Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/01/1996 HEARING /1 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS MAY 1, 1996 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Draft Prepared by Noreen Frey 7:35 p.m. Appl. #4374 - Patricia C. Moore as attorney for FRANK AND LOUISE PALUMBO. This is an application under the Southold Town Zoning Code Article XXIV, Section 100-244 as amended 11-28-95 (which removed former subsection C thereof pertaining to former code setbacks for former subdivisions) , for a variance based upon the issuance of the Building Inspector's March 22, 1996 Notice of Disapproval to construct a new dwelling with insufficient side yard setbacks, Location of Property: 3200 Sound Drive, Eastern Shores Subdivision Lot #108, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-33-1-7. The requirements are for total side yards of 15 and 20, or greater, and with a total of 35 feet on this 27,400 sf. parcel. Patricia Moore as attorney. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of Patricia C. Moore as attorney for Frank and Louise Palumbo. This is a survey by Roderick Van Tuyl surveyed October 16, 1995 indicating a 13 and one half foot setback on the Westerly side, and 17 and half foot setback on the Easterly side as proposed. I have a copy of the Suffolk. County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area.. Ms. Moore are you ready? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Fine, thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here. The first hearing on today. The first of last month we were the last. CHAIRMAN: You did promise me that it's not going to be as chaotic as --. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Well, certainly form us. I hope it won't be from us. Dr. Palumbo is here, and we hope it will be a good evening for him. He's a. first time grandfather today. CHAIRMAN: Congratulations. .Page 2 - Public Hearing Transcripts .,. May 1, 1996 - ZBA PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: So, I'm very happy for .him. The Palumbo as were indicated last month were effected by Local Law #23 of 1995, that changed the setbacks for properties that were part of older subdivisions. We have this lot as with the Kane's, that it is part of the eastern shore for subdivision, and all through the time from it's creation in 165 till 1995, they have had 20 foot setbacks. Now that has changed to 35, so obviously that creates a hardship, where the Palumbo's proceeded with the development of their plans with the survey's and were ready to submit a building permit when Dr. Palumbo actually was notified that he needed to change his thinking, and to come in for a application, when we notified him on the Kane application, that there was a setback, a side yard setback requirement for variance. So, we are here tonight. I have a letter of support from the Kane's. I will submit that to the board. We also have the plans of the house, which I have one set of plans for your records. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, thank you very much. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Thank you. When you take a look a look at the foundation dimensions on this plan, it shows that the distance is actually 60 feet, 10 inches. That measurement gives somewhat a little bit of latitude during the construction process to place the house here. So, what we're asking for is between 62 and 63, yes four feet altogether. But, the measurement as to the property line is actually 93.5, 94 feet width. Rather than the 100 feet shown on the roadside. So, at the property line it's an narrower distance, approximately between 93 and 94, which give us the setbacks that have been requested tonight, the variance that's been requested tonight. So, when you look at the plans, we still request the setbacks that have been proposed because, obviously placing the house with a one foot margin of error, becomes difficult for the applicant and his construction crew. As it is, the variance requested is only 1.5 feet on the westerly side, and 2.5 'on the easterly side. So there has been a minimal of variance to start with. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to let our engineer talk to you first, and that's Mr. Villa.. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK. Do you have any questions. MEMBER VILLA: The 60 foot you were talking about is the prevention from the bluff? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: No, I'm sorry. No, no. If you take a look at the plans, there is the foundation that, page 2 of the plans. MEMBER. VILLA: Oh, the overall width of the house is 60 feet. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: The overall width of the house that is from one end to the other. It doesn't include bilko doors and stairs, because I don't believe that those are measured. - '� Page 3 - Public Hearing Transcripts May 1 , 1996 - ZBA ~ CHAIRMAN: Those are exempt. Right. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: However, the 60 foot, 10 inches is a very tight measurements, and because of the distance of the width of this property at that location, being less than ( ) . We have a one foot margin of error. MEMBER VILLA: OK PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: So, it's very possible that when it's actually built, we'll have a greater setback on one side or the other. The house is not going to get any larger. It's just that it's going to be placed so that it increases the side yard, the need for a side yard variance, is reduced. MEMBER. VILLA: I have no problem. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK, thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: You would have been able to build this house, and you wouldn't have been here, had the law not changed, right? PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Correct. MEMBER. DINIZIO: That's all I ask. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: OK CHAIRMAN: Lydia. MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN: The only question we had is. Are you closing either side up on things that are waived or exempt such as: bilco door. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Oh no. I believe that the measurement there is, maybe 4 feet maximum on --. CHAIRMAN: So you'll have 9 or 10 feet on either side. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Correct CHAIRMAN: Unobstructed, so as to be able to get to the bluff area if you have to. PATRICIA MOORE ESQ: Correct. CHAIRMAN: Let's just see if anything developes in the hearing. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against this application? Ok, seeing no hands. Does anyone want to make a motion Ladies and Gentlemen? MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll make a motion that we grant it as applied. CHAIRMAN: I'll second it Dr. Have a lovely evening. Page 4 - Public Hearing Transcripts May 1, 1996 - ZBA ~ 7:43 p.m. Appl. #4375 - BRUNO AND FELICE SEMON. RECESSED PER APPLICANT REQUEST. 7:45 p.m. Appl. #4378 - JOSEPH CORRETTI. This is an application for a variance under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for permission to reduce front and rear yard setbacks for a new dwelling on which was deemed to have more than one front yard. The code requires a. 40 ft. front, 50 ft. rear, and 15 and 20 side yard setbacks on this 21,200+- sf parcel located at 2285 Westview Drive, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-107-7-1.1 CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of am survey from Smith and Young dated July 11, 1983. It indicated the approximate position of the house and it is presently stakes. I was over there this morning. I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you Sir? MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: Fine CHAIRMAN: Could you state your name for the record? MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: Joseph Corretti. CHAIRMAN: How are you. MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: I have to turn this in for the record. CHAIRMAN: OK, thank you, very good. What would you like to tell us. MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: When I submitted the building permit I assumed the one side yard would be 15 feet, and I found out that the property has three front yards, and no side yard. So, I need a variance to put a house 55 feet across as it states in the survey. So, I need a 15 foot from the property line into the house on the side which, they called an arrear, and on the other side 25 feet which would mean I would need a 15 foot variance setback from the front. Do you follow what I'm doing? CHAIRMAN: Yes MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: In other words, the back of the house will face the water, and the side, what I assumed was the side is facing my neighbors house. So I would need the proper variances according to the Zoning Board. CHAIRMAN: Ok. The nature here basically is the fact, the road leaning to the park and playground area is what the Building Inspector is construing to be a road. MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: Right. I didn't know that when I bought the property. I thought it was a right of way. But also, what that does is. It makes no--. They're saying, there is no side yard which means. The parcel was taken over with a 20 foot wide house on the property according to the Town Code. Page 5 - Public Hearing Transcripts May 1, 1996 - ZBA CHAIRMAN: OK SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I just want to mention that, the reason they're saying it's a road is because it's showing on the County Tax Map as a road right down to the creek. So, he has no choice but to come in for a variance. CHAIRMAN: Sure JOANNE CORRETTI: May I bring this up . CHAIRMAN: Surely JOANNE CORRETTI: The road, the one they consider a road, is a path going to the water. This is approximately what the house is going to look like, and this is the house next store, and this is where we went for the house ( ) , so this would be a side. CHAIRMAN: Ok, we'll leave that up here, and if anybody wants to take a look, we can recess for a couple of minutes. Is there anything else you'd like --. MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: No, I just don't know how they're going to figure it. The lots has no side or three fronts or what. But, I'm going to need two variances then, according to the building application. CHAIRMAN: OK MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: I want 55 feet across. CHAIRMAN: Let's start with Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio MEMBER DINIZIO: Nothing at all. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Villa MEMBER VILLA: Did you ever give any thought of turning the house around, so that 55 feet goes along the other side? MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: No, it wouldn't work that way because, I want the back of the house to face the water. It's senseless to, you know --. Then, there is no yard that way. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: He would still need a rear yard variance, probably or something. MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: The property is in the half acre. MEMBER VILLA: He would need one variance, not three. Page 6 - Public Hearing Transcripts May 1, 1996 - ZBA SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes. It's only two variances Bob, today. Two variances, not three. A front yard and --. MEMBER VILLA: It's only 40 feet right, SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What do you mean Bob? MEMBER. VILLA: And if you turn it around the other way, you would have 40 feet. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: 25 foot is the variances they are asking for. MEMBER VILLA: Right, and the house is 40 feet deep, and it's 55 across. So, if you turn it the other way, you have 15 feet there. Add 25 and you have 40 feet. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Yes, but then'. His back yard would be his neighbors house, you know. It's kind of hard. He wouldn't have any priva.cy that way. MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: The property is 250 feet from the pond to the back. That's why I wanted to put --. I have an ample back yard facing the water. CHAIRMAN: Right SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: He technically doesn't have a rear yard on his. He has three front yards. So, that's what causes the problem. CHAIRMAN: I don't have any particular questions. I understand your plight. We will see. We may recess to see if anyone wants to look at these pictures, but we'll see what happens. MR. JOSEPH CORRETTI: Sure CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application? Thank you very much Mrs. Corretti. Anyone want to speak in favor of the application? MRS. GALLIGAN: I'd like to see the plans. We're neighbors. CHAIRMAN: Surely. Ok, we take approximately two minutes. Yes, I know you are. MRS. GALLIGAN: You see, here we are. You see Gerry, we're here. CHAIRMAN: Right, I was there this morning. MRS. GALLIGAN: Oh, you were. So, it isn't the --.So, it really isn't a big problem. CHAIRMAN: It's really much better to have it this way, than having the back of the house towards your piece. Page 7 - Public Hearing Transcripts May 1, 1996 - ZBA MRS. GALLIGAN: There really not asking for anything but for their own property. I don't see any problem. They're off the site of us. There on a nice, you know --. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Cute house MRS. GALLIGAN: I don't see --. MR. GALLIGAN: Give them a chance to go back to work. MRS. GALLIGAN: OK CHAIRMAN: So nice to see you both. MRS. GALLIGAN: Nice to see you too, always. CHAIRMAN: OK. We reconvened. I need a motion to reconvened. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: We didn't recess, it's still open. CHAIRMAN: We'll leave it open. Is there anything you would like to add, Mr. & Mrs. Corretti? MR.. COR.RETTI: I need a one story home to --. The building department said, why don't you build up because my Mother is 80, and she can't be walking up and down the stairs. CHAIRMAN: OK, all right. MR. COR.RETTI: That's about it really. Like I said, I didn't know the lot had three fronts until last week. I never heard of that before. Three fronts and no sides. MRS. CORRETTI: And we've had it for 15 years. CHAIRMAN: It's a great place. It's a great subdivision. Looks like it's going to very nice. OK, hearing no further comment I can close the hearing or I can address any motion Ladies and Gentlemen. MEMBER TORTORA: I'll make a motion to approve it as applied for. CHAIRMAN: Who would like to second it? I'll second it. All in favor. MR. CORR.ETTI: I just want to say one thing. Going through this with the Tax Assessor and the Building Department. Everyone was so nice to us out here. It was incredible. It really was. I was shocked. CHAIRMAN: It was nice of you to say that. Can I just reflect on one thing. That's the great part of being a small Town. 7:55 p.m. Appl. #4377 - DANIELE DUPUIS. This is an application requesting a Waiver under Section 100-26 of the Zoning Ordinance based upon the Building Inspector's March 21, 1996 Notice of Disapproval, in which Page 8 - Public Hearing Transcripts May 1., 1996 - ZBA 4 applicant was denied a building permit to construct a one-family dwelling. Under Article 11, Section 100-25A enacted 1/1/96, the subject lot is substandard in size and has been held in common ownership with an adjoining lot, 1000-137-1-14, referred to as M.S Hand Combined Lots #103 and #104 (improved with a single-family dwelling. Applicant alternatively will provide a more equal lot size by enlarging the dwelling lot (adding M.S Hand Lot #105 to the above-noted lot now consisting of #104 and #103.) The subject property for which a waiver is requested is identified as County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-137-1-15, located along Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; also referred to as M.S, Hand Combined Lot Nos. 105, 106, 107, 108. Zone District: R-40 Residential. CHAIRMAN: This is an application requesting a waiver under Section 100-26 of the Zoning Code based upon the Building Inspector's March 21, 1996 notice of disapproval, in which the applicant was denied a building permit to construct a one-family dwelling. Under Article 11, Section 100-25A enacted 1./1/96 the subject lot is substandard in size and has been held in common ownership with an adjoining lot, 1000-137-1-14, referred to as M.S Hand Combined Lots #103 and #104 (improved with a single-family dwelling) . Applicant alternatively will provide a more equal lot size by enlarging the dwelling lot (adding M.S. Hand Lot #105 to the above-noted lot now consisting of #104 and #103.) The subject property for which a waiver is requested is identified as County Tax Parcel No. 1000-137-1-15, located along Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue, NY; also referred to as M.S. Hand Combined Lot Nos. 105, 106,107, 108. Zone District: R-40 Residential. CHAIRMAN: This is a copy of a sketch indicating the present position of the house, accessory building, proposed house on lots #106,#107 and #108. I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard? DANIELE DUPUIS: Are we having the hearing tonight. CHAIRMAN: No, we are opening the hearing and we are going to regroup at the next scheduled meeting. But, you are very welcome to say whatever you like. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: He's going to start tonight, but he's going to continue it. Daniele, we'd like to talk about why it's difficult for a postponement for her. CHAIRMAN: OK SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I thought we'd discuss a postponement first. So, but you could speak about the postponement now if you'd like. DANIELE DUPUIS: . I'm sorry. I haven't done this --. CHAIRMAN: We're not sure we understand either, but we're working toward an understanding. DANIELE DUPUIS: The reason I'm here is, to defend the value of my property because as I understand it. If my lot is considered a buildable lot it has one value. If it's not a buildable lot, it has another value. Page 9 - Public Hearing Transcripts May 1, 1996 - ZBA I'm selling at this point, so it influences alot of people, and alot of people are waiting for this decision. Because, on the one hand, I'm told that. this property has merged. On the other hand, ever since my parents bought the house in 1957, and the other lot in 1966, they have been paying taxes on the lot now termed 137-115 as if it was a buildable lot. So, they have been paying taxes on it since 1966 as a buildable lot. I continue to pay taxes on it as a buildable lot. So, basically just for everyone sake, it would be good to have a decision. I need to be able to tell buyers what the price is, because I cannot ask a buyer to pay the same price for a non-buildable lot as for a buildable lot. That's why I would have preferred a. decision tonight because, I'll still be in a position where I can't tell anyone anything. CHAIRMAN: I don't want to --. This is not a derogatory statement in saying, but the phrase usually is,. " I don't want to bust your bubble". We have 60 days to make a decision so --. DANIELE DUPUIS: I'm sorry, I'm just not --. CHAIRMAN: We may if we close the hearing, we could address it tonight, but we don't necessarily have to. DANIELE DUPUIS: Oh, I see. CHAIRMAN: More than likely it would be addressed if we close the hearing around the end of May. So, I'm just mentioning it to you. The situations that we had before us, and the other two decisions we made, we were aware of, A. So that's the reason why they were made. Very rarely are decision made on, at that particular time. We go into a deliberation process after. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, I had explained to Daniele, that many times --. She was at our last meeting and so that night we made alot of decisions. She wasn't aware at that time, I guess that there were going to be objections on it, and further postponement requested. So, your policy is Jerry, when people ask for a postponement. CHAIRMAN: That we usually grant one. In this particular case it's a three week postponement because we're having a meeting at the end of May. So, it's not catastrophic because we probably wouldn't make a decision until then anyway. MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, we'll have the hearing tonight but it will be recessed until the next hearing. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: I will continue as you like in support of your application tonight, or --. CHAIRMAN: Or hold off until the next time. DANIELE DUPUIS: You decision is anyway, is to postpone the meeting. MEMBER TORTORA: To recess it. x Page 10 - Public Hearing Transcripts May 1, 1996 - ZBA CIIAIRMAN: Is to recess it. MEMBER TOR.TORA: We're having an official hearing this evening, the hearing will continue at our next regular meeting, because it's the board's policy that if there is a request, to have it recessed, to allow someone else to have a legal council present. That's the board's. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: We have the option of presenting your case now, or waiting till the next meeting. That's your choice. MEMBER TORTORA: Or both. CHAIRMAN: Or both. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Both MEMBER `I'ORTORA: You can present it tonight, and at the next meeting. DANIELE DUPUIS: There is no point in doing it tonight because, you know. It would just be easier if you hear both sides, and consider it, at the same time I think. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I couldn't give an answer to anyone at 4:30 today, whether it would be postponed because it's the board's decision. It's not my decision. DANIELE DUPUIS: No, I understand. I just -- SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I'm sorry that you had to come out. DANIELE DUPUIS: No, no. I just came --. I thought I would explain why I would have preferred a decision tonight, that's all. CIIAIRMAN: Right DANIELE DUPUIS: But I think it's --. My decision was that it was up to the board to decide, that's all. CHAIRMAN: Sure DANIELE DUPUIS: To weight both sides and then decide. So that's where it is. CHAIRMAN: Yes. DANIELE DUPUIS: In that case, I'll wait until next time, I guess. CHAIRMAN: OK. What's the date of that meeting. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: May 29. CIIAIRMAN: May 29 Page 11 - Public Hearing Transcripts May 1, 1996 - ZBA SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: May 29, Wednesday night. It will be about 7:30. DANIELE .DUPUIS: So, the status right now is just that --. CHAIRMAN: It's in recess, and will be in recess. MEMBER. TORTORA: Do you have to re-notice? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No, I don't have to re-notice. We recess it with a date. It"s not re-advertised, it's not re-posted. It's set for a date. It should be here and it probably won't be further postponed. That's the policy. CHAIRMAN: OK. Is there anything you would like to say for the record? MR. CARL VAIL: Yes, thank you for the postponement. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MR. CARL VAIL: I'll have our attorney here on the 29 th. CHAIRMAN: Great. Is there anyone that is not going to be here on the 29, that would like to say something regarding this hearing? Again, this is barring my agenda. Appeal #4377, seeing no hands I'll make a motion in recessing it to the next regular scheduled meeting. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Could you give a date with that please? CHAIRMAN: Yes, May 29 th. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Thank you MEMBER. DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor, aye. 8:03 p.m. Appl. #4376 - SCOTT A. RUSSELL & ANO. This is an application requesting a Waiver under Section 100-26 of the Zoning Ordinance, based upon the Building Inspector's March 14, 1996 Notice of Disapproval, in which applicant was denied a building permit to construct a one-family dwelling. Under Article 11, Section 100-25A enacted 1/1/96, the subject lot 1000-136-1-19 is substandard in size, is referred to as Eugene Heights Lots 78 & 79 fronting along Oak Street, and has been held in common ownership after 1983 with an adjoining lot, 1000-136-1-29, referred to as Eugene Heights Lots 4111 and #112 fronting along Harbor Lane, at Cutchogue, NY. The total combined lot area. is less than 40,000 sf and less than 150' lot width. Zone District: R-40 CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a map produced by John Metzger, it's a survey I should say -most recent date is September 27, 1995 indicating a 50 by 125 lot. I have a copy of the County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Scott, how are you tonight? Page 12 - Public Hearing Transcripts May 1, 1996 - ZBA SCOTT RUSSELL: Fine, how are you. I don't want to sound inconvenient to anybody. I was hoping that I could present any argument I might have, for a full board of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I know that you have a member absent. CHAIRMAN: Yes, he had a death in the family. SCOTT RUSSELL: I don't want to inconvenience anybody, but is it possible that I could be granted a recess if I requested one. I'm ready to prepare and present now if that's what you want, but I was hoping that I could recess it and have it before all five members. CHAIRMAN: Sure, no problem. Just say it if you want. SCOTT RUSSELL: I want it. CHAIRMAN: Ok, no problem. SCOTT RUSSELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak either for or against this application, that might not be here on the 29th. Seeing no hands I make a motion recessing this until the 29th. Prepared by Noreen Frey from tape recordings. RECEIVED AND FILED BY [ THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK � DATE lal 1! I R 6 .HOUR t [ lam" ffy' [ Town Clerk, Town of Southold f u(1L..:f=J1d� MAY 1, 1996 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 8:05 p.m. Appl. #4373 - Richard F. Lark, Esq. attorney for RONALD J. MAYER. This is an application for a variance based upon the Building Inspector's March 19, 1996 Notice of Disapproval issued under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2 whereby applicant applied for a building permit for permission to convert existing separate building for a one-family dwelling occupancy, and/or to create a separate parcel containing less than the required lot area, width and depth in this R-40 Zone District. Building permit #12554Z issued 8/27/83 indicates the Building Inspector granted permission "to construct two-story non-habitable accessory building." Location of Property: 7735 Main Road, East Marion, County Tax Map Parcel 1000-31-2-26, a corner lot, containing a total area as exists of 25,210 square feet. Additionally, the building as exists will not conform to yard setbacks for a principal dwelling and additional variances are necessary for approval as a principal dwelling conversion. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a map survey indicating the parcel #1, which is the parcel that we are addressing with the building on it tonight, of 12,605 square feet indicated on the survey to be set off, and the house parcel which sits directly on the corner of Rocky Point Road and Main State Highway 25 which also comprises of two-story building, 12,605 square feet. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. And, Mr. Lark, whenever you're ready. How are you tonight? RICHARD LARK, ESQ. : Good evening, Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for the applicant Ronald Mayer. As indicated in the notice that you had read, the petitioner - and I'll cover the history of it, as best I can. When he discovered that this property that he had purchased at the foreclosure sale, as a. result of foreclosing his own mortgage, had in effect an illegal two-family dwelling constructed on it. And he wanted to figure out the best way to proceed, and it was decided by - after giving it serious consideration that in order to legalize the de facto or existing situation, that it was best to request the board to subdivide it into two parcels, each having a single family dwelling, which I will cover the reasons for, in a couple of minutes. The petitioner received title to this property by referee'sdeed in foreclosure, a copy of what you have as Exhibit 1 on September 7, 1995. Prior to that, the petitioner was the principal in a company called the American Mortgage and Loan Corp. , which I i Page 2 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals is a licensed New York private mortgage lender, who had granted the prior owners at this particular parcel, a John Porfiris and a Nicki Porfiris, his wife, a mortgage in September of 1989. And that mortgage is a recorded mortgage, and it covered this parcel, as well as several other parcels in the Town of Southold which Mr. Mayer will inform you about, as well as another parcel in Queens, I believe. But in any event, when Mr. Mayer runs his mortgage lending business much like any bank does, and you have to make an application, after you make an application, then there is a credit search, and then there is a title search to see what the collateral is, and so on and so forth. And when Mr. Porfiris applied for this mortgage, he represented that one of the parcels of the collateral with this property contained two individual, one-family houses, and indeed it did. Mr. Mayer inspected the property. It did have that back in 1989. Building #1 which I'll refer to in this presentation, fronts on the Main Road, corner of Rocky Point and the Main Road. Building #2 which is in the rear of the property and fronts on Rocky Point Road facing Sep'sFarm. At the mortgage closing, which was in September 7, 1989 Mr. and Mrs. Porfiris presented the applicant, who was the lender at that time, a survey, a current 1989 survey, showing the property with the two dwellings. You have a copy of that survey as Exhibit 2. And in their mortgage application, they represented that Building #1, which is on the corner, was constructed many years ago, and had suffered extensive fire damage in 1988, and had been repaired. Indeed Mr. Mayer investigated it. He found that to be true, and they producedthe CO for the closing for this building reflected on May 22, 1989, which was issued for repair of fire damage that he had previously issued by a building permit by the Town of Southold. Ok. That's also attached to Exhibit #3. In addition, he represented that building #2, which facing Sep'sfarm on Rocky Point Road, had replaced a prior two story pre-existing structure, which had been used as a seasonal dwelling, and was a built many years ago. Mr. Porfiris explained to Mr. Mayer that he rebuilt this building in 1983-1984 time frame, and he indeed showed him the Certificate of Occupancy dated Septem- ber 27th showing this dwelling as a ". . . two story, one family dwelling." Ok. A copy of that is also attached as Exhibit 2. Mr. Porfiris, Mr. Mayer will testify as to that because he was present, I was not, at the closing. And Mr. Porfirisalso represented, although the CO for Building 2, had been issued for one family dwelling since the time of the construction in 1983, and keep in mind this was 1989, that the building had been used as a two family dwelling because when Mr. Mayer investigated the property he discovered that indeed it had two separate entrances. It had a downstairs and an upstairs, completely independent of one another. Both having three bedrooms, a large living room. Both having kitchens, bathroom facilities and that dwelling indeed had its own cesspool facilities. Mr. Porfiris represented at the Health Department, Suffolk County Health Department had approved the water line to come through the main building #1 on the corner to supply water to this building. Mr. Porfirisalso indicated that he e ' Page 3 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals himself had physically lived in the building after the fire in building #1, while it was being repaired. The title search performed that's normally done by a lender indicated that there were no outstanding violations in the Town of Southold and the title then closed. Unfortunately for Mr. Mayer, and probably why the reason he's here today, the Porfirises defaulted in paying their mortgage, which resulted in a foreclosure, which I indicated to you earlier in my remarks as a result of which in September 7, 1995 a foreclosure deed was passed over to Mr. Mayer. Hence his problems really began as far as this particular piece of property. Apparently, when he took title to it, the prior owners had done some, In essence, some vandalism type damage to the premises, so, Mr. Mayer was in a quandary as just what to do with it, and how to fix it, and so on and so forth. In obtaining advice of a local broker Lynda Spangel, it was discovered that "you better check it out, just what the legal status of everything was." In that process he discovered that, in fact, the CO for building #1 was indeed valid, but the CO that he presented to him at the closing was a forgery because someone, presumably Mr. Porfiris who gave the CO had altered it, from what was the real document. A copy of it was in the Building Department file and you have it as Exhibit #5 which was a two story, nonhabitable accessory building which is far different than a one-story residential dwelling. Ok. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Mr. Lark, it wasn't the altered CO that was in the Building Department file? RICHARD LARK: I didn't say that. I said Mr. Porfirisfile given to him at the time of the mortgage closing, he discovered later after taking title in 1985 what the true CO was. And that the CO given to him was indeed a forgery. RICHARD LARK: Further investigation revealed that the local contractor, who both not only did the renovations to house #1 where the fire loss was, but also had constructed this building #2, was one Mr. Chester Orlowski, a local builder. And upon checking his records, Mr. Mayer discovered that in 1983, Orlowskireceived a building permit for a two story nonhabitable accessory building. And investigation further realized that it brought forth that, when Mr. Orlowski was in the process of exercising a building on the building permit, and he was tearing down the barn that had been on there before - he encountered a stop work order by the Building Department, and even though, Mr. Orlowskiwas trying to put it in the same footprint, the Building Inspector at the time said, "No, you have to move it back 35 feet from the road. It has to conform with Zoning and there were some other difficulties with the design of the roof," which were all worked out, so on and so forth. And Mr. Orlowskithen apparently complied with all the requests with the Building Department, passed all the inspections and completed the building. In 1988 after the fire damage took Building #1, indeed, the Building Department again came to the premises, and issued a ' Page 4 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals building permit for the repair of the damage that was caused to that building. I think it's apparent from just what I've said so far, that the difficulties to the petitioners are obvious. The property in its present condition, is not legitimately saleable to a bonafidepurchaserb e cause of this Certificate of Occupancy status. Further, in researching the problem, the petitioners found that in 1984, Building #2 has been used as a two-family dwelling in particular in the Summer season. But it's his belief that if the Zoning Board granted the relief requested here for the area variance of two individual lots, they would be in his best interest, so that he could sell them, and as well as the Town, to okay two single family dwellings here, that would be owned independently of one another. There is no question that he will have to make some improvements to Building #2, because he will have to open up the downstairs to the upstairs, so that the two outside doors will be a front door and one would be a side or rear door. You could get internal access to upstairs from downstairs, and move the kitchen on the second story floor as well as some other housekeeping items. It's well constructed and in pretty good shape. It just needs to be converted into a one family, rather than a two family home. At this point, not to belabor anything, I would like to --. CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask a question? RICHARD LARK: Surely. CHAIRMAN: So at this time there are two separate kitchens in that building? RICHARD LARK: That's right. Two separate kitchens. Actually there are just two complete units totally independent of one another. One exactly right on top of one another. Both with three bedrooms, a large- huge living room, a dining facility, kitchen-dining facility, and a full bathroom. All substantial rooms. CHAIRMAN: How many electric meters are on that house? MR. RICHARD LARK: I think at the present time, one. Is that correct (to Mr. Mayer)? RONALD MAYER: Yes. MR. LARK: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. RICHARD LARK: One, ok. At this time I would like to present to the board Lynda Spangel, who more or less I think, asked all the right questions when she was asked by Mr. Mayer, how to properly market the property after he got it in foreclosure. Lynda? LYNDA SPANGEL: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Appeals. Thank you for the opportunity to introduce myself and address the issues of the Ronald J. Mayer application for Page 5 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals a permit to subdivide the property on the corner of Rocky Point Road and the Main Road. My name is Lynda Lee Spangel, and I've been a permanent resident of the Town of Southold for 30 years, and a summer resident for 20 years before that. You can tell by the gray hair that there's more years in addition to that too. From 1984 until very recently, I resided on the Main Road in Orient. Driving by the subject property a minimum of four times a day, seven days a week. The major portion of my professional career was spent as an officer of Southold Savings Bank and subsequently as a Senior Vice President of North Fork Bank Corp, where I was in charge of loan operations. At one point during my tenure at Southold Savings, I was in charge of foreclosures, bankruptcies, and other real estate owned, and this property that Mr. Mayer now owns was the subject of several foreclosure actions. Thus, I have in excess of 25 years' experience with mortgage lending, everything from application through to liquidation or satisfaction. After I retired from North Fork Bank, I attended the American Real Estate School, where I became a licensed real estate sales person. After a year of experience, and meeting the point systems, taking more schooling and graduation, I now I'm a fully licensed real estate broker, affiliated with HahnRealty in Greenport. Thus as you can see, I have had continuing and concentrated experience with analyzing and evaluating property values within the Town of Southold - both from a lending prospective and/or a marketing approach. Mr. Mayer came to me in the very late fall of 1995 to discuss selling his Rocky Point Road property. Upon inspection of the subject property, I, of course, remembered the problems and its negative history. Before giving Mr. Mayer my opinion as to the range of current market value based on my banking background, I requested copies of CO, survey, deed, permits, and building card. Of course, my due diligence included further inspecting the neighborhood, which I was already very familiar with. I would like to present to you a chart showing the adjoinining properties, their addresses and what they are currently used for. CHAIRMAN: Could I see that? LYNDA SPANGEL: When Mr. Mayer informed me after his due dili- gence and mine, that the CO was for a one family dwelling with two story, nonhabitable accessory building, he said to me, "What am I going to do?" Mr. Mayer and I, both of us realized then, that the property was of a lotlesser value than we had originally anticipated. Mr. Mayer was very definite and so was I, to keep compliance of course, with my license, that we must address this issue in a legal manner. Therefore, he requested further assistance from me. We entertained several thoughts that we might present to you, regarding this dilemma of the highest and best use of the property. We thought of a bed and breakfast. We thought of asking you for a permit for a two family structure for the accessory structure, which indeed it had been used as if it was a two family. However, we did 1 Page 6 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals agree that the fairest and most reasonable and best use for the area was to subdivide the property and ask you permission for two single family dwellings. That particular house and area, as I would pass by and would observe on weekends, summertime there would be a lotof extra cars, trucks. Many people milling about, obviously being habited by more than a single family. If you were to ask my opinion as to "as is" value of the property with the current CO, I would have to say it was in the range of $125,000.00 to $139,000.00. Now, ifyou favor us with the request that Mr. Lark has presented to you this evening, the rear house that faces on Rocky Point Road as a single dwelling, we would value it in the range of $85,000.00 to $99,000.00 with the parcel, the main house that faces on the Main Road, with a separate value of $120,000.00 to 125,000.00. The price for the front house may seem low to you. But if you were to visit the site, you would see that in the main house, it was totally destroyed by the previous owner and occupant, in that, there is not a working kitchen. They just ripped everything out of the walls. The bathroom was totally destroyed. There are holes in the wall. So there is little -- that's why the value, is as it is. But yet the taxes on this parcel for $5,300.00. I want to thank you very much for listening to us and giving us this consideration. Should you have any questions or need further research on behalf of a real estate broker, as myself, I would be happy to do so. CHAIRMAN: Just before you leave Mrs. Spangel. The house was renovated after the fire. Is that correct? LYNDA SPANGEL: Yes, and during that time the Porfiriseswere occupying the back dwelling while it was being renovated. CHAIRMAN: So that the vandalism that occurred, occurred, you know -(interrupted) . LYNDA SPANGEL: Between 1989 and when Mr. Mayer had successfully (interrupted) . CHAIRMAN: Successfully foreclosed the mortgage. LYDNA SPANGEL: The referee deed was granted to him. CHAIRMAN: Ok, great. Let me see. Does anybody else have any questions of this nice lady? Bob. MEMBER VILLA: Are you familiar with Health Department regulations? How is this going to fit in with Article 6? LYNDA SPANGEL: I do understand that there will have to be, but I refer that to Mr. Lark because he's the expert. I am not in that sense. RICHARD LARK: Mr. Mayer at my request did go to the Health Department, and they told him he would have to put in another well. It can be put in because Van Tuyldid the survey to show that there is enough separation between the neighboring properties. He can get ' Page 7 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals 100 feet, and they told him depending on the depth of the well and everything. He has not done those tests yet, whether or not he would have to go for a variance because he can get 100 feet separation. But as you now, he would like 150 feet now especially with an undersized lot. MEMBER VILLA: In fact, he has to subdivide this piece of property. RICHARD LARK: Right, he can't do anything until he gets the Board of Appeals approval. Then he has to get Article 6, under the Health Department. Then he has to get the local Planning Board to approve it. So he has three hurdles to go before he can,, and then convert the house to a one family, a true one family before he can get a proper CO. So, he has four hurdles to overcome. But, no one will do anything until the Board of Appeals grants the land use of it which they can under the Zoning Code, by granting a variance because the structures are already there to quote, "for the undersized lots". MEMBER VILLA: Because I have concerns on it. RICHARD LARK: No, no. MEMBER VILLA: It's a one acre area, and you're asking for lots of 12,000 square feet. RICHARD LARK: That's correct. MEMBER VILLA: Which is a great deviation. RICHARD LARK: There's no question about it. But in my 30 years of practice I've never had a problem like this before, and I can't tell you how many hundreds of mortgages I closed. When you're working for a lender or somebody else, and I can't tell you how many times we've taken photo copies of COs, because you couldn't get one with a seal on it, and all the other kind of stuff. You just do it. I can't tell you how many times we've done that. I've never had this happen before, and when I questioned him, how did it happen? He said, "Very easy. I went there. It was what he said it was. It was what the papers said it was. It was what the survey said it was. Everything was in proper order and the title search. They did the departmental, and it didn't show any violations." So they said, it was one of these things. MEMBER VILLA: Because you know, this is different with the Health Department too, because in the past if there were two valid houses, they would subdivide them. But here, you've got an illegal. RICHARD LARK: You got an illegal. It has to be made to "legal." That's as far as the land use is concerned. The Health Department told me that. Come back after you get done with the Board of Appeals. Then we'll wrestle with the problems. Make sure you've got at least 100 feet that you could put a well. You know, play the musical wells and the cesspool game. Ok, I know. Page 8 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals LYNDA SPANGEL: I just want to reiterate the fact that, I can't see anything detrimental as far as the area goes to subdividing it. I think the chart demonstrates that. That already is an area that is of mixed use and certainly is a traffic area. It certainly would be far better to have two single one families, than to have the illegal type operation that was continuing there and perpetuated itself for many years. Thank you. MEMBER VILLA: I just have a problem trying to legalize something that was done in violation of the Town all these years. RICHARD LARK: We'll come to that. MEMBER VILLA: It just doesn't seem right. CHAIRMAN: OK, MR. RON MAYER: Good evening. My name is Ron Mayer, and I was the President of American Mortgage & Loans, that originated this mortgage back in 1979, back in 1989 - excuse me. It feels like 179. Just to reiterate a little bit what Mr. Lark said, and Lynda said. When we originate a mortgage, we do a title search, so on and so forth. This mortgage encompassed four different properties. All the COs for all those different properties were present. There was no problem with any of them, because we had - during this foreclosure we had, the Porfirissold off certain properties to reduce my debt. MEMBER VILLA: Were these were all adjacent properties. MR. RON MAYER: No, these are different single and separate parcels. One in Queens. Claudio's Liquors. MEMBER VILLA: You had one mortgage to cover all these --. MR. RON MAYER: Yes, blankets. A one blanket mortgage covering all. So, it wasn't an easy deal to begin with, and I had taken them out of a prior foreclosure. I paid off all the other stuff. I mean, they were being foreclosed before I got involved. Which should have told me something. MEMBER VILLA: What was the total of the mortgage. Do you mind saying that? MR. RON MAYER: It was $410,000,00. During that time, after six years in bankruptcy court, six years. We set all kinds of records. The Porfiris hired 17 lawyers. I went through six judges, three retired. My attorneys have never seen anything like this. This was a nightmare. The history, without attacking anybody personally was that Mr. Porfiris had a sickness which was due to drink, ok, and he could not go into a courtroom and react properly. I mean, the screaming and yelling in the courtroom. Court guards would have to take him out. Everything was a nightmare from beginning to the end. That's why he went through 17 lawyers. They couldn't take him. Page 9 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals I built up costs during those six years, and I have a balance due me of over a quarter of a million dollars. I have a breakdown of cost. This last parcel that went off, I was owed $1851000.00 still left on foreclosure. Needless to say, the taxes weren't paid in five or six years. As soon as I got it back, Southold Town wanted their taxes. I had to lay out $52,000.00 with penalties and interest. The back property that was not CO'd, was being taxed higher than the front property. Which I found out, because when I was in there, and Lyntold me about this, I ran down to the Building Department and I said, Oh. What else could go wrong?. I went to the assessor and looked, and he said your taxes were $5300.00 and Mr. Lark has the breakdown of how they figure out here. I don't know. It worked out that the uninhabitable structure was being taxed at $3,000.00, and the legal one family was $2,000.00. I couldn't figure that one out either. MEMBER VILLA: Can I ask a question at this point? How do you get $52,000.00 in arrears without the County taking it over. MR. MAYER: Bankruptcy. CHAIRMAN: It was in bankruptcy. MR. MAYER: You can't do anything. MR. MAYER: Then other things such as plumbing problems, legal, sheriff evictions. She was right at the doorstep. She wouldn't even give herself the grace of moving out. . She was at the doorstep when the sheriff was throwing stuff out. Reciting the law, and this and that, and the other thing. So the sheriff gave her a stay. So I had to wait another six weeks to get her out. I could go on and on about this, but meanwhile, I have a breakdown. I'm in here for $250,700.00. As Mrs. Spangel, I do ok, but when she came up with an appraisal of $125,000.00 to $139,000.00. I do ok -- but I don't do okto take a $100,000.00 bath here. I'm sick, I'm physically sick over this. My wife is sick over this. All this can be documented by my lawyers, as to what I've laid out. I have checks to prove everything. CHAIRMAN: Can you give us a copy of that breakdown. MR. RON MAYER: I scribbled this out. I would be more than happy to send this to you broken down. Whatever you want to do. May I approach? CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. RON MAYER: This is part of the costs. I think I even forgot one in there. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Is this for this property, or is it for all four. MR. RON MAYER: For this property alone. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, I was just wondering. Page 10 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. RON MAYER: Sheriff's fees of $2500. CHAIRMAN: What did you say, Linda (Secretary)? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Are you going to ask him the values of the other properties? CHAIRMAN: What other properties? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: On the $400,000.00. RICHARD LARK: Do you want a formal copy of that? CHAIRMAN: I don't know. . We'll see what happens. Go ahead, Mr. Mayer, I'm sorry. MR. RON MAYER: I could probably add some more costs in this, you get nickeled and dimed, I owed some old guy $60.00. I'm not even counting this stuff. CHAIRMAN: Now, you have presently have a house that's not habitable. Is that correct? The front house is not habitable. MR. RON MAYER: The front house is habitable. The rear house, that's the illegal structure is not habitable. CHAIRMAN: Oh, that's the one that they ripped everything out. MR. RON MAYER: No, no. Because she was being thrown out, she didn't care so they ripped the appliances out of the walls, left holes in the walls. There were holes in the ceiling where there was freeze ups. SECRETARY L. KOWALSKI: Which house, number 1 or number 2? MR. RON MAYER: The front house. CHAIRMAN: The one that was redone after the fire. MR. MAYER: Yes. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: The number 1 house. CHAIRMAN: The one that wasrehab'd after the fire. MR. RON MAYER: Right. CHAIRMAN: OK MR. RON MAYER: Right. That was a mess, a total mess. The days of course, I didn't look down. The five or six hundred bucks that I had, I had a guide to go in, just to do general cleaning of the place. If I sound excited, this deal after 25 years of doing business has killed me. Then when she told me I had an illegal structure in the back, you ought to have ( ) . My greatest thing was, why couldn't I find this out four years ago, so when I could go Page 11 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals to the bankruptcy court Judge, and show them they committed a fraud on me, they would have let me auction this thing off. I would have saved all this time, method, and money. Then they would have seen who they were dealing with, and the fraud that was perpetrated on me. If I was to go after them for fraud now. Number one, they're bankrupt. They have nothing. Number 2, I don't know where they're at. They're floating around in Queens some place. (Hesitation) (I got off my track, I'm sorry.) When I went to Lynn Spangel, I said maybe I could get, I'll take a little loss here. I'd like to get $225,000.00. I said, see what you can do. So she is the one that went to look at the property. She went down to the town board, She said," Ronnie, you don't have a legal two family or a legal one family there." I said, "What are you talking about." "You better go down to town board," and fortunately for her I did, and that's how come I'm here. I could have probably pushed this under the carpet, and said "OK, we have a problem here. It's been used since the last seven or eight years. Let me throw tenants in there, bolt it up, and get all the money I can get out in rentals." Nobody will --know the difference, because nobody has known the difference. I mean, in all honesty, it's been like that for the last seven or eight years. When I closed this loan, I went to visit this property. There were people upstairs and downstairs in that two-family house, and they lived in the main house. That was people in there right along. Maybe one apartment was vacant, but another one was occupied. I'll tell you one story of how bad it really got. I went to the tenant that was upstairs, an old Greek man, who was at the auction, and he said, "What are you doing with Mrs. Porfiris." I said, "I'd like to get paid." He said, "they owned this house free and clear." I said, I'm afraid they didn't. Well, I said, what's going to happen to me? I paid them three years rent up front. They take $700.00 a month that I'm paying, times three years, they told me they would give me a discount if I paid up. I paid them $20,000.00 up front to get a discount. So, I let the old man stay there, and he will move back to Greece, a little bit later. At that point, I asked Lynn to recommend an Attorney. I said, we're not going to do this. We're not going to rent this stuff out. We're going to try to get this thing, try to get it legitimized to the best we can do, and I got to try to recoup some money here. At that point, she referred me to Mr. Lark, and here I am, seven years later. Still trying to get out 'of this mess. They settled the Robins Island bankruptcy three years before this little thing. I would like to just end my statement here that I would appreciate if the board could do anything that they could possible do here, and I'm willing to go, whatever they tell me to do, with the Health Department and so on and so forth. But I cannot conceivably, I thought the property was worth more money, because the Town says it's worth on the assessed rolls, over $300,000.00. I have brokers that are dealing every day here, telling me it's worth $140,000.00. I believe the brokers. They are there every day, pounding it out, pounding it out. I believe there's a comparable next door. Page 12 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals LYNDA SPANGEL: The property next door that faces on the Main Road, you will see on the charts, sold for $160;000.00 two years ago, comparable size, a home in pristine condition. An older home that had been renovated, country kitchen, and the whole works. That was two years ago. The market has not improved in the last two years, as you know. Not for inland property. RON MAYER: And it sold for how much? LYNDA SPANGEL: $160,000.00 RON MAYER: Take off a commission, transfer taxes, this and that, and you're down to $148,000.00 there about. Does the board have any questions of me? CHAIRMAN: (Member) Lydia? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I have a couple of questions. The Certificate of Occupancy, the one that's the alleged forgery. On the certificate it says, right at the top, ". . .This certifies that the building, accessory building. . . ." It says, accessory building right on it. The forgery is an exact duplicate of the original except that one line has been whited out, or appears to have been whited out. RON MAYER: I didn't have the one that said, accessory building. I just had the one, at the closing. MEMBER TORTORA: This is the one you've, the one Mr. Lark said that was submitted at the closing. This is the one I'm referring too. MR. MAYER: No, it was the one at the closing, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: If you read at the top, it says ". . .accessory building." (Mr. Mayer came up to look at Member Tortora's reference. ) RON MAYER: Yes. I was concerned with the "two story, one family dwelling." That's what I was concerned with. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MR. RON MAYER: When I have six CO'son a blanket mortgage. My lawyers looked at it and said, yes, it's a one family building, and we looked at all the others, and they seemed ok. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. It says accessory building, and also I mean. You didn't ask for an original at the closing? MR. RON MAYER: No, many times we don't ask for originals. MEMBER TORTORA: That's the second time (interrupted) . Page 13 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. MAYER: I do now. But even the other properties that I had, the liquor store, this, it was all photos, all photos MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, what you have submitted here appears to be a forgery. The problem here is, that Mr. Porfiris isn't here. We're hearing one side of this. MR.. RON MAYER: I would love to have him here. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know who forged this, and you haven't submitted or you - Mr. Lark, haven't submitted any proof that it's virtually you know, just your word that he's done this. I don't know that for a fact. You haven't given me any evidence to substantiate that. The other thing that keeps going back through my head about all the money that you have invested. MR. MAYER: Yes MEMBER TORTORA: In this property, this tremendous hardship that you've had with this man. A lotof this seems to be a civil matter, and I'm having a problem understanding why this is something, that's before this board in essence, in a sense that, this is a civil matter in my mind. MR. MAYER: It's a civil matter to the extent of money. MEMBER TORTORA: The very thing you're asking is substantial. MR. RON MAYER: We have a building that has been used --. MEMBER TORTORA: You're asking for to subdivide two lots in a one acre zone, which requires 40,000. square feet. You're asking to create two, 12,500 square foot lots. That is a 70o request, and it's much smaller than any of the other lots in the area, and you're basing all this claim on the alleged (copy) Certificate of Occupancy that was forged without any proof of who did the forging. MR. MAYER: Well, it's to me, that's , pretty logical. I mean, I was there. They gave me the COs, right. I was there. The properties are rented out. Put yourself in my position too. You're there, you're. a lender. You see COs on Claudio's Liquors, on the building that's across the street, that they own. On this, on the Woodside, Queens, and you're making the loan, and it's legal, and the people are living in the properties here. What happened to the Southold Town Building Inspectors. Why didn't they evict all these tenants over the years. They knew who's illegal. I mean, that's what got me upset. I mean, it's been used for seven or eight years over here, as an illegal rental property. A guy gives me a (copy) CO, that says it's ok. It's a legal one family or two family house there. MEMBER TORTORA: But, all the other documentation that goes with this, says that it's not. There is this correspondence that goes all the way back clearly saying, that it's not. Page 14 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. MAYER: Yes, but I only picked that up after the fact, of when Lyn went to the Building Department. I thought I just went by that CO. MEMBER TORTORA: Buyer beware. MR. MAYER: What? MEMBER TORTORA: Buyer beware. MR. MAYER: Well, I'm a lender. I didn't buy it. You know, there was a letter that came in here accusing me of going to an auction, and trying to steal the property to make money by some fellow here. Believe me, if I could make a profit I'll give it to him. I'll donate it to the Town. I'm not looking to make any profits here. I'm looking to minimize my losses in a house that has been used that way for many years in an area that is not going to hurt anybody because the property across the street. I see he has two cottages rented there, that I don't think are legal. I see Sep'sfarm stand there. The man in the back has no objection. I don't know. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Mr. Mayer, I was just curious. I'm the secretary to the board, but I was looking at the file, and there's no title report that would show that there was a survey inspection, before you gave the mortgage, and there is no mortgage in the file. Could you give us copies of those for the record? MR. RON MAYER: Sure. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Survey inspections sometimes will show if your COsconform or agree with the survey. There is nothing in the record on that. RICHARD LARK ESQ: Don't forget. There wouldn't have been a survey inspection there, because the survey given to him at the mortgage was a brand new survey. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's a brand new survey. RICHARD LARK ESQ: It's in that exhibit there. It's almost contemporaneous with the mortgage. When you have a survey that's contemporaneous with the date of the documents, they don't do a survey inspection. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: There's no inspection of the property at all? R,ICHARD LARK ESQ: I'm sure there's not. I'll get you the title report. We can get it from his trial lawyer. That's not the issue. But I looked at that myself and . SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I know, but normally in Suffolk County it's done. That's the only reason I'm asking. RICHARD LARK ESQ: No, I'm telling you. It's not done when you have a contemporaneous survey. Page 15 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, it's just odd. Excuse me. RICHARD LARK ESQ: Well, we'll get it right in the record. What's the date of the survey that you have there. It's done by Homan. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, let's see. There are photocopies, let's see if I can find an original. They're a couple of different ones. The original in here is March 1996. So, that's apparently not the survey. RICHARD LARK ESQ: -No, that's Exhibit 7. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Maybe you could give us the survey that was with the title report. That might help. RICHARD LARK ESQ: You have it with the file. CHAIRMAN: It down here. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They usually attach it to the title report. RICHARD LARK ESQ: No, they don't, no they don't. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: They do in mine. I've had three closings. MR. RON MAYER: I've had hundreds. Everyone is different. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Ok, this one is dated August 30, 1989. You're mortgage was 1983, you said, right. RICHARD LARK ESQ: No. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: What is the date of your mortgage? RICHARD LARK ESQ: September 7, pardon -- MR. RON MAYER: September of 1189. RICHARD LARK ESQ: September of 189. You see, it's contemporaneous with the mortgage. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: But it says, two story frame dwelling. It doesn't say two family. RICHARD LARK ESQ: It matches the CO's. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, no, it doesn't because it says --. RICHARD LARK ESQ: Yes, what does it say on the survey. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It doesn't say, two family dwelling on there (on the survey) . 'Page 16 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals RICHARD LARK ESQ: It doesn't say, but the COssays, it's a one family dwelling. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You're CO, you said --. RICHARD LARK ESQ: : Both of them. There are two CO's. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I'm talking about house #2. The one that (interrupted) . RICHARD LARK ESQ: One says, it's a "one family" CO. MEMBER DINIZIO: ". . .Two story family dwelling." SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Says, "two story framed dwelling" on the survey. It does not indicate it's a two family dwelling. It doesn't indicate anything --. RICHARD LARK ESQ: That's correct. Now, lets look at CO for building #1. What does it say, you have it there? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Well, I'll show it to you. Why don't you read it into the record, Mr. Lark, because I'm asking a question - you know. I'm saying, may be we need more information to help Mr. Mayer get a better decision, that's all. It helps. The more information you have Mr. Mayer's, and that's the only reason we're asking for it, so please don't ---. MR. RON MAYER: Yes. No, I have no problem doing whatever I have to do. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: This was the survey probably, right. RICHARD LARK ESQ: The mortgage was dated, and ,I'll give you a copy of that. I will furnish that, September 7, 1989. MR. MAYER (came up closer to members) : I wasn't concerned with that. I was concerned that it was guaranteed. MR. LARK, continued: The time of the mortgage closing on September 7, 1989, the applicant presented your petitioner Mr. Mayer, with a survey which is Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 shows on it a two story framed dwelling, #50 on the corner of Rocky Point Road and Main Road. That was given a. CO, which is Exhibit 3, which was dated May 22, 1989. As I indicated in my initial remarks, it's certified that a repair was made to that building at 7735 Main Road and 50 Rocky Point Road, giving the Tax Map number, and says. "repair damage from fire only to existing one family dwelling." SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: So, this survey was done after that CO, because you said, May 8 of 189 was when the CO --. RICHARD LARK ESQ: That is correct. Page 17 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, that's all. I just wanted a date. RICHARD LARK ESQ: Also, the survey shows on Rocky Point Road a two story framed dwelling. The CO that Mr. Mayer stated, that was given to him at the closing was Exhibit 4 dated September 27, 1984, and it's issued as Ms. Tortorasaid, for "accessory building, two story, one family building." That's what it says on it, ok. What Mr. Mayer and I said in my initial remarks, is that CO is obviously a phony because after he took title in September of 195, and talked to Mrs. Spangel, and came to the Building Department, he discovered that the original CO which was in the file of the Building Department which is Exhibit 5 was the same CO except it shows two family, non habitable accessory building, hence why we're here. He had no knowledge of the zoning, that there were two single family dwellings on the property at the time that he closed. That's what he was operating under the illusion of. As it turned out, there were not two legal, one family houses. There was one legal, one family house, and an accessory building which has been converted illegally to a habitable dwelling, which shouldn't have been, and he was given the CO, which as I indicated to you. You get as the practice, good or bad or indifferent. You get, more times you get copies, than you get originals with the seals. It's kind of interesting, because the more I thought about this afterwards, no one takes a death certificate or a birth certificate. Although, they are getting lax about that unless there is a seal on it. But CO's they take it, and I can tell you how that happened. In the early 1980s when we were under a tremendous crush building boom, not only in Southold but throughout Suffolk County, the Building Departments couldn't keep' up with it, and you couldn't get duplicates. You were lucky to get verbal alotof times, and you just went ahead and closed, because things were happening so fast. That's what happened. It got lax and to be honest with you, he got screwed. That's what happened. MEMBER VILLA: You won't find carbons in the Health Department because we require the originals. RICHARD LARK, ESQ: Right, and as it turned out. As I put in the exhibits, because when I got into investigating, I couldn't believe this had happened, and as it turned out, you have it as Exhibit 6. That's the survey, and notice the difference in surveyors too. That was the Van Tuylsurvey that was done in 1969, and that had the original - I was always told it was a barn, as I remembered it was kind of barn like structure. In any event, that was given to the Health Department with a proposed accessory building, wherein they granted the water line, which is existing today from the main house out. And you notice, that Mr. Brigham quite probably put nonhabitable building, because they were feeding off the main house. The interesting thing is, when he went to closing he didn't give him that survey. He went and got a brand new surveyor, and you see how it's doctored up, not to tell the true facts. This is what the guy had. Page 18 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals But, the point of it is. He was careful. He goes to the property as the survey shows it, unfortunately it wasn't. I've got one last person to talk to you about this because, it bothered me, when I got into the act. I had never seen anything like this in my life because I realized, although not all the property, even those zoned for one acre. There are many half acre, or less properties, which I'll talk about that in a moment, in the needed neighborhood. But, when I went down to the Building Department, I got copies of everything, and of course, the existing personnel in there didn't know anything, and properly so because their names didn't appear on anything that was in the file. You can see that, from what you have exhibit's except for Mr. Fish. But, he was only involved later. So, I contacted the original person who granted the building permit to find out what had happened, and I asked him to come here tonight just to inform the board, by way of historical fact, what the situation is. Vic, would you address the board please? CHAIRMAN: Hi, Vic, how are you doing? How are you feeling? (He was ill.) VICTOR LESSARD (Former Building Inspector) : It's nice to see your smiling faces again. CHAIRMAN: I see you brought your wife tonight, too. MR. LESSARD: She's my nurse, my bride, whatever, you know. When Mr. Lark told me about this coming up, I said, "I want to get on there and listen to this." First off, I don't know anybody in the room outside of Mr. Lark. I want you to understand that. When I started with the Town in 182, they finally straightened out the titles, and all that nonsense I was involved in. In the Spring of 183, when I was made officially the Inspector, whatever that was, the first thing I got into was this thing. Now, nobody wants to take a job, where the first one takes a dive on you, and that's what happened here. For ten years, I couldn't cure this problem, and I'll explain that to you in a minute. When the thing was applied for by Mr. Orlowski - . Oh, I would use different things, but I don't want to put proper names to them unless this board insists on it, but you'll know who I'm talking about. I wrote myself some notes so I'm going to be repetitious, and I know how you people like to go home at night. When I looked at the original application, and looked at the blueprints - I have a copy of the blueprints here - I'll get that to you, as soon as I get done talking. On the original blueprints, it has sliding windows upstairs, downstairs, a couple of bathrooms, a playroom, two bathrooms, two kitchens. Now, being in construction 50 some years, I may look stupid but I'm not that stupid. So I said to the other chubby Building Inspector, that was about my size. I said, what's going on here. He said, don't worry about it. So, I had this Mr.Porfiris come in my office, and talk to him. I said, why do you need two kitchens. Well, he said, my wife is an artist. She has to follow the sun around, and sometimes she'll be upstairs, sometimes she'll be downstairs. But, he didn't want her running, up and down. So, if Page 19 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals she wanted to have her tea, or what not, she wouldn't have to run downstairs to get it, if she was upstairs. CHAIRMAN: That's the best one I've heard in a long time. MR. VIC LESSARD: I must be a damn gullible slob because I looked at him, and anyway. VICLESSARD: The application was made to me. I never went to the Building Department, right away, so, I can't help you out on the COs. The application was made to me on the 27th of June. Linda (secretary) , by the way, you notarized it for me. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: I probably did MEMBER VILLA: What year,'82?. VIC LESSARD: June '83 - I'm sorry that's when it was notarized. I wrote the permit, I disapproved the permit application for two reasons. Even though it was on a corner lot, this so called barn was right up on the road. I have a copy of the note that I wrote to Curt,with four reasons why this job was going to be stopped. I have a copy of the note that I wrote to Curt, ok. I stopped this thing on July 22. First off, the design put the building too high, for an accessory apartment. When we finally decided, Mr. (Curt) Horton and myself and Chet(Orlowski) . . Accessory buildings are only allowed 18 feet, so they put a flat roof on it. CHAIRMAN: Right. VIC LESSARD: Exactly, ok, and I said, that's fine. But don't give me that garbage that this isn't a barn. I couldn't stop this thing. But, don't give me that garbage, this isn't a barn foot print. I said, because it's a corner lot, I'll let you move that building back so that it's at least beyond the protrusion of the main house. But, he went ahead with it anyway, and I'll give you this too. I have an electrical thing that says if he pays $500.00, he could get his underwriters (certificate) . The building permit reads, ". . .construct a two story nonhabitable accessory building". And the address, acting for John Porfirisin, yes, June 27, 1983. I'll give you all that. If you can't use it, throw it away. MEMBER VILLA: So, that didn't limit the height of the building? VIC LESSARD: I'm sorry? MEMBER VILLA: That didn't limit the height of the building? VIC LESSARD: The height was limited to 18 feet. MEMBER VILLA: OK VIC LESSARD: I made him stay at 18 feet, anything. But you couldn't stop him. He wanted to keep going. Page 20 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Vic, did you look to see if it was really uniquely just a barn, or was it more than a barn? VIC LESSARD: The whole thing was down, Curtwas down there. The whole thing was down, when I got involved. But I mean, the building right on the street. If someone drives off the street and hits the house. CHAIRMAN: Yes. VICLESSARD: So, I also have a plumbing breakdown if that is going to do you any good. But anyway, I talked with Curton this, and he lived down there. If I find one excuse, that building is dead. Like I told you, this is one of the few jobs that I couldn't resolve. So later on, down the road, the Town hired a permanent town attorney, and an assistant Town attorney. I said to the assistant Town attorney, jump in the car, we're going for a ride. He, Curtand I went down and parked. What's that, Bay Shore Road? CHAIRMAN: Rocky Point Road. VICLESSARD: Right in front of the place. Rocky Point Road. You could see the women, going by the window back and forth, and I said to this assistant attorney. Is someone living there or is she painting? Just about that time, she came out that front door screaming like a banchee. She came to the car, pounded on the windows. What the hell are you guys, mafia or what? Russian something, she called us. I said, what are you talking about, lady. I stopped the car on the side of the road, and we're having a conversation here. She said, you're spying on me. I said, excuse me, get away from the car and I'll move it. I came back here, and I got a phone call. Come to the Supervisor's office. So he said to me, what are you doing in East Marion, everybody's screaming. So I said to him, I took the assistant attorney down there, to find out what I could do, to get these people out of the house. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Is that 188 or 189 Vic. VICLESSARD: Yes, yes., and the attorney said to me. The only way, once you give them a CO, you can't go on that property any more. If you walk on that property, and you catch the guy robbing the bank, and he can prove that you set up an entrapment thing. CHAIRMAN: Right. VIC LESSARD: They will throw it out of court. They don't care how guilty he is, and that's the end of it. So, I said to this assistant attorney, what am I going to do with this guy? He's driving me nuts. So anyway, the Supervisor advised me not to go down there anymore. He also advised me to speak to a Judge. The Judge told me, Vic,I don't want to be gullible, he said, but these are appointed jobs, and I'm not going to get anybody mad .unless you can prove to me that he's 96% guilty. I said, what am I going to do with this guy? He said, unless you get an official complaint. But anyhow. The man never got a building permit for a one family, two Page 21 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals family, whatever dwelling. It was an accessory building. It was moved back from the road about 26, 28 feet. I think to the corner of, Bay or something on the main house on the corner. It's 18 feet high because that's what it called for an accessory building. It struck me funny that he could get an underwriters for an accessory building, but he got one. This is one of the few things that I could never put to bed. God knows, we tried. At least, I tried. So, I thought boy, I'm coming down there to see how this works, and that's why I'm here. CHAIRMAN: Well, we appreciate you coming down, Vic. VICLESSARD: If there is anything that I can answer, I'd be glad to. CHAIRMAN: Bob, has a question. MEMBER VILLA: Well the only question I had. If they're living in there, they must have put cesspools in at sometime. How did they get those in because --. They must have been inspected by somebody. VIC LESSARD: I had specific order from my boss, to stay out of East Marion. Now, you've worked for bosses before --. CHAIRMAN: I have to attest to you, that you know we've had a man on this board, until he passed away, from Orient. He was always doing a double flip over this, and he was always talking to you about this. VICLESSARD: Yes, I noticed. CHAIRMAN: I never knew what the discourse between you and he. All he kept on reporting to us was, "What was going on down there?" So, I assumed, he was just as frustrated as you were, and you were equally frustrated. VIC LESSARD: It was frustrating, and the fact, with all the laws in this Country, you can't enforce the law. It drives you nuts. I mean, you run a bluff on the guy, and you might get away with it. But, if you don't, forget it. CHAIRMAN: Well, I can remember quite vividly when Bob Douglas said, "They're raising that barn, and they're making a dwelling out of it." So, I said well, did you speak to Victor. He said, yes. We're speaking now. I'm speaking to him now. But we watched the entire thing materialize. VICLESSARD: He, what's his name. He used more bad language, than you'll find in the dictionary. I'll tell you that. But, I know where he was coming from, but there was nothing I could do with it. Two Town attorneys I tried talking to, and the Judge. Anybody else. CHAIRMAN: Would you give us those, Jim, Lydia. Thank you Page 22 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals VIC LESSARD: These are my notes. You have to be half French to read it. CHAIRMAN: Vic, thank you. Good seeing you. VIC LESSARD: I just want you to know that this government was doing all it could. That's the point I was trying to make. CHAIRMAN: Yes, did you want to ask a question Mr. Mayer? MR. MAYER: No. (Just doing something else.) R.ICHARD LARK ESQ: Ok, it's getting late, and I just wanted to, like I said. This is probably one of the worst situations that I've been ever confronted with all the years in practice. I couldn't believe that this thing could exist as long as everyone said it was, until I finally confronted Mr. Lessard about it. He said, "Oh yeah, we all knew about it but we couldn't do anything about it." I couldn't believe as Lydia said. A careful lender wouldn't have been able to discern what was happening here at the closing, until after all this unraveled on me. I want to correct one thing, and then make a few closing comments. It is true that the property produces a little over $5,000.00 in taxes. The way they have it assessed. They have the corner piece, building #1 which we refer to, they have that assessed at 5400 square feet building, tax dollars, $2,435.97. That's the building itself. The building in the rear which is the one in question, they have it as 4900 square feet, as $2210.41. So, with the land involved in each of 108 and 44, building #2, produces 2390.85, whereas as the front building produces 2616.41. So, that would be straightened out. They do have it laid out in the assessment card as a, they call it on the front, an accessory structure, but then they assess it on the back, as a full dwelling. So, there's no question about it. Like I say, I was one shocked person, when I went down and viewed the property myself. I couldn't believe it. The reason he said, he could have left it alone, and rented it out, and probably no one would have said something, because it's been going on for so long. But, because he's a licensed lender and the way he took the property, he just wanted to get rid of it, to sell it, and could have possibly passed it on to a buyer at a reduced price, with just "as is" condition with the two, or he could have perpetrated the fraud and not told anybody and with the phony CO he was giving. But when he thought about, what to do with it, and talking to the neighbors, Mrs. Spangel talked to the neighbors, and in fact, as I understand it, two of the neighbors on either side wrote favorable, because they viewed that to have two single family lots, small as they might be, is much better than what went on there previous for the past decade. That was #1. And when I think of my experience of having two dwellings on one lot, it tends to a commercial nature, especially as a property like that within a mixed neighborhood like it is here with the busy commercial farm stand right next door, Rocky Point Road has a business use property on it, and if you look at the Tax Map, some of the lots are equally as small as this one. { Page 23 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals I noticed in the file today that Mr. Siderakis, the neighbor across the street filed an objection. It reminded me that one in glass houses should not throw stones. He had two illegal cottages for the summer. You see them in the picture there, and in Mrs. Spangel's presentation. Far be it from me, to cause anyone problems, but I thought it very interesting. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: (Secretary interrupted to change tape) . R.ICHARD LARK ESQ: Certainly, you would never come here and ask that it be built. It's existing. I can't do anything about it. You heard what Mrs. Spangle, whose eminently qualified to testify as to value. He's going to take a loss on it, one way or another. It's just a question, whether to minimize the loss. Now, when you look at the criteria to granting an area variance, you have to look at, if there will be an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to the nearby properties. It's there. It's been there since 1983. There will be no detriment created. In fact, if we can get approval and if he can make the changes to create with conditions, two single family dwellings and have the Board of Health and the Planning Board go along with it, you would have two independent owners. I think, it would be an improvement in the neighborhood. Certainly not a detriment which is what's going on. I don't know what other method that the applicant can get relief, other than just renting it out and continuing what Mr. Porfirisdid for the last decade. I don't know what to do. I'll be honest with you. Other than just leaving it alone the way it is, and operate as an illegal use, which is certainly not an answer to the problem. Is this area variance substantial? Yes it is, when you look at the. property. But when you look at the neighborhood, it's not really. They're not truly 40,000 square foot lots surrounding it that are one family dwellings, particularly right in the neighborhood. Particularly when you go the North Road on Rocky Point Road, which would be an impacted area if there was traffic. But, I don't think there will be any traffic affect created. Will it have any adverse impact on the physical. environmental conditions of the neighborhood. There are two cesspools now, and they will continue to be two cesspools there. They have been three or more families. I think the truth of it is, I think the residence that are down there. They used to rent it out'by the weekends by the room. So, there was much more than two families there. But, that's neither here nor there, that's past. Vicis embarrassed as he explained it. They knew about it but, they couldn't do anything about it for one reason or another, whatever that reason might be. But no, I don't think it will have any adverse environmental effect. The thing is there. I think the proposed use will be less. Now certainly, what bothered me from the beginning, and I certainly think you have evident proof. The difficulty that the applicant Mr. Mayer finds himself in, I do not think is self created. Yes, sure, he had lawyers, surveyors, title companies and everything. He did everything what he normally did on any other Page 24 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals loan, and I have to submit to you what a banker would do, on any other loan, and this one got by. It certainly was not a self created hardship. But most important, and I hope the board will take this into consideration. I think you have a full, (we'll give you those other documents) . But, I think you have a full understanding of what happened here. When you use the balancing of interest test here, as to what is there, what .is to be done with the property, how we can make the best out of a bad situation, I feel, that granting the two single families, would be the answer. I certainly would have no objection if you would grant two single families on one lot. One as an accessory structure, and rent out. It would be the same thing except you would be limited to one buyer. You'd have Mother/Daughter situation. He'd get the same relief. But, I just question. Would the property be valuably used if you have one owner for two things. I think it lends itself to abuse. I spoke to Mr. Mayer. I said, if the board grants this, you'll have to grant before any CO's were ever issued to the Planning Board, and the Health Department approved it, you would have to submit yourself to physical inspections of the property by the Building Inspector to make sure they are, it is an independent single family. Because as I said to you, and you're welcome to go look at the property and make that accessible to you. When you go in it, it's your classic two family house. You can't get from one place to the other in the building, unless you go outside and go around. That all has to be changed so that it would be a single family. So, I think it would be less density use. I could argue on the other thing. I'm not, if he built it; he created it, or he went into it with his eyes wide opened. He doesn't want to be here. He's here because he had to foreclose on Porfiris, and take back his security. Now he's stuck with this situation, so I think when you balance the interest in the interest of justice, and the standards that have been set forth by the Legislature, and the Town Laws, as well as the court precedent before us, in this type. of situation, I think it cries for some type of relief. If you certainly can fashion a relief with conditions that is different then I propose, I would be more than happy to do it. Because, I think, just to walk away and ignore it, like has been done by our predecessors, is just going to perpetuate a bad situation. He didn't create it, and I just ask you to consider all the equities in the case, in granting him some type of relief, so he can get on with his life. Do you have any questions of Mr. Mayer or anybody. CHAIRMAN: Is that building in the rear built on a slab? MR. MAYER: Crawl space. RICHARD LARK, ESQ: Crawl space, yes that's right. Didn't have a cellar. If you notice on that one survey you have, a wooden bilco door that goes under the crawl space. That's how you get access to the rear of the property. Yes it is, like a three foot, two-three foot situation. CHAIRMAN: Is there a question back there. Page 25 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: Yes, you're saying, lie foreclosed to get back some of his equity. In the original mortgage, what was this property valued at? RICHARD LARK, ESQ: That you have to refer to him. In other words, you granted a mortgage of $410,000.00? MR. RON MAYER: I figured that that property was worth about $250,000.00 at that time, having a one family, and a two family on that property. RICHARD LARK ESQ. And that was '89 then right. MR. RON MAYER: Yes. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Lydia was asking if we have paper work. We don't have anything in the file to substantiate--. RICHARD LARK ESQ: On these original mortgage applications papers, no. Now, what's she's asking. Do you have anything? CHAIRMAN: Do you have an appraisal? RICHARD LARK ESQ: An appraisal where you base, whether it's yours or otherwise. The 189 time frame when you granted the mortgage, that's when you furnish the title report and the mortgage. MR. RON MAYER: I'm the direct lender. I go out, and do my own appraisal. I'm not selling these loans off to other banks. So when I go out, I do my own numbers on the properties that I'm lending . RICHARD LARK ESQ: Do you have notes and stuff at the time in your file. MR. RON MAYER: I would have to find it in my file. RICHARD LARK ESQ: If you do, would you make them available to the board. She's asking for. MR. RON MAYER: I'll give you what I have. MEMBER VILLA: I think we'd have to see that. What you're saying that there were four properties, . You liquidated three of them. I'd like to know the numbers involved. MR. RON MAYER: OK SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Could you give us one set, and then I'll give duplicates for everybody, but we need one set of something from you. MR. RON MAYER: A set? RICHARD LARK ESQ: I know what they want. Rage 26 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals MEMBER VILLA: Well you're saying, that you have to get your equity out of your house. How do we know that you didn't get your equity out of your three previous settlements on the mortgage. MR. RON MAYER: It's right in bankruptcy court of --. RICHARD LARK ESQ: That's what he wants to see. CHAIRMAN: We would also like to see any notes, Dick, that he may have, and what he valued that property. RICHARD LARK ESQ: Yes, and there obviously had to be some kind of field notes. You went there and you did the numbers. When you did the numbers crunch, and yes that's correct. We can furnish that, whatever we have. MR. RON MAYER: We have to report that back to the bankruptcy court, as to what I'm owed. That's the trustees ---. MEMBER VILLA: All we're hearing is you throwing out numbers. We'd like to see some proof. RICHARD LARK ESQ: OK, I understand what you want. It's a verification. MR. RON MAYER: I have no problem with that. RICHARD LARK ESQ: I understand. CHAIRMAN: Good, ok. RICHARD LARK ESQ: Anything else. CHAIRMAN: No, that's good. RICHARD LARK ESQ: I realize we've got a tangent on tendentious issues, other than land use issues. But they don't explain the land use, unless you understand where they came from. That was the point. CHAIRMAN: It never ceases to amaze me what goes on. MR. RON MAYER: Thank you very much for hearing ---. CHAIRMAN: Well, I was somewhat close to this based upon Mr. Douglass. RICHARD LARK ESQ: I did not know that you had to --. CHAIRMAN: With Mr. Douglas's was concerned continually and -- RICHARD LARK ESQ: No matter who I talk to, this is off the record now, when Lynda came to me she said, I know of this property. We had trouble with this. We loaned it at Southold. I said, with these, and she said yes, you know. 14age 27 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Now, if you don't mind me calling you Lynda by your first name. MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: Not at all. CHAIRMAN: You lent the money from North Fork Bank to this property, and Mr. Mayer bailed these people out? MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: Southold Savings was the original under lender, . but it was getting out of foreclosure. It never actually went on the auction block, and then after the acquisition, Southold by North Fork, there was a department that took over loans, and sold them to people like Mr. Mayer, , and packaged loans to get rid of nonperforming assets, and Mr. Mayer happened to be the unfortunate person to purchase this property. MR. RON MAYER: No, I didn't purchase a mortgage loan. I originated a new mortgage and paid off all the other ones. CHAIRMAN: Paid all the other ones. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How much was the old mortgage for Southold Savings that North Fork had? MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: It was satisfied. It was paid off. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It was paid off. It was paid off by Mr. Mayer? R. RON MAYER: There was another private lender like myself. It was a, first bank mortgage and there was another private lender that had a second mortgage, and they were some judgments and liens and SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: How much were they altogether? Do you remember? MR. RON MAYER: Between all the properties, it totaled over $400,000.00. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: Just for this piece of property. How much were those liens for? CHAIRMAN: Well, he can tell us that. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: You would have that in your record? RICHARD LARK ESQ: We will give that to you. MR. RON MAYER: I going to look up my original closing statement. CHAIRMAN: Yes, yes. I�age 28 - May 1, 1996 Transcript of Public Hearings Southold Town Board of Appeals SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: OK, that will help us understand, you know. CHAIRMAN: Good, all right. We thank you very much. Safe home. MR. RON MAYER: You're asking for a litany of six years of --. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know and it's just not one piece of property. It's four pieces. SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: It's alot. CHAIRMAN: We will entertain this, after you give us the information, and we'll. go from there. RICHARD LARK ESQ: Give me a week or so to get this from his prior lawyer. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you have until the next meeting which is the 29. RICHARD LARK ESQ: OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: Did we get the real estate agent appraisal in writing? SECRETARY LINDA KOWALSKI: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Spangel, could you give us something on your letterhead indicating the values that you stated to us? MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: Certainly. CHAIRMAN: Would you mind doing that for us? Thank you so much. MS. LYNDA SPANGEL: Not at all. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, ok. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, pending the receipt of the information that was requested from both Mr. Lark and from Ms. Spangel and Mr. Mayer. Mr. Mayer, Ms. Spangle and Mr. Lark. All three. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Duly carried. RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE I�I i I 1�� HOUR l l 5 Town Clerk, Town of Sou&ld