them, that' s their business. They are
0
18 public records. I hold no animosity towards
s
19 the people to whom the permits were given.
W
20 The first item: 16078, existing use
m
0
21 and occupancy application intended -- excuse
a
Z
22 me. :Intended use and occupancy owner and
28 sister. I think that' s what we have here, a
. 24 sister. and owner, both sisters, intended use
25 and occupancy, the care and shelter of elderly
17
2 disabled mother. It was commenced June 15 ,
3 1987 . It was approved June 15, 1987 . Mr.
4 Lessard approved it.
5 Building permit construction and
6 addition to the existing one dwelling as
7 applied for, deja vu. The plan clearly shows
m
a
8 a kitchen, bathroom, handicapped room, wash-
9 room. They call the bedroom an office
10 computer room. Sounds circumvented to me.
11 Dining room, living room, and I have a plot
12 plan that shows it. Also I show you a Fire
13 Underwriter Certificate for the installation
14 of a separate meter. No Zoning Board approval
15 This file was given to the Town August 8 ,
16 1988 . The answer was rendered by Mr.
0
a
17 Schondebare, not you. It was not given to
0
18 you. And I won' t go into his answer. It is
= 19 a matter of public record.
o
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Let the record show we
m
0
21 never saw it.
22 MR. ZAHRA: File Number 14359 , appli-
23 cation home for owner. Now the Building
,,24 Department has what they call a road file and
25 an office file. Obviously one stays in the
18
2 office and .one is taken out on the road to
3 inspect -the jobsite. On this one, the one
4 application where it says "intended use and
5 occupancy, " it says, "same, " meaning home for
6 owner. Yet on another application, which I
m
7 presume to be the road file, says, "same, " and
a
8 then in another individual' s handwriting,
9 "two-family. " I happen to know who the indi-
10 vidual' s handwriting is, but I am not a hand-
11 writing expert. So I am not going to expose.
12 That application was signed by Mr. Lessard,
13 and it was commenced October .15, 1985 by Mr.
14 Lessard and approved October, same day, October
15 15, 1985. I would like to see how many people
16 got approval for their permits on the same
0
0
17 day. Of course they belong to the network.
0
18 On the rear of the application, "Number of
19 units, one, " meaning one family. Building
W
20 permit; "Renovate existing one-family dwelling
m
21 and to construct two-deck addition as applied
22 for Mr. Lessard issued that.
23 Worksheet/inspection sheet, which is
; 24 carried around on the road file, final inspecti n
25 shows "Okay for Certificate of Occupancy for a
19
2 two—family dwelling, Certificate of Occupancy -
3 "Renovate existing two-family dwelling and
4 construct two decks, " signed by Mr. Horton.
5 It started out as a one-family, wound up two-
6 family. The inception and creation was con-
m
7 doned by the Building Department. I am not
a
8 a lawyer, but this looks like fraud to me.
9 I could be wrong.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: You are affording us
11 copies of this. Is that correct?
12 MR. ZAHRA: Yes. The other file I am
13 reluctant to give and I think I will hold back,
14 unless you think there is need for more to
15 show a pattern.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: It is up to you, sir.
0
0
17 MR. ZAHRA: What I would like to know
18 is when does this Town realize enough is enough
s
19 How many times do you shoot yourself in the
W
Z
20 foot before you don' t have any more feet? Then
a
a
21 what do you do?
W
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I have spoken to you
23 several times, Mr. Zahra. As an individual of
'24 this Board, I have found that frustrating. I
25 find it frustrating. That is the statement I
20
2
make.
3 MR. ZAHRA: I don' t hold this against
4 the Board, what happened. It is unfortunate.
5 You people have to sort through this. I think
6 I said it before. You people have been asked
m
7 to go beyond the scope of your duties.. This
m
a
8 is not the purpose of the Zoning Board of
9 Appeals . Your purpose is to deal with hard-
10 ships and variances of sort, not to continually
11 put Band-Aids on the Building Department' s
12 mistakes or abuses of the law. I don' t want to
13 go into any more. I think it is obvious.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
15 I would like to ask Mr. Cardinale a
16 question. If you wouldn' t mind., sir.
a '
a
17 MR. CARDINALE: Yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I will ask if you have
0
19 any rebuttal? The question I want to ask is
m
20 there appears to be, from visual evaluation
0
21 here, two oil tanks or two tanks somewhere
W
22 affixed to the property on the ground -- above
23 the ground. I don' t know where they are. Are
`_24 there two separate heating systems in this
25 dwelling?
21
2 MR. CARDINALE: I don' t know.
3 Is there any heating system in it at
4 all?
5 MS. SBLENDIDO: Yes.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any heating
7 systems at all?
a
8 MS. SBLENDIDO: Yes, two heating systems;
9 one electric service, two fuel tanks in the
10 back. We like to share the house, but we also
11 like to have separate expenses and separate
12 quarters.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I just asked a question.
14 There is no problem. Would you just state your
15 name for the record, please.
16 MS. SBLENDIDO: Ann Sblendido.
0
17 MR. CARDINALE: Relevant to one point,
0
18 which I want to clear up, if you look at your
o
s
19 survey in front of you, I might be missing
Z
m
20 something but it has been alleged that our
0
21 lot coverage is excessive. I thought it was
u
W
22 about 10 or 15 percent, not even close to 20.
23 I don' t know if you just look at the survey,
T24 it appears you have lot coverage of 1., 334 feet
25 on a 12, 000 and change lot. That doesn' t sound
22
2 to me like 20 percent unless my arithmetic
3 is screwed up.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: We will review it and
5 send it to the Building Department and ask
6 them.
m
7 MR. CARDINALE: The other thing I would
m
a
8 like to point out is, I have real doubt as to
9 the extent of the jurisdiction of what the
10 Board can do here. The way that it was, this
11 procedure -- the Applicants who, incidentally,
12 were at all times operating as laymen, the
13 building review, permit review procedure, which
14 they have complied with, and they have followed,
15 I think the way the thing is laid out, as you
16 know, you .can' t get to you people until the
0
0
17 Building Department says no. So the Building
0
18 Department did not say no here until $167 , 000
19 was spent by my clients.
Z
20 Also, the issues that are brought before
0
21 this Board are quite limited. They are to
u
z
W
22 interpret whether two kitchens necessarily
23 indicate a two-family dwelling and a variance
24 for rear yard/front yard setbacks. Indeed,
25 if they don' t want to put the stoop in and
1 23
2 we were willing to pull out the piping that
3 had already . been involved in the great room
4 area, we would not have to be in front of this
5. Board.
6 So I have some question as to the
7 accuracy of the lot coverage issue and the
m
a
8 jurisdiction of the Board which I would like to
9 address, and therefore I would like to review
10 Ms . Ongioni° s documents. So I think that I am
11 going to request a recess of this to allow me
12 to do that.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: No problem.
14 MR. CARDINALE: I would like to discuss
15 this with my clients, as to her options.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I wish you would rather
e
0
17 than having the Building Department recite the
18 lot coverage issue, and then you can send it
19 back to the surveyor and ask him or her to do
20 so. I mean, is it Mr,. � Metzda;- (phonetic) ?
m
0
21 MR. CARDINALE: Yes. I can do that,
W
22 Mr. Chairman. I can do that and I will.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: The only other question
,;24 I have is, does the electrical service exceed
25 200 amps in the dwelling?
1 24
2 MS. SBLENDIDO: I don' t know.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you find that out for
4 me?
5 MR. CARDINALE: Among other problems
6 is the 167 , 000 spent on a 180 , 000 contract,
m
7 which the contract was abandoned. I was the
m
a
8 one that had Mr. Ladderman (phonetic) from the
9 Consumer Affairs come to the site. It is
10 difficult to find out what this guy has done.
11 I have had .a local contractor take a look at
12 it. I will give you that, Mr. Chairman.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
14 Is there anybody in the audience? Let
15 me say this first, are you a relative of Dr.
16 Roche? ;.
17 A VOICE: Yes.
0
0
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you just tell him
0
19 we will personally photocopy the activities
m
20 that went on at this meeting and give it to
0
21 you, so that he can review that? Please do
22 that.
23 Is there anybody at this meeting
_ 24 tonight that will not be able to come to the
25 next rescheduled meeting, which will be some
1 25
2 time in the latter part of August, concerning
3 this hearing that would like to make a response
4 tonight? . Anybody here, because we are going
5 to recess?
6 MR. TASKER; I just would like to
7 further request, along with Mr. Cardinale,
m
a
8 to narrow the issues to the determination of
9 what makes a two-family house as having two
10 kitchens . I would like to ask the Board to
11 make the determination of whether or not severa
12 exterior entrances, two fuel tanks, two internal
13 staircases between the first and second floor,
14 four or five fireplaces constitutes a two-
15 family house? In other words, what is a
16 two-family house? I am sure that could be
0
0
17 defined by law. I don' t think this Board needs
4
18 to make that determination, but we ought to
19 get an answer.
m
20 THE CHAIRMAN° Thank you. Hearing no
0
21 further comments at this particular time, what
22 we will do is recess this to the next regularly
23 scheduled meeting. We will advertise it along
24 with all the other hearings that will be adver-
25 tised, which we don' t necessarily have to do
1 26
2 but we will so everybody is aware of the next
3 hearing. I realize some of you are weekenders
4 or summer people. So we will make every
5 attempt to have that while you are all still
6 here, and I want to apologize for the mishap
7 tonight with extending this hearing longer than
m
a
8 'it probably should have been extended. I
9 appreciate everybody' s courtesy and we thank
10 you very much for coming in.
11 I will offer that, gentlemen, as a
12 resolution.
13 MR. DOYEN: Second.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
15 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
16 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
0
0
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you again.
a
18 We will recess five minutes. I make a
s
19 motion to recess for five minutes.
W
20 MR. DINIZIO: Second.
m
0
21 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
a
Z
W
22 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
23 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
24 (Recess taken at 9: 40 p.m. and hearing
25 resumed at 9 : 45 p.m. )
' 1 � / -
27
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4 I, Gail Roschen, an Official Court Reporter,
5 do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
6 accurate transcript of my stenographic notes taken on
m
7 July 25, 1990.
m
a
8
9
10
GAIL ROSCHEN
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
0
17
18
0
19
20
0
21
W
22
23
'24
25
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,
5 --------------------------------------x
6 Town Hall
53095 Main Road
7 P.O. Box 1179
a
Southold, New York
8
July 25, 1990
9 9 : 45 P.M.
10 B E F 0 R E:
11 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman
12
13 BOARD MEMBERS:
14 CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. , Absent
15 SERGE DOYEN, JR.
16 JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, Absent
0
17 JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
0
18
0
19 A L S 0 P R E S E N T:
i
20 DOREEN FERWERDA, Secretary
m
0
21
W
22
23
24 GAIL ROSCHEN
Official Court Reporter
25
.�3
1 2
2
(Continuing Southold Town Zoning Board
3 of Appeals Hearing, July 25, 1990)
4 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is Number
5 3956, in behalf of Lloyd Gates. The legal
6 notice reads as follows:
7 "Appeal No. 3956, Lloyd Gates. Special
m
a
8 Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article X,
9 Section 100"101B, for permission to occupay and
10 use as a Billiard parlor for commercial recrea-
11 tion. Property Location: 46250 County Road
12 48, Southold, County Tax Map No. 10001 Section
13 55 , Block 5, Lot 7 . "
14 I have a copy of the survey. It
15 requires a shopping center, which is a one-
16 story building. This one-story unit of 60 by
0
0
17 60 is out of that particular building, basicall
18 towards the west side of the shopping center.
s
19 I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
20 indicating this and surrounding properties in
m
0
21 the area.
W
22 Is there somebody that would like to be
23 heard on behalf of this application?
24 MR. McGAYHEY: Donald McGayhey. I am
25 of Counsel this evening to Mike Hall of 1050
1 33-
2 Youngs Avenue, attorney for the Applicant,
3 Mr. Lloyd Gates who is sitting on my right
4 here. Mr. Gates would like to open a billiard
5 parlor to be located on the North Road at the
6 commercial properties , a small shopping center
m
7 known as Southold Square. We will be occupying
m
a
S probably 3, 600 square feet. As you know, North
9 Road is very heavily commercial property. There
10 are numerous commercial properties located on
11 both sides of the street. This type of
12 business ' is becoming a very growing type of
13 sport, as you know.
14 This Board recently approved a billiard
15 parlor on Main Road, in Mattituck, on May 1,
16 1990 . I feel that our application is very
0
17 similar to that application. This is going to
0
0
18 be a family-run business. It will be. run by
0
19 Mr. Gates and his dad, Lloyd Gates, Sr. , who
20 I might note is a permanent resident of the
0
21 Town of Southold.
V
22 With respect to the billiard parlor
23 itself, we plan to have 15 pool tables with
, 24 a small snack bar and, with the Board' s
25 permission, we would like to have a maximum of
jS-
1 4
2 five electronic type of games of entertainment.
3 I would also like to note there will be no
4 alcohol served nor permitted on the premises.
5 I would also like to note I do not believe,
6 to my knowledge, any of the other adjacent
m
7 businesses in the Southold Square sell alcohol.
m
a
8 I don' t feel there will be a problem, at all.
9 Mr. Gates plans to invest a lot of
10 money in this particular business. I can
11 assure you that it is going to be well run and
12 it will be well supervised. He wants to make
13 it -as attractive as possible to the clients
14 using it as well as to the community on the
15 whole. I "really feel very strongly he is going
16 to do that. This is at his utmost.
o
0
17 With the Board' s permission, Mr. Gates
e
18 would like to operate seven days a week, Monday
19 through Sunday. During the following hours,
a
20 which I submitted in the file, on Mondays,
m
0
21 Tuesdays, and Wednesdays he would like to start
Z
22 at 9 : 00 a.m. and run to midnight. On Thursday
23 and Friday, 9 : 00 a.m. to 2 : 00 a.m. On Saturday
24 and Sunday, noon to 2 : 00 a.m.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: You said 9 : 00 a.m. to
1 5
2 midnight.
3 MR. McGAYHEY: Correction. 9: 30 a.m.
4 on both Monday, Tuesday -- Monday through
5 Friday.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Right.
7 MR. McGAYHEY: This .proposed use is
m
a
8 well suited and very compatible to the sur
9 rounding properties. The site plan for the
10 Southold Square was approved as recently as
11 three years ago. There is ample on-site
12 parking. In fact, I believe there are approxi-
13 mately 86 parking spaces, and none of the
14 present businesses in Southold Square require
15 any long-term parking. So I really don' t
16 feel that parking is a problem.
0
0
17 As far as traffic is concerned, I also
18 do not feel that the traffic generated by this
s
19 type of business will be of any significance.
20 The building where we will be located is
0
21 properly air conditioned, and as far as the
W
22 noise is concerned with the door closed all the
23 time, the noise level will be kept at a minimum
,: 24 I would like the record to reflect that
25 this Special Exception use is again very
�6
2 similar to the Special Exception approved for
3 the billiard parlor which you granted on May
4 1st, 1990 . That one is known as Charlie' s
5 _ Place. This is significant in the sense that
6 we are dealing with the same type of traffic,
m
7 the same type of parking with the same type of
a
8 noise, as well as the compatibility to the
9 surrounding business properties.
10 I submit to this Board that our appli-
11 cation conforms in every respect to the
12 general standards set forth in the Southold
13 Town Building Zoning Codes, specifically
14 Section 263 and 264.
15 In conclusion, I feel that this use
16 requires Special Exception approval this
0
0
17 evening, is very compatible with the surrounding
0
18 area and will not have an adverse impact on
19 the surrounding properties or on the surrounding
o a
20 businesses . Much to the contrary, I think
u 21 this type of business located in Southold
0
22 Square will be both economically beneficial
23 to the other businesses as well as socially
,,24 beneficial to the community. I would respect-
25 fully request the Board approve this applicatio .
1 _Wig.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: My concern is -- we have
3 had similar concerns in Mattituck -- and I
4 will be honest with you. It is not necessarily
5 with the prior granting of the variance. We
6 did Special Exceptions. We did for Charlie' s
m
7 Place, but we do have a problem with starting
m
a
8 as early as they want to open this , with
9 high school children or students who are of
10 high school age and who probably should be in
11 school, and either would skip school for the
12 specific reason or whatever the case might be.
13 That can be dealt with in two ways. We could
14 ask or place in this restriction that no one
15 under the age of 18 be permitted to play in
16 this particular establishment, either a video
0
0
17 game or a billiard, until 2: 00 p.m. in the
0
18 afternoon. Do you have any problem with that?
19 MR. McGAYHEY: No.
m
20 MR. GATES: Roy Gates. I have a problem.
0
21 The reason for the 9: 30 opening is because we
u
22 have discussed it with many people in the
23 area, and I have been informed there are many
24 senior citizen groups. I also was informed
25 they are early risers. What we have intentions
1 8
2 of trying to do is get them involved with the
3 business and that' s why the earlier opening.
4 Normally, 11: 00 or 12: 00 is generally when
5 the billiard clubs do open, but because of the
6 area we are coming into we would like to try
m
7 that kind of opening.
m
a
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I have no problem with
9 that, as long as you are aware of the fact
10 we are concerned with that particular issue.
11 MR. GATES: I understand. I don' t
12 have a problem with under 18 until two o' clock.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much.
14 MR. McGAYHEY: Thank you very much.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any questions
16 from any Board members?
0
0
17 MR. DOYEN: No.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: James, you are conjuring
`s
19 up a question.
W
20 MR. DINIZIO: Just about the video
m
0
21 games . How strongly do you feel about
22 installing video games in the billiard parlor?
23 MR. GATES: It is a necessary evil in
24 some cases. We are limiting it to partial
25 entertainment. It is not going to be our full
1 TB
9
2 thrust of business. On a Friday or Saturday
3 night, sometimes Thursday night, you have a
4 waiting list to get in. It will give somebody
5 something to do while they are waiting to play.
6 billiards on the pool table. Our main business
m
7 is billiards. I find in particular kids, being
m
a
8 anywhere from 16 to 40 , when they have nothing
9 to do have a tendency to get in a little bit
10 of trouble -- in the area, at least. When they
11 come and there is no table, they will have a
12 little something to do.
13 MR. DINIZIO: Is there an age limit to
14 people allowed in there?
15 MR. GATES: We are going to try for
16 about a 16-year-old age limit.
0
0
17 MR. DINIZIO: I realize you cannot
0
18 probably legally --
19 MR. GATES: Well, there is a fine line.
w
Z
m
20 I mean if somebody is a little b.it immature to
0
a
21 be in and they' re under 16 , I have no intention
22 of letting them stay. For that matter, if
23 somebody is 42 --
24 THE CHAIRMAN: My understanding is these
25 pool tables cost in excess of five to $700
10
2
apiece.
3 MR. GATES: That' s an underassessment.
4 Our price of the tables are about, with the
5 light, it comes close to $3 , 000 apiece and
6 you are dealing with 15 tables.
m
7 THE CHAIRMAN: So you probably will
a
8 watch it very carefully.
9 MR. GATES: Considering there is no
10 credit involved, it is cash up front.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Because .refelting a
12 table would probably cost you a good portion
13 of that.
14 . MR. GATES: That runs about $350 . It
15 depends on how often the tables are used.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
0
0
17 Is there anybody else that would like to
0
18 speak in favor?
s
19 MR. ZAHRA: Charles Zahra. I think it
m
20 is necessary. We need this kind of entertain-
o
21 ment on the North Fork due to the fact we have
22 limited amounts for the kids. Myself, when
23 I was younger, I played pool until all hours
P4 of the night in my basement, and I think it is
25 much needed. Thank you.
1 11
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to add one
3 question to the attorney.
4 What is the timeliness on this? When do
5 you want to get started on this project?
6 MR. McGAYHEY: As soon as possible.
m
7 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We hope to
a
8 have a .decision for you very quickly.
9 MR. McGAYHEY: Thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Again we thank you.
11 Hopefully, we will try to do it .tonight. I am
12 not guaranteeing it. Thank you.
13 Hearing no further comments, I make a
14 motion closing this hearing and reserving
15 decision until after the meeting.
16 MR. DOYEN: Second.
0
0
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
0
18 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
s
19 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
W
20 THE CHAIRMAN: The last hearing on the
m
0
21 agenda is in behalf of Charles Zahra, and we
4
22 reconvene that hearing. We ask Mr. Zahra if
23 he has anything he would like to add, after our
24 measurements that were taken, and so on and
25 so forth, approximately three weeks ago on a
1 12
2 Saturday?
3 Pardon me. Mr. Bressler is going to
4 speak.
5 MR. BRESSLER: Wickham, Wickham &
6 Bressler, P.C. , Main Road, Mattituck, New York;
7 by Eric J. Bressler.
m
a
8 I think since the last time we were
9 here the Board has had an opportunity to
10 examine the premises in question.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct.
12 MR. BRESSLER: I would ask, at this time,
13 whether the Board .has any questions concerning
14 its examination of the premises?
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I have no questions
16 as to what is upstairs, at this particular point,
0
0
17 and I hope you don' t think -- because it would
ig be unkind of me to have you think that I am
0
s
19 . questioning anything else -- but in light of
20 all the things that were discussed, I have
m
0
21 discussed our crackerjack maintenance group
z
22 to bring in a blackboard because, as you know,
P3 ' I was a teacher once and I do have to draw
24 something as we will continue throughout this
25 hearing --- just briefly. Hopefully, it won' t
L/e-1_
1 13
2 go too lengthy, and do you want me to continue?
3 MR. BRESSLER: Please.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: We have a building that
5 has been reconstructed and rightfully so. Myself
6 and Mr. Dinizio went to the building and we
m
7 noticed that major renovations -- major
m
a
8 alterations . I viewed the building. I saw
9 the whole thing and we realize that in granting
10 or not granting this apartment, assuming we
11 granted the apartment, we know that there are
.12 specific elements to the granting of this
13 apartment and to the further consequences of
14 this particular building as it exists today.
15 Obviously I was very happy with the
16 dealings of the upstairs of the building,
0
0
17 viewing of the upstairs of the building and
18 so forth. My only concern was that during the
0
0
19 period of time that the building permit was
w
m
20 secured, and regardless of what occurred after,
0
21 that you knew the construction delays and
V
Z
22 show cause order and all the rest of the things
23 that occurred, it was always my opinion that
24 maybe your friends -- this Applicant -- should
25 have come in possibly for a variance before this
' LGsr
1 14
2 Board and I am concerned that if in granting
3 this apartment from this particular Board that
4 we are not side-stepping further variances that
5 might have or should have been secured at the
6 time this particular original project was
m
7 started in ' 86. That is the only thing I am
a
8 concerned with, at this time.
9 MR. BRESSLER: With respect to the
10 issues you have referred to --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Side yard or rear yard,
12 or whatever the situation is, because we did
13 have a non-conforming building which was severed
14 from the property which was reconstructed and,
15 you know, I am not -- this is not a tantamount
16 issue to us. We are just concerned about it
0
0
17 at this particular time, and I have not asked
0
18 this Board to review it.
s
19 I will be perfectly honest with you,
20 Eric. I am sitting here with an engineer' s
0
21 report from 1988 that I could have simply
w
22 submitted to you and asked you to reflect upon
23 it. I don' t know if I should give it to you.
24 It clearly states that there are inconsistencies
25 in reference to the non-conformity of this
7-
1 15 .
2 particular building and I am concerned about
3 that in light of the fact that we are either
4 going to grant or deny this apartment as it
5 exists.
6 I will be honest with you. I have never,
7 for the 10 years I have served on this Board,
m
a
8 felt more strongly about granting some portion
9 of that upstairs apartment. I have not come
10 up with the figures in reference to -- because
11 as you know, I told you I thought it was
12 in excess of 750 square feet. We measured it.
13 It is about 850 or somewhere in that general
14 range. I have not come up with the figure as
15 to the minimum size of this apartment as of
16 this date; this time, five of 10 : 00 of: this
0
17 evening. The engineer' s report says that the
a
18 building was 632 or 635 square feet upstairs .
0
s
19 I am concerned that there was 'a .vast difference
W
m
20 between 632 and 850 -- whatever the case may
21 be. I am concerned about if the Building
Z
22 Department or any other agencies in the Town
23 is not denying this particular building for
24 either a side yard or a rear yard variance at
25 the time the construction was commenced, and
1 16
2 so on and so forth. How can you make me feel
3 better concerning that?
4 MR. BRESSLER: Well, I think we can
5 address those concerns one at a time. I think
6 with respect to the side yard variance, I
7 don' t believe that there was any expansion to
a
8 either side.
9 Is that true, Mr. Zahra?
10 MR. ZAHRA: Correct.
11 MR. BRESSLER: So I think with respect
12 to any non-conformity that existed with respect
13 to the side yard, I think the Board may rest
14 assured that b_y vdrtue o-f this project there
15 was no additional non-conformity.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I draw that while
0
17 you are discussing?
18 MR. BRESSLER: By all means, of course.
s
19 (Chairman .drawing diagram on blackboard)
w
20 THE CHAIRMAN: I remember the existing
m
0
21 building extending almost to the sidewalk
a
W
22 area. Now I don' t know if the sidewalk is the
23 actual front property line or not. I remember
24 this little area to the east side of the
25 building as being -- at one time it was a place
1 17
2 where they had stored newspapers and later
3 when the prior owners owned it, it became an
4 area of dining basically. Now when I looked
5 at the building which, by the way, was the
6 first time I was in the building, except when
m
7 it didn' t have any windows, I took some pictures.
m
a
8 I noticed that the building is actually square
9 off like this (indicating) . I am directing
10 this question -- let the record show: What
11 is the actual area now in between -- when I
12 say area, we are talking about open side
13 yard between the existing building and the
14 property line, or The Broken Down Valise which
15 is a bar?'
i6 MR. BRESSLER: First of all, I would
0
0
17 ask Charlie to answer your question, Mr.
18 Chairman, and also do a little work on that
0
0
19 drawing there and reflect what, in fact, was
W
m
20 there and what was done.
U 21 So do it, Charlie.
0
22 (Mr. Zahra drawing diagram on black-
23 board)
24 MR.' ZAHRA: The area between The
25 Valise and my building are 140 Pike Street --
1 18
2 I only guesstimate it is in the area of 10
3 feet- or less -- or less variance.
4 MR. BRESSLER: Is The Broken Down
5 Valise, to your knowledge, on the property
6 line?
7 MR. ZAHRA: Yes, to my knowledge, right
m
a
8 on the property line. Now, the street side
9 as you show it here, you are correct'. That
10 is the right-of-way -- it used to be, and this
11 had that overhang on there -- the entrance.
12 I set it back approximately three feet.
. 13 MR. BRESSLER: Charlie, why don' t you
14 show them the solid line as the old and the
15 dotted line as the new, and make it nice and
16 easy for everybody to look at.
0
E 17 MR. ZAHRA: One of the reasons for that
0
18 one is to allow for clear access for the stoop,
0
s
= 19 make it large enough -- three feet plus.
m
20 MR. BRESSLER: So the dotted is the old.
21 MR. ZAHRA: Right. Right on the
22 straight line.
23 MR. BRESSLER: Now do the side yard.
24 MR. ZAHRA: The west side yard is
25 exactly the same, and I would have to put that
1 J 9/
2 at "approximately five inches which, is exactly
3 where' it was . ;
4 A e" inches.
THE CH IRMAN:`. Five nch s. from 'the
'Property line,.
6 MR: �ZAHRA: Approximately. ."I- could be
of.f == •ten inches The. rear. yard is the same.
8" You, had a doorway.
9. . THE CHAIRMAN:. 'Well,, there was- some -
10 -MR. 'ZAHRA: A doorway on the, left. That
.1.1 would be.,the southwest corner, but otherwise',
12 ";the.' foo,tpririts stayed the same.
13. MR.` BRESSLER': . . The east side.- ..
14 MR.." .ZAHRA:: The east side in the :front
15 port on`was' extended. and "squared off. That
16 stayed the same ' as .per plan.
E 17 MR: BRESSLER:. How big is the 'building
18 now.?
19 MR. ZAHRA4 30" by "50 feet.
20 THE .CHAIRMAN: .. All corners,;,,,. all .the way ,
21 around."
MR. .ZAHRA: Exactly perfectly reetangula .
23 THE .CHAIRMAN: ." At _the time .that the old
.24 code :existed,,-. what was the .side ;yard" re.quire-
25' menu? That is.. the.'question. 'I have. Was it _
1 20
2 ten feet? I mean, we have a non-conforming
3 building here. There is no contest on this
4 side. My only question is based upon the east
5 side of the building. Was it 10 feet, and is
6 it still 10 feet?
m
7 MR. BRESSLER: I believe that to be so.
m
a
8 In any event, my question to Charlie: Would
9 you go up any closer to that side?
10 MR. ZAHRA: No. No.
11 MR. BRESSLER: Except for the firewall
12 you are required to put up.
13 MR. ZAHRA: We stayed within the foot-
14 prints with that. We held that back to install
15 that eight-inch wall that was unnecessarily
16 required by the Building Department. We stayed
0
17 within the footprints.
0
18 MR. BRESSLER: I think in answer to your
s
19 question, Mr. Chairman: What can we do to
W
m
20 make you feel better, to reassure you about
0
21 that? I think with respect to the front, we
V
Z
22 can say we move it back off the road, which
23 was a good thing. With respect to the rear on
24 the west side, we don' t change it. With
25 respect to the east side, we get no closer to
1 21
2 the property line.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: What about the rear
4 property line? What is that presently?
5 MR. ZAHRA: Why don' t I just refer to
6 the map.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure.
m '
a
8 MR. BRESSLER: About 40 feet, Mr.
9 Chairman; more or less based on the length of
10 the property. line at roughly four or five feet
11 between -- three and 'five feet along the front,
12 a leg length of about 50 feet and subtract that
13 from 95. feet. You come out to roughly 40 --
14 one foot five inches on that one side.
15 MR. ZAHRA: The west. wall, I said five
16 or six inches. It is 1. 6 .
0
0
17 MR. BRESSLER: That is correct.
0
18 THE CHAIRMAN: That is presently where
s
19 it is now.
W .
20 MR. ZAHRA: Yes, definitely.
m
0
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Now the Planning Board --
W
22 MR. ZAHRA: If you recall, the building
23 was raised and excavated. Plumb lines were
24 dropped from the building to keep that. foot-
25 print.
_ J3 -
1 22
2 MR. BRESSLER: Now the Planning Board
3 raised the parking lot requirement because of
4 the parking lot in the rear. They waived the
5 site plan.
6 MR. ZAHRA: Did you notice that letter
m
was sent?
m
a - ,
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I am refreshing myself.
9 This was two years ago. So you are aware of
10 that.
11 MR. B.RESSLER: Yes. The Planning
12 Board did waive.
13 MR. ZAHRA: That letter was sent to
14 Mr. Horton. I had spoken to Mr. Lessard, on
15 several occasions -- more than several
16 occasions -- regarding the planning -- what
0
17 have you. He handled it on his own. I did
0
18 not see that letter for quite some time. It
"s
s
19 was not until I accessed the file that I saw
w
m
20 that letter. I was never sent a copy of that
u 21 letter.
0
22 MR. BRESSLER: All we knew was that it
23 was taken care of, I guess, from our point of
24 view; that the letter, whatever the letter
25 reflects we presume is what happened. Not to
, f
1 ,J�
23
2 duck the question, but we didn' t do it.
3 THE CHAIRMAN° So I think with respect
4 to the first floor, I think it is plain that
5 there was no additional -- if there was a non-
6 conforming there was no additional conforming
m
7 by moving closer to the line. What we have
m
a
8 is a beneficial situation in the front.
9 The other question I have is -- I
10 apologize. I said 8/23. I have an engineer' s
11 report which reads original second floor to
12 be a total of 653 which presently is 876.
13 MR. BRESSLER: Well, okay. What I can
14 say to that is as per the plans, we calculated
15 and showed' to members of the Board what was
16 there and what was not there. I am not sure
0
17 how the engineer calculated it. I know
0
18 physically measuring it with a tape, what we
s
19 came up with and I know that to be so. I can
20 appreciate the Board' s concern. Quite frankly,
0
21 I don' t know how he did it. I know what was
z
22 added and I know what Charlie showed. I know
23 how many feet that was. That is what I know,
24 and that is what Charlie showed you with
25 respect to that. I am a little bit at a loss t
1 24
2 understand it, and I can' t make the figures
3 work from the plans or with the tape measure.
4 MR. ZAHRA: The only thing I can reflect
5 on, first off, was the fact that there was
6 basically no second story at the time I assume
7 lie went there to look at it. He quite possibly
m
a
8 may have overmeasured or --
9 MR. BRESSLER: -- or undermeasured. We
10 don' t know.
11 .I., .think that'.the.: plane basically .of
12 Mr. *.Ts6htakis. bas cally' speaks for themselves
13 on that issue and draws to show not only the
14 existing building but the changes to the
15 building.. I think they support all calculation
16 and to the extent there is a difference, I
0
0
17 don' t understand it but I know we have approved
0
18 plans that show the numbers as we represented
s
19 them to. the Board and I think that is about
w
20 all we can say on that issue without knowing
m
0
21 about the methodology which I take it is not
a
W
22 reflected in the report.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is. I have to
24 afford you: a copy of it. I think we will
25 afford you a copy of this and, after the hearing,
25
2 we will give it to you and if you care to
3 comment concerning it you are very welcome.
4 MR. BRESSLER: Basically it is what
.5 can you live with? We are talking about 225
6 square feet from the original to the present.
7 I think, first of all, that is just not accurate
a
8 based upon your viewing of the premises; and,
9 secondly, I . think that the increase in the
10 size of the. apartment was reflected almost
11 in total by the rerouting for safety reasons
12 of the staircase. I think the measurements
13 of the staircase area and of the adjoining
14 landing area represent the large bulk of the
15 apartment change as laid out, and but for that
16 I think we are basically in the same situation
0
17 as were before. I think it is probably a
a
18 situation that we don' t. want to be in.
0
s
19 THE CHAIRMAN: One second. C.an we
20 just get a clean copy of this for you?'
m
0
0
21 MR. BRESSLER: I am looking at the
W
22 renovation plans again.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: This is very rare that
24 we do that. So just hold .on one second,
25 Counselor.
26
2 Let the record show this was a report
3 that was requested by the prior Town Attorney,
4 from the firm of Sidney Bowne and Son, 45
5 Manor Road, Smithtown, dated October 20, 1988,
6 the Town of Southold. It was approved by
m
7 the Town Attorney and it was performed by this
a
8 firm and at a cost to the Town.
9 Now, gentlemen, I would certainly love
10 to wrap this up tonight. But I don' t want to
11 cause you problems trying to answer questions
12 without going through things. So you tell me
13 what you want to do. We are here.
14 MR. ZAHRA: Jerry, I would just like to
15 say one thing. - I don' t want to sound arrogant
16 when I say it. So I will say it with a smile.
0
0
17 I think I have given more documentation
0
18 on this particular case than anyone has ever
s
19 given in the entire history of the Southold
m
20 Town. Not just back to ' 58 -- ' 57 . I am
0
21 talking about the entire history, 350 years.
Z
W
22 I have been sliced, diced and looked under a
23 microscope. 'The only thing you have not done
24 is ask me for a urine sample to see if I do
25 drugs , and I am telling you right now I am
A g(i
1 J2 7
2 prepared to do it. That is the only thing
3 left. I say it with a smile.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand.
5 MR. BRESSLER: Let me just make several
6 comments. First of all, Mr. Chairman, what
m
7 did you measure the second floor to be?
m
a
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Whatever we did, you and
9 I did it together.
10 MR. BRESSLER: Eight twenty something
11 or .810 and the reason it came out to be that
12 is instead of 876 as shown on the plans, was
13 because of the front which had been pointed
14 out to the Board. So we are dealing with at
15 least on its face a number closer to 800 than
16 to 870 .
0
17 THE CHAIRMAN: What do you calculate
0
0
18 the original to be?
s
= 19 MR. ZAHRA: Let me back up a moment and
W
20 say that in looking at Sidney Bowne' s cal-
m
0
21 culations , it appears that Sidney Bowne' s
a
22 calculations are based on the tax card.
23 MR. BRESSLER: What we are basing our
24 calculations on is. very simple. If you look
25 at the plans, you will see that the plans call
1 28
2 for an addition on the side yard where the
3 stairway is and the landing. The plan also
4 shows a shortened rear of the building, and
5 a front that goes to the street. When the
6 Board looked at the building it saw that what
m
7 was happening was the front yard got set
m
a
8 back and the rear got set back. So we take
9 the existing line of the building as shown on
10 this approval plan and we say we will move it
11 back. That takes care of that.
12 Then we look at 16 t'ime.s roughly 7 , or
13 8 , over here and say that is the increase in
14 the area, but it is a very simple calculation.
15 I think with all due respect to Mr. Bowne,
16 his reliance upon some billing that the Tax
0
E 17 Department did on . some rough approximation is
0
a
18 just not accurate and, not the Tsontakis plans
o
19 so clearly where the lines are and actually
a
20 have dimensions on them and that they reflect
m
° 21 what happened. The fact the Board can see,
m
a
22 and we went out and measured, you can see the
23 building was moved back and we calculate '.
24 the difference to be just in that area shown
25 on the sides -- which calculates -- or where
29
2 one dimension is not shown -- somewhere between
3 7 or 8 times 16. What does that come out to
4 be? Somewhere between 112 and 128 square
5 feet of which the stairway itself constitutes
6 approximately 30 some square feet, as the
m
7 Board can see.
m
a
8 THE CHAIRMAN: This is the original or
9 now?
10 MR. BRESSLER: The increase in area now
11 is somewhere between 112 and 128 square feet
12 of which 30 to 40 some square feet consists
13 of the stairway itself.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: So just so I understand
15 it --
16 MR. BRESSLER: Let me draw this.
0
f 17 (Mr. Bressler drew a diagram on the
0
18 blackboard and discussion was held off the
's
19 record)
W
m
20 THE CHAIRMAN: You say that was taken
21 out originally, the 653 .
22 MR. BRESSLER: 653 , whatever, they
23 were calculating, we represented by the
24 dotted line. We have the dimensions and you
25 can read them right off the plan. When we
1 30
2 are looking at the stairway and the landing,
3 that is what the addition consists of. So
4 this Board is concerned about the fact there
5 is additional square footage. I would only
6 say, based upon a visual inspection, it clearly
7 appears it consists of the stairway generally
m
a
8 and the landing area with maybe a few feet to
9 spare. That is what that consists of.
10 MR. ZAHRA: I would like to ditto what
11 he said, and add that fact, that this was done
12 simply for the betterment, to remove the
13 entrance to the upstairs from the street to
14 the alleway to prevent any congestion or
15 accidents happening to people opening their
16 doors onto the sidewalk.
0
f 17 THE CHAIRMAN° If you say that, we have
a
0
18 approximately 80 square feet. Is that correct?
0
s
19 MR. BRESSLER: 80 -- I mean give or
m
20 take, please.
u 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Excluding the stairway,
Z
22 is that correct? When we sat here at the
28 prior hearing they questioned the scope of
24 the Zoning Board. We took four and one-half
25 hours on a house in New Suffolk, four and one-
1 31
2 half hours of testimony and the difference
3 between the house being measured with the
4 shingles on the house and without the shingles
5 being, on the house. We need not engage in
6 '' that. If we took the 653 and added 80 to --
m
7 MR. BRESSLER: -- plus the stairway area,
m
a
8 making the --
9 THE CHAIRMAN° -- if we could arrive
10 at 730 square feet as the original, could we
11 say the original apartment with the stairwell
12 was about 730 square feet?
13 MR. BRESSLER: I think that would be a
14 fair statement, somewhere in that area, because
15 the 120 -- is that right, somewhere in that
16 area because --
e
0
17 THE CHAIRMAN: -- so we have here
0
18 approximately about 135 to 140 square feet,
s
19 more at this particular time, based upon whatever
W
Z
20 this report showed or our visual calculations
u 21 show when we went to the site and developed the
0
V
2
W
22 figures that we developed that day. Is that
23 correct?
24 MR. BRESSLER: I would shave it down to
25 somewhere in that ball park. I would say you
32
2 have gross between 112 to 128 more, and when
3 you net out the stairway you have somewhere
4 between 80 and 95 of floor space necessitated,
5 of course, by having to have a place to be when
6 you arrive at the top of the stairs.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Assuming we took out the
m
a
8 stairwell out of the square footage that exists
9 today within the apartment. That stairwell
10 is how large now?
11 MR. BRESSLER: The stairwell looks to
12 be maybe 40 square feet.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: So we are talking there-
14 abouts of 820 square feet, somewhere in that
15 general area.
16 MR. BRESSLER: No. We think that would
0
E 17 be 780 because we think we only go 820 to
0
0
18 start with.
0
19 THE CHAIRMAN: We don' t know if this
20 is inside or outside.
u 21 It probably is the outside -- inside
a
Z
22 dimensions as opposed to the outside of the
23 house.
24 You have to lop off the front.
25 MR. BRESSLER: Lop off 60. feet ,.maybe.
33
2 You are down to around 820 less 40 .
3 You are down to about 780 , and
4 that was somewhere in the vicinity of 710
5 to 720 when we started that house.
6 I think that ought to afford the
m
7 Board some comfort about the scope of the
a
8 additional square footage.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: You have to understand
10 there was a two-year time lapse, and I am
11 sure you are aware of this because of the
12 corresponding documents going between the
13 Court and attorneys and so on and so forth.
14 My only other question to you is : Do you
15 want to digest this and reflect upon it, or
16 do you want to drop it at this particular point
0
E 17 knowing that it is part of the record?
0
0
18 I will use the phrase again, it would
0
0
19 be unkind of me to drop it because I am placing
w .
a
20 it in the file. I will give you a copy of
m
0
21 it. I don' t know what we are going to use.
a '
u
z
22 I don' t know what we are not going to use. I
23 will tell you this: We could have asked you
24 to petition the Langers (phonetic) to come in
25 here and testify -- raise their right hands.
t t.N S
1 34
2 I could have engaged in the firm of Sidney
3 Bowne and asked Robert Bowne to come in --
4 raise his right hand. We didn' t do that. I
5 told you in the outset of this hearing that
6 we are trying to clear this up in my own mind,
m
7 and that was the purpose of the question.
m
a
8 I just want you to know we are trying to do
9 this as systematically as possible.
10 MR. BRESSLER: Let me ask the Board a
11 question or two. I think based on the approved
12 plan I submitted, we have proceeded with
13 calculations that can certainly be verified
14 by the use of a ruler.
15 I think we verified, if recollection
16 serves me right, somewhere in the area of
a
E 17 820 was arrived at. With the use of the ruler,
0
0
18 we arrived at that figure with respect to
0
19 Sidney Bowne. I don' t think we worked off the
W
m
20 tax card. It is probably an appropriate way
u 21 and should be afforded any weight as compared
22 to the Tsontakis plans. I think clearly the
23 Board will have to give that what weight it
24 deserves.
25 As to the other issues, I would have a
35
2 question or two for the Board. In the first
3 instance, this letter appears to state that
4 the questions to be addressed is clearly what
5 area has been reconstructed or structurally
6 altered. Although we did agree with their
m
7 calculations, I don' t think they are sig-
m
a
8 nificantly off.
9 I think, based upon their erroneous
10 reliance on the tax map, and I have got to
11 note at this point I am somewhat surprised
12 by that, Mr. Chairman, considering the fact
13 Sidney Bowne must have had available to him
14 the plan.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: We don' t know. He is
16 not here. Let' s not reflect upon it, just as
0
0
17 I can' t recall Steve Tsontakis who, unfortu-
0
18 nately, has expired from this earth. Sidney
s
19 Bowne is not here.
W
_
20 MR. BRESSLER: Nevertheless, I note they
m
21 compute their computations of what we may
o ..
W
22 differ. I note they have computed a net
23 increase in the area of 32 percent, thus
24 within the 50 percent requirement. I would
25 ask that the Board, in the first instance, if
36
2 that is the test that they are applying and
3 -- .has that been applied by the Board?
4 THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure, at this
5 point.
6 MR. BRESSLER: I don' t know that. I
m
7 would also note that the conclusions of this
m
a
8 letter seem to state that they -- based on
9 the foregoing facts and evidence, it can only
10 be concluded that more than 50 .per cent of the
11 fair market value of the building has been
12 exceeded by alteration activities. I am at
13 a loss from understanding that, from looking
14 at their report, other than to show that their
15 portion of the building has been worked on,
16 I 'm at a complete loss to understand that as
0
0
17 I think the Board is probably as well.
0
18 THE CHAIRMAN: The first floor area has
s
= 19 been taken care of by the discussions we had
W
_
m
20 before. So I am investigating the first floor
0
21 evaluation from this report. It was only
W
22 dealing with the second floor, which is what we
23 significantly went through back and forth.
24 MR. BRESSLER: . That raises an interestin
25 issue and I am a little at a loss to know
1 37
2 exactly how the Board wishes to proceed. I
3 see now that the Board is going to exclude
4 the first floor from consideration.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Not the Board just me.
6 We will certainly work from that, at least for
m
7 the time being.
a
8 MR. BRESSLER: With respect to that
9 issue I would like some guidance from the
10 Board as to what standard is going to be
11 applied with respect to the 50 percent rule.
12 If the Board is concerned about the 50 percent
13 rule, let me state four things:
14 First, that with respect to the appli-
15 cation of the rule, the first instance at least
16 the Chairman has correctly discerned that the
0
0
17 actual square footage of the building changed
0
18 very little.
0
s
= 19 2) That 50 percent rule in this Town
m
20 is somewhat problematic as amended, that at
0
21 the last hearing date -- and we are prepared
22 either at this time or probably at the
23 beginning of what looks like another session --
24 to go forward with evidence that we wish to
25 direct the Board' s attention to concerning what
1 38
2 we believe to be rather than your application
3 of the 50 percent rule in this Town. We don' t
4 think it exists. I think we know it. I think
5 the Board is aware of it, and I think the Board
6 now knows this, rule has been applied and I
m
7 think we want it applied to us the same way,
m
a
8 and that' s basically not at all because it
9 doesn' t apply, in this Town and everybody knows
10 that if you tear a building_ down and you
11 build it in the footprints you are okay and
12 we are prepared to show that.
13 Third, Subdivision E, Paragraph E, this
14 50 percent rule, to apply exceeding aggregate
15 cost 50 percent of the fair value of the
16 building. You will note there is no definition
0
17 contained in this section that leaves open the
0
0
18 fair value of the building. What is the fair
0
19 value of this building? We are prepared at
2
W
o
m
20 the next session to tell you what the fair
0
21 value of that building is.
u
22 MR. ZAHRA: In dollars and cents.
23 MR. BRESSLER: Yes. I know what a good
24 way to figure out what the value of a building
25 like this is, to ask what the replacement cost
1 39
2 is, and he didn' t put in more than 50 percent
3 of the replacement cost. Couldn' t we evaluate
4 the building on the basis of the income
5 approach? Couldn' t we do that? We will present
6 evidence, and the applicable multiplier to be
7 applied. Mr. Zahra has not exceeded 50 percent
m
a
8 of that value, and with respect to valuing
9 the building those are .the two ways I know
10 to value that building. I don' t see anything
11 in this report except a conclusory assessment
12 to the effect that he. has violated it, and
13 with that in mind I think we probably all had
14 about enough and I am going to digest this
15 report and ask the Board for some guidance on
16 that issue.
0
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I don' t think it is
18 necessary, Mr. Bressler. I will tell you the
0
s
19 reason why. That was the reason I asked the
m
20 question regarding the first floor area. The
8 21 second floor area is the one of concern to
22 me because that is the area where the signifi-
23 cant increase appears to be. I mean it is
24 assumed that the east side of the building
25 was closed up. That is from that original foot
-
40
2 print. There is no question about it.
3 MR. BRESSLER: That is true.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: As long as it did not
5 encroach .any closer to the side yard area,
6 which is something I wanted to know for myself.
m
7 As for the 50 percent rule, I cannot answer.
a
8 for my two colleagues here or the two that
9 are ' not feeling well tonight, one of which
10 went through a serious operation. I don' t know
11 if it is a fair question, at this particular
12 point. I would personally think we should
13 close the hearing at this point. But that is
14 entirely up to you.
15 MR. BRESSLER: Well, at this juncture
16 let me ask one or two questions. I will then
0
0
17 consent to closing the hearing.
18 Mr. Zahra, with respect to the building
0
19 as it existed, what rent did you anticipate
W
20 receiving with respect to upstairs and down-
0
21 stairs as they existed?
22 MR. ZAHRA: First off, I would like to
23 say I had several avenues to follow, one of
24 which being renting upstairs and downstairs.
25 MR. BRESSLER: That is what I want to
1 41
2 hear about.
3 MR. ZAHRA: The other possibility of
4 utilizing them -- from the rental upstairs
5 would bring in the neighborhood of $700 a
6 month; downstairs I would say in the neighbor-
7 hood of $2 , 500 a month fully equipped.
m
a
8 MR. BRESSLER: In estimating the market
9 value of this building now that we arrive at
10 roughly 3,6 to $40, 000 in rent per year, what
11 multiplier would you use in evaluating that
12 building?
13 MR. ZAHRA: On the return basis --
14 eight --
15 MR. BRESSLER: Eight would yield a
16 12 percent return. That is on the income
0
17 approach. The Board can do the simple
0
0
18 arithmetic. Now, Mr. Zahra, with respect to
s
19 the replacement cost of that building as it
w
20 existed prior to the renovation, do you know
0
21 how much the replacement cost of that building
22 was?
23 MR. ZAHRA: I have here a letterhead
24 from Mr. John Scaranucci, who is a carpenter
25 in Mattituck, Post Office Box 1150 . He has
1 42
2 prepared me an estimate of replacement cost
3 based on the original footprint, and briefly
4 it says here a bid on the formation -- I would
5 say that $130 per square foot is a fair cost.
6 That would make the actual replacement value
m
7 of the Coffee Pot $250, 800 .
m
a
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that complete with
9 all fixtures and all?
10 MR. BRESSLER: As it existed.
11 MR. ZAHRA: It states in there -- I
12 would prefer to have you make a copy of that
13 and give me that back because my copier is
14 not working too well.
15 MR. BRESSLER: Mr. Zahra, have you
16 expended to date an amount which would exceed
0
0
17 one-half of either of those fair market values
a
18 on the building?
0
s
19 MR. ZAHRA: Definitely not.
W
20 MR. BRESSLER: Have you expended
U 21 $50 , 000 on the building to date?
0
W
22 MR. ZAHRA: No.
23 MR. BRESSLER: I don' t have any further
24 questions for Mr. Zahra. Mr. Chairman, do
25 you have any questions or members of the Board?
43
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I don' t understand what
3 you just said about the $50 , 000 .
4 MR. BRESSLER: Have you expended less
5 than the sum of $50 , 000 without going into
6 detail -- and the answer was yes, less than
7 that number. That number is far less than
m
a
8 50 percent of the fair market, either on
9 replacement or income approach.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
11 MR. BRESSLER: The last item -- without
12 belaboring the Board, I am going to refer to
13 certain files by number and ask that they
14 be. deemed part of the record and leave it at
15 that without going into detail about what they
16 show or do not show. They are relevant to
0
0
17 the issue which I mentioned before. They are
18 files issued under Permit Numbers 14725, 13192,
19 14553 , 15104, 17524. I would ask they be
w
m
20 deemed part of the record. The nature of these
U 21 items , as I said, they were basically four
0
22 issues on that 50 percent rule. These speak
23 to Issue Number Two, which there is no such
24 rule in this Town. And without going into
25 detail, without further belaboring the
1
44
2 point, I think the documents speak for them-
3 selves , and if they do not I will be pleased
4 to answer anything in writing with respect
5 to those files.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comments,
m
7 I make a motion closing the hearing.
a
8 MR. DOYEN: Second.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
10 MR. DOYEN: Aye.
11 MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: On Jordan' s Partners,
13 Appeal Number 3915, we took it out of sync
14 and let Mr. Tsunis go. There were other people
15 tonight, and we took it out of sync. What
16 we did, we gave him a letter requesting that
0
17 he divulge the members of the corporation. We
4
18 further recessed the hearing to the next
`s
19 regularly scheduled meeting, waiting for a
20 decision from the Planning Board on the evalu-
e
21 ation of the site plan and we will close the
22 hearing if -- or if we do not receive the site
28 plan evaluation at the next regularly
24 scheduled meeting.
25 (Time noted: 10: 55 p.m. )
1 45
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4 I, Gail Roschen, an Official Court Reporter,
5 do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
6 accurate transcript of my stenographic notes taken on
m
7 July 25, 1990 .
m
a
8
9
f
10
G r- ROSCH N
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
0
17
0
18
0
19
W
20
0
21
W
22
23
24
25