CITY OF MIDDLETOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
January 18, 2017
A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the Common Council Chambers, Second Floor, City Hall, 16 James Street, Middletown, New York, on January 18, 2017 at 7:00 P.M., Joel Sierra, presiding.
Board Members Present: Joel Sierra, Nick Barber, Andrew Green and Don Luis.
Board Members Absent: Deborah Clark
Other Attendees: Alex Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Walter Welch, Building Inspector, Edwin Steenrod, Code Enforcement Officer.
A motion was made by Mr. Luis and seconded by Mr. Green to accept December 14, 2016 minutes as submitted.
Board Members Aye: Andrew Green, Joel Sierra, Don Luis.
86 Grand Avenue Jose Rios Area variance for a carport
Mr. Sierra: Alex has written up a resolution.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Rios, that’s you, right?
Mr. Rios: That’s correct.
Mr. Smith: We have a quorum so we can vote. Everybody has a written resolution?
Mr. Sierra: Did you get a written resolution approving the car port? All right, so I need a motion to approve the resolution.
01/18/2017 Page 1
A motion was made by Mr. Luis and seconded by Mr. Green to approve the application of Jose Rios for an area variance for a car port located at 86 Grand Avenue, Middletown, NY.
Board Members Aye: Don Luis, Joel Sierra, Andrew Green.
Mr. Smith: He doesn’t need anything from you, does he, Walter?
Mr. Welch: No Sir.
Mr. Smith: Ok. Martina, make sure Mr. Rios gets the copy of the resolution, ok?
Clerk: Sure.
Mr. Rios: Thank you, sir.
54-56 Beacon Street Beacon Street Holdings, LLC. 4-family dwelling in R-1 zoning district
Mr. Sierra: How are you doing?
Mr. Preston: Good evening.
Mr. Sierra: Please state your name and address.
Mr. Preston: Sure. My name is Kevin Preston, I’m with the firm MacVean Lewis Sherwin & McDermott, 34 Grove Street, Middletown, New York; I’m here with my client Chris Kearny who is the principal owner of the building, 54-56 Beacon.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Preston, you are claiming that this area was re-zoned in 2010?
Mr. Preston: That was my understanding, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: We’ll have to check that out.
01/18/2017 Page 2
Mr. Preston: It’s clear from the configuration of the building that it had been historically used as a four-family. My client bought it at the time that it was vacant and ...
Mr. Smith: 2002?
Mr. Preston: 2002.
Mr. Smith: And for how many years did it stay vacant?
Mr. Preston: It stayed vacant for quite a number of years.
Mr. Smith: And you are saying that zoning was changed in 2010. We gonna have to check that out but here is another question for you Kevin, while we are checking things out. An R-1 zone is subject to the amortization.
Mr. Preston: I understand that and I was going to raise that tonight. I was just talking to my clients about that and I do think that that is a valid point so we would be in a position to amend our application for a variance to a 2- family rather than a four-family because I believe that’s all we are entitled to.
Mr. Smith: Well, but the Zoning Board of Appeals doesn’t have the power to grant that type of variance. Zoning Board of Appeals only has with respect to amortization to extend a period for 5 years. The issue whether it’s structurally unsuitable to be reduced from say a four-family to a two-family that would be a Commissioner of Public Works. So I think you might want to do a little research and I’ll be happy to talk to you about the interplay between the amortization statute and what you are trying to do here because I can see a conflict here.
Mr. Preston: Ok. Could we hold this in a ban stand?
Mr. Smith: Sure. I also want to get straight when the zoning was changed because I don’t recall that zoning being changed in 2010 but we’ll check that out.
Mr. Preston: All right.
Mr. Smith: But you are welcome to give me a call and we’ll talk about the two ordinances and how they affect each other.
01/18/2017 Page 3
Mr. Preston: That’s fine. We just want to do the right thing and go to the correct agency.
Mr. Smith: Ok.
Mr. Preston: All right, thank you.
Mr. Sierra: So we’ll table this until next month?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
22-26 Lafayette Avenue Dulce and Elena Ferrera 5-year extension to comply with Amortization Ordinance
Mr. Sierra: Please state your name and address.
Ms. E. Ferrera: Good evening, my name is Elena Ferrera. The address in question… you stated for the record my personal address is 30 North View Court, Staten Island, New York.
Ms. D. Ferrera: My name is Dulce Ferrera and I live at 134 Lake Shore Drive, Pine Bush, New York.
Mr. Smith: So you are looking for what?
Ms. E. Ferrera: We are looking for an extension of the change in the zoning status of the property for a period of 5 years. We submitted a statement back in December. I’ll be happy to read it for the record.
Mr. Smith: You don’t have to read it. We’ll deem it in evidence.
Ms. E. Ferrera: Ok. Also, if I can bring something to the Board’s attention, there is one error; can I bring the correction to your attention at this point?
Mr. Smith: Sure.
Ms. E. Ferrera: Thank you. On our submitted statement which is attached to the form, it’s on page… and I apologize for the error, it’s at the bottom of page 2, it’s the very last sentence on page 2, it says we respectfully request,
01/18/2017 Page 4 it should read that the properties and the next line should read for the maximum amount of time permitted by law. I apologize for that. And also I discovered just earlier this evening as I was reading the papers that my social security number was included with one of the exhibits. I would ask that the City redact it for its records for my own privacy.
Mr. Smith: Martina, can you do that please?
Clerk: Yes, sure.
Ms. E. Ferrera: Thank you.
Mr. Smith: Just take a black highlighter to it.
Ms. E. Ferrera: Thank you so much, I appreciate it. Would you like us to read our individual…
Mr. Smith: You don’t have to. We need some time to study it but basically you’ve own the property since 2006.
Ms. E. Ferrera: That’s correct.
Mr. Smith: And you purchased it for… What exactly did you purchase it for?
Ms. D. Ferrera: 290.
Ms. E. Ferrera: 290. We’ve included the closing summary as Exhibit A. The property, if I can just summarize our statement, the property has essentially been operated at a loss; it is well maintained. We have complied, we have made various improvements to the property, some of those improvements have been at the request of the department of buildings for the City.
Mr. Smith: Do you have an income and expense?
Ms. E. Ferrera: I have attached as Exhibit F the portion of my income taxes that show income and expenses on the property as reported to the IRS going all the way to 2009.
01/18/2017 Page 5
Mr. Smith: Ok, I see that. So you are basically saying you operated at a loss in 2015 and 2014, 2013. How are you going to recoup your investment if you are operating at a loss?
Ms. E. Ferrera: Well, obviously, as you know and we mentioned this in our statement property prices took a hit starting in 2007-2008 period. We understand that they have been improving in the City of Middletown and obviously elsewhere in the country we are hoping that we can recoup that loss if we are given that 5-year extension.
Mr. Smith: But how will that help you recoup the loss? The 5-year extension is the last extension that the Board can give. That would be it. Then you have to sell it as a two-family.
Ms. E. Ferrera: That is correct and we would be selling it if the property, it is my hope with the 5-year extension that even if we sell it as a two-family house, if we are compelled to change it to a two-family house at that point that at least it would have gained in value between now and the time that it has to change.
Mr. Smith: Did you give us those figures on the increase in the value of a two-family in the next five years?
Ms. D. Ferrera: Well, one of the things that she is also trying to say is that in another 5 years we’ll have an opportunity to pay more down on what we owe the bank so it would make it more easy for us to sell.
Mr. Smith: That’s assuming you don’t operate it at a loss anymore.
Ms. E. Ferrera: That’s correct.
Mr. Smith: Can you give the Board any idea how you are not going to operate it at a loss? Because it seems that the loss has been increasing every year.
Ms. E. Ferrera: Well, we are hoping that the overall value of the property will go up, we are hoping rental incomes will go up and importantly for us as I mentioned in our submission we had attempted to refinance on the property but because it has suffered a loss in value we have not been able to. The bank has discovered there isn’t sufficient equity for refinancing at this point.
01/18/2017 Page 6
Mr. Smith: And you think that when it gets converted to a two-family the bank is going to see that differently?
Ms. E. Ferrera: I don’t know. I don’t know whether that’s the case but if it gains value whether it’s a four-family between now and 5 years or a two- family after 5 years we might be in a better position to refinance.
Mr. Smith: We are going to study this. I think you ought to emphasize what you are basing your projection on that you are going to be able to sell it as a two-family at some sort of increase 5 years from now. I realize the market is going pretty well right now but I think we need some pretty hard figures on what that estimate is.
Ms. D. Ferrera: As you know I’m in real estate and I sell a lot of real estate in Middletown and I’m seeing a tremendous improvement in prices and in values.
Mr. Smith: Ok, but we need it for this particular place. How is it going to a two-family going to help you recoup your investment 5 years from now? To me that’s one of the most important questions here.
Ms. D. Ferrera: Well, I’m seeing two-families that are selling right now in the City of Middletown for like 210 so I believe that the values are going to continue to improve and we’ll have an opportunity to at least break even if we sell it as a two-family.
Mr. Smith: We need to see that in pretty hard figures.
Ms. D. Ferrera: Ok. So what would you like? Would you like me to bring you some comps?
Ms. E. Ferrera: Would you like us supplement our submission?
Mr. Smith: Yes, whatever you think establishes that you gonna be able to if this place becomes a two-family five years from now how are you going to recoup that investment given the fact that you are operating at a loss now.
Ms. E. Ferrera: How much time would we be given for that submission?
Mr. Smith: As much time as you want. I shouldn’t have said it that way; reasonable.
01/18/2017 Page 7
Ms. E. Ferrera: How about … Can we be given a 30 day period?
Mr. Smith: Thirty days, yes.
Ms. E. Ferrera: Ok.
Mr. Smith: We put you on for 30 days, if there’s a problem and you need a little bit more time just call Martina and we’ll extend it for another 30 days.
Ms. E. Ferrera: Very good, thank you.
Mr. Smith: Does the Board have any questions? There’s no public hearing on these amortizations.
Mr. Sierra: Any questions from the Board?
Mr. Barber: You purchased the house for 290?
Ms. E. Ferrera: Correct.
Mr. Barber: Back in 2006. In 2015 you are down to 227.
Ms. E. Ferrera: I believe… Are you talking about what we owe on the mortgage?
Mr. Barber: Yes.
Ms. E. Ferrera: Ok that’s a different thing; that is according… just bear with me. According to the November statement from the mortgage company we currently owe on the principal loan a little over $223,000. That is Exhibit B.
Mr. Barber: Ok, that was my only question.
Mr. Sierra: Any other questions from the Board? All right so we’ll table this item for another 30 days.
Ms. E. Ferrera: Ok and we should be able to give you a submission by then.
Mr. Sierra: Ok. If anything changes please let Martina know.
01/18/2017 Page 8
Ms. E. Ferrera: Thank you.
Ms. D. Ferrera: Thank you.
7-71/2 Sproat Street Catherine Macri-Isola and Anthony Isola 5-year extension to comply with Amortization Ordinance
Ms. Macri-Isola: Hi, my name is Catherine Macri-Isola. This is my husband Anthony Isola. We are here to get an extension. My family has own this house since 1970 when we first came to this country. My mom passed away 4 years ago, she lived there up until 4 years ago and I took the house under my name back in 1998 because my dad got disabled and needed help with the house and we got a lot of liens on it so I took it over for him because of medical reasons and I’ve been taking care of this house ever since. I do have a mortgage on the house. We have put quite a bit of money in the house, we did new roof, new siding, new windows, fixed up the apartments really nice, new blacktop, new boilers, we maintained the house really nice.
Mr. Smith: You bought it when?
Ms. Macri-Isola: I think I bought it in 1998.
Mr. Sierra: You bought it from your parents?
Ms. Macri-Isola: 98 or 89. One or the other.
Mr. Sierra: You bought it from your parents?
Ms. Macri-Isola: Bought it… well, I kind of took it over from my parents; I didn’t buy it because like I said my dad was very sick.
Mr. Smith: So what was the purchase price?
Ms. Macri-Isola: Back then I think 135.
Mr. Smith: Well you need to get us the exact figures.
Ms. Macri-Isola: But that was whatever my dad had in mortgage I took it over and then I put money into the house so I have latest figures if you want.
01/18/2017 Page 9
Mr. Smith: Well, we need to know the money you put in but we also need to know the original purchase price, what the original mortgage was and you have the mortgage amount here but …
Mr. Sierra: 205? It says you owe 205?
Ms. Macri-Isola: I have the original loan amount. Yes, what happened was I was building… the original loan amount is actually 172, I have it here. And then the principal balance is 105 that’s left on there.
Mr. Smith: Because you have 205 here which doesn’t make any sense really unless you refinanced it.
Ms. Macri-Isola: No, you know I put down 205 because when I was building up a building on 211they took that property and also another piece of property that I own and used it as collateral. So the bank has liens on that property as well as I have a mortgage.
Mr. Sierra: So you took equity loan out on the property?
Ms. Macri-Isola: Yes because I happened to be building on 211when real estate dropped so they took all my real estate and put liens on them.
Mr. Smith: Yes but what the Zoning Board got to consider here is what you originally purchased the house for and then how long you’ve had it to recoup that investment not a new lien from somewhere else.
Ms. Macri-Isola: Right, but that’s only been since 2006.
Mr. Smith: Why do you say that?
Ms. Macri-Isola: I built that building in 2006 and that’s when they put the additional 100,000 onto this loan.
Mr. Smith: But we need to see the history of this.
Ms. Macri-Isola: Yes, that’s no problem and I have the loan statement here.
Mr. Smith: We need to see that history explained a little bit because it doesn’t come…
01/18/2017 Page 10
Ms. Macri-Isola: I didn’t know what to give you guys.
Mr. Smith: I understand.
Ms. Macri-Isola: I didn’t know if I should even hire an attorney.
Mr. Smith: I understand. Well, you can if you want… I mean the attorney is going to be told the same thing.
Ms. Macri-Isola: Exactly.
Mr. Smith: We need to know… the ZBA has to know whether you had an adequate opportunity to recoup the investment you originally made in the house. That’s really what the ordinance says. You may be stuck with that original 105,000 I’m not sure. I don’t want to prejudge it until we see all the details.
Ms. Macri-Isola: Yes, we haven’t recouped yet because my parents could not afford to fix the house so we ended up putting a lot of money into the house. Like I said, new roof, vinyl, the house is like beautiful now and we have not actually been able to recoup everything yet. Our mortgage payment compared to our rents just doesn’t work out. But I love the house…
Mr. Sierra: We understand. We gonna have to see hard figures like the Corporation Counsel said. Somewhere along the line somebody gave you $100,000 and your rents are covering that. So we gonna have to see something other than numbers on the sheet. We got to see statements from the bank, we have to see the investments you guys have put in, if you have receipts from your contractor, so on and so forth to see… to prove your hardship.
Mr. Smith: And you are not showing much different rent from a three- family. You would be allowed a two-family here with the amortization; you are only showing a $300/month difference.
Ms. Macri-Isola: Well, only to us in the next 5 years we can you know budget, bring this mortgage down and it might work out for us that’s why we are asking for a 5-year thing. It’s not a life-time thing, you know. That’s why we are asking for that just to give us…
Mr. Sierra: Like we said, we gonna need those hard figures.
01/18/2017 Page 11
Ms. Macri-Isola: Ok. All right, that’s it.
Mr. Sierra: So we’ll table this until next month meeting.
Ms. Macri-Isola: Now, what exactly are the figures that you are looking for? Comparison…
Mr. Sierra: One second. Any other Board members have any questions?
Mr. Smith: Whatever is going to assist the Board in figuring out whether you had the opportunity to recoup that initial investment you made when you purchased this property. That includes, if you want, any improvements that you’ve made, any new loans that were taken out…
Ms. Macri-Isola: Those we have, the improvements we have.
Mr. Smith: All right, we need to see a history of this in plain English.
Ms. Macri-Isola: Ok.
Mr. Sierra: Do you have receipts for the contractors you paid, copies of your leases for your tenants, the loan payments that you are making, statements on your loan payments.
Ms. Macri-Isola: Right, we have that. Ok.
Mr. Sierra: Official documents.
Mr. Barber: And do you know when like you said you put the new roof on, how old was the roof that you replaced?
Ms. Macri-Isola: We bought the house in 1970…
Mr. Barber: So it needed to be done no matter what.
Ms. Macri-Isola: … and I don’t think my parents ever put a new roof so…
Mr. Barber: And the windows were original and all that so…
Mr. Smith: Was it always rented as a three-family?
01/18/2017 Page 12
Ms. Macri-Isola: When we came to this country in 1970 my parents bought it from Mr. Condito; it was a four-family. So my dad took the whole upstairs because they had 3 kids, we were five and so we took the whole upstairs and made it into 3-family.
Mr. Smith: So you’ve been collecting 3-family rent since 1970?
Ms. Macri-Isola: No, no, my mom lived in the house up until 4 years ago and when she passed away.
Mr. Smith: You see, you got to give us an explanation of how long it’s been a 3-family, how long it’s been a 4-family or 2-family whatever it’s been and whether or not you’ve been collecting rents and in what years.
Ms. Macri-Isola: Yes, it’s only been last 4 years, 3 ½ years that we’ve been collecting three rents. My mom lived at the house this whole time so we made sure we took care of everything for her.
Mr. Smith: Ok.
Mr. Barber: Every year you get a permit and the City inspectors come in and inspect it as a three-family?
Ms. Macri-Isola: Oh yes, yes. What’s his name… Boris comes every year, yes.
Mr. Barber: And you have your certificates that he leaves you?
Ms. Macri-Isola: Every year. Never any violations, never you know…
Mr. Barber: Present those too when you hand in...
Ms. Macri-Isola: Present those?
Mr. Barber: Yes.
Ms. Macri-Isola: Ok, all right. Thank you.
Mr. Smith: Thirty days? Is that good enough?
01/18/2017 Page 13
Ms. Macri-Isola: I think so.
Mr. Smith: If you have a problem you can call Martina, ok?
Ms. Macri-Isola: Ok, thank you.
19 Wickham Avenue 143 Linden Avenue 9 Liberty Street John and Beverly Jappen 5-year extension to comply with Amortization Ordinance
Mr. Sierra: I suppose you own all three properties?
Mr. Jappen: I’m sorry?
Mr. Sierra: I take it that you own all three properties?
Mr. Jappen: Yes, we do. John Jappen, my wife, Beverly.
Mr. Sierra: Address?
Mr. Jappen: We live in Goshen, 225 Conklin Town Road.
Mr. Sierra: All right, let’s start with 19 Wickham Avenue.
Mr. Jappen: We purchased the property in 2007. Purchase price was…
Mr. Smith: 295,000?
Mr. Jappen: Right. It was at the height of the market at that point.
Mr. Smith: What’s the second mortgage?
Mr. Jappen: I’m sorry?
Mrs. Jappen: Second mortgage.
Mr. Smith: You have a second mortgage listed.
Mr. Jappen: Right.
01/18/2017 Page 14
Mr. Smith: Is that $20,000?
Mr. Jappen: Right.
Mr. Smith: Where does that come from?
Mr. Jappen: It originally came from the seller.
Mr. Smith: Oh, purchase price mortgage?
Mr. Jappen: Right.
Mr. Smith: Purchase money mortgage?
Mr. Jappen: Right.
Mr. Smith: Ok. Did you do a projection of how much you would be making in rent if it was converted into a 2-family?
Mr. Jappen: Yes, it’s there. The projected rent roll.
Mrs. Jappen: The last sentence on the first page.
Mr. Jappen: It’s currently 39,900, projected would be 31,800 annual.
Mr. Barber: You write that if it was to go back - 20% reduction in annual income and an increase in expenses due to extra bedroom. How would that be an increase in expenses?
Mr. Jappen: Well, there would be additional water and probably additional utilities.
Mr. Barber: Additional rent too.
Mr. Jappen: No, the rent goes down.
Mr. Barber: Well if you are going to rent it from a 2-bedroom to a 4- bedroom you will want more money.
01/18/2017 Page 15
Mr. Jappen: No, it’s a 4-bedroom right now. I’m sorry it’s a 4-apartment, 4- units. It would be reduced to 2.
Mr. Barber: But with more bedrooms.
Mr. Jappen: Four bedrooms, right. Yes, there’s actually an increase in a number of bedrooms but that doesn’t translate directly into increase in a rent. These are the rents that you would get for those two.
Mr. Barber: You don’t rent a one-bedroom… you don’t get the same price for a one-bedroom like you do for a three-bedroom, right?
Mr. Jappen: No, no.
Mr. Barber: You get more for the three-bedroom.
Mr. Jappen: That’s right but these are the projected incomes.
Mr. Sierra: Like you heard on the last property, we’d like to see some documentation, maybe some copies of your leases, bank statements, mortgage statements.
Mr. Smith: When you say the heating units would have to be replaced, two larger units?
Mr. Jappen: Right.
Mr. Smith: Why is that?
Mr. Jappen: Well, there are four apartments, there are four small boilers. We now have to combine two of them into a larger unit. Think of it as each boiler handles a quarter of the floor or half of the floor and there’s two floors. So right now you have 4 electric services and 4 gas services. You can’t have 2 gas services for the same apartment.
Mr. Sierra: You said this house was converted in 1954?
Mr. Jappen: Yes.
Mr. Sierra: Do you know the owner in 1954?
01/18/2017 Page 16
Mr. Jappen: I met the granddaughter of the person that owned it at the time.
Mr. Sierra: And that’s the figure you came up with?
Mr. Jappen: And her grandfather had converted it from a two to a four in 1954.
Mrs. Jappen: She came to visit because there were still family pictures in the attic and she came and picked everything up. She made a couple of visits. She saw us working one day and just stopped and said this was my grandfather’s house.
Mr. Sierra: Any questions form the Board?
Mr. Barber: You only have one water meter in the house? For the whole house?
Mr. Jappen: Correct.
Mr. Barber: So you pay for that.
Mr. Jappen: Right.
Mr. Barber: You don’t add it on to the rent or anything like that?
Mr. Jappen: No, right.
Mr. Sierra: I take it that the other applications have the same figures written down?
Mrs. Jappen: Yes, they are broken down the same way.
Mr. Sierra: Ok. I would ask that you provide us documentation on those other properties also.
Mr. Jappen: You need…
Mr. Sierra: Copies of the leases, bank and mortgage statements.
Mr. Jappen: Ok.
01/18/2017 Page 17
Mr. Sierra: I guess I’m gonna look at 143 Linden Avenue.
Mr. Jappen: Right.
Mr. Sierra: Can you give us the history on that?
Mr. Jappen: This was the first property we bought in Middletown. We bought it in January of 1979. The purchase price was $26,800.
Mr. Sierra: And there is no mortgage on this property?
Mr. Jappen: No.
Mr. Luis: We are at 143 Linden right now?
Mr. Sierra: Yes. So since 1979 you haven’t recouped your money?
Mr. Jappen: No, you know we buy these for long term investments. We recoup when we sell it and right now the market isn’t very good. Hopefully it will improve in the next 5 years.
Mr. Sierra: That’s understandable. The Board has to make a decision based on your financial hardship.
Mr. Jappen: I mean financial hardship is the property is worth certain amount of money at this point or before amortization and we have a certain amount of income. Because of amortization the income is reduced and the value is reduced.
Mr. Smith: Well, it’s not quite that simple. The amortization requires a look at whether or not you had the ability to recoup the investment since you bought it. So the longer you’ve owned the property the more chance you had to recoup the investment, the lesser chance there’s gonna be an extension.
Mr. Jappen: Well, that’s the way you look at it. I don’t, I’m sorry.
Mrs. Jappen: Yes, we do long term. We don’t think of it in 5 years we gonna make our money and dump it and go on to something else. We buy and keep, we’ve been in town for over 30 years. All of the properties we’ve bought we put substantial amount of money in them.
01/18/2017 Page 18
Mr. Smith: I understand, that’s just the law on amortization.
Mrs. Jappen: We’ve known everybody in this room for the last 30 years.
Mr. Smith: Ok but I’m just telling you the law on amortization, it’s a different animal.
Mrs. Jappen: That’s the local law, I understand.
Mr. Smith: Well, it is based on State Laws and State Case Law and the whole principal behind the amortization and to have extensions is to give people chance to recoup the investment.
Mr. Barber: You purchased 143 Linden Avenue for 26,800?
Mr. Jappen: Right.
Mr. Barber: Your current rent roll is 28,000.
Mr. Jappen: Correct.
Mr. Barber: You pretty much paid off your house in one year.
Mr. Jappen: Yes but the rent rolls when we bought it were 150, 150 and150. I mean they go up and that’s why we buy it you know so when you start to reduce what we have that’s what we are asking for; we are asking for additional time to recoup as much as we can.
Mr. Sierra: Ok, I’m looking at 9 Liberty Street.
Mr. Barber: Hold on. Did you ever have the house at Linden Avenue appraised at its current … say within a last year or two?
Mrs. Jappen: Yes, we spoke to a realtor a few weeks ago and because of the neighborhood what did he say?
Mr. Jappen: I’m not sure whether we have an actual appraisal for that particular property.
Mrs. Jappen: It’s not good.
01/18/2017 Page 19
Mr. Barber: It’s more than 26,000.
Mr. Jappen: It’s close.
Mr. Barber: I mean I know the neighborhood, I know it very well. It’s more than what you purchased it for.
Mrs. Jappen: Yes but it’s not much money.
Mr. Jappen: Correct.
Mrs. Jappen: But it’s not much money. It’s less than replacement cost and everything.
Mr. Jappen: And this one is a particularly difficult neighborhood to sell.
Mr. Barber: No, I know the neighborhood very well.
Mr. Sierra: Any other questions from the Board on 143 Linden Avenue? No other questions on the Board?
Mr. Barber: If you find that appraisal, could you bring it? Could you submit it?
Mrs. Jappen: It wasn’t in writing, it was verbal, we were just talking you know, a few weeks ago. We don’t have… We haven’t had an appraisal, that’s hundreds of dollars.
Mr. Sierra: What is it called, the real estate they give…
Mr. Smith: Market value.
Mr. Sierra: Market value appraisals also. I’m sure that those aren’t that much money.
Mrs. Jappen: They are only 3-400 dollars.
Mr. Jappen: What’s that for? Appraisal?
Mrs. Jappen: For the appraisal.
01/18/2017 Page 20
Mr. Jappen: Well, 350 to 500.
Mr. Sierra: All right, any other questions on 143 Linden Avenue?
Mr. Luis: I’m just looking it up on Zillow. It says it’s appraised at 162 right now.
Mrs. Jappen: Find me a buyer.
Mr. Sierra: All right, let’s move to 9 Liberty Street. Can you give us the history on this?
Mrs. Jappen: Same format so first page… yes all the same format, easy to read.
Mr. Sierra: Ok.
Mr. Barber: I’m sure like everybody else I’m sure you get it inspected by the City Code Enforcement?
Mrs. Jappen: Absolutely.
Mr. Barber: When you hand in all the paperwork do you mind looking for the permits that they give you each year signed off?
Mrs. Jappen: Yes. I know Boris has done all those.
Mr. Barber: Could you make a photocopy?
Mrs. Jappen: I think we are up to date on all of them.
Mr. Barber: I’m sure you are, that way you submit it to the Board that we get to look at it. Because it will say what he was inspecting. Was he inspecting a 2-family or a 3-family or a 4-family.
Mrs. Jappen: They all say what we are saying – they were 3s and 4s.
Mr. Barber: What’s that?
Mrs. Jappen: I said they all said what we are saying – they were 3s and 4s.
01/18/2017 Page 21
Mr. Barber: Ok, listen I believe what you are saying and I believe what Boris is inspecting. It helps the Board to know to see the permits, you paid for the permits, right?
Mrs. Jappen: Yes.
Mr. Barber: Ok. That’s all taken into consideration.
Mr. Sierra: The Board is going to make a decision based on the documents you guys provide so whichever documents you choose to provide that’s what we’ll make a decision based on. We are asking for leases, mortgage and bank statements any contractor’s receipts on any improvements that you have done, any estimates for these changes that you claim of the boiler and heating system, plumbing, what have you, all those documents.
Mr. Jappen: Ok.
Mr. Smith: 30 days enough or…
Mrs. Jappen: What?
Mr. Jappen: I’m not sure.
Mr. Smith: 30 days enough?
Mr. Jappen: Maybe.
Mr. Smith: Why don’t you see and call Martina if you need more time we’ll give you more time.
Mr. Jappen: Ok.
Mrs. Jappen: All right, are we talking about Liberty or we just gona go on.
Mr. Barber: Both.
Mrs. Jappen: Yes, but have we talked about Liberty yet? I mean it’s the same format everything we said is about the same.
Mr. Smith: Ok and we are taking your word for it so…
01/18/2017 Page 22
Mrs. Jappen: Ok, all right.
Mr. Jappen: There is a typo on Liberty Street, 5th line. It says conversion from the present four; it’s really three. Three units to two.
Mr. Smith: Where is that again?
Mr. Jappen: Fifth paragraph down.
Mr. Smith: On which page?
Mr. Jappen: First page. Conversion from the present four units to two results in a… it’s really three.
Mr. Smith: Oh, ok.
Mr. Jappen: The rest of it describes it as three.
Mr. Smith: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Jappen: Ok. Thank you.
Mr. Barber: Can I just one question? That basement apartment, that’s always been an apartment or did you convert that after you purchased it?
Mrs. Jappen: Which one are you talking about?
Mr. Jappen: On Liberty?
Mr. Barber: On Liberty.
Mrs. Jappen: No.
Mr. Jappen: No, it was. It’s vacant at the moment because we had to replace the sewer; sewer going out to the street and then we were gonna to relocate the kitchen and a bathroom. We were in the process when this amortization went into effect so we haven’t finished the completion of it. That’s why it’s vacant at the moment.
Mr. Barber: Ok. Sewer line and everything is fixed, all work’s been done?
01/18/2017 Page 23
Mr. Jappen: The sewer line is done, right.
Mr. Barber: Ok.
Mr. Jappen: And a kitchen and bathroom are roughed out but it was not finished.
Mrs. Jappen: It’s actually a very nice apartment. We think that was an old Victorian house that was built by the family that… First Federal or one of the banks and we think they had a housekeeper. There’s actually a fireplace in the basement and there’s call buttons too. You know you could call the maid or something. We found all that in the house so we think they had a housekeeper probably living there and then the garage had an apartment at one time too but they must have had a driver or something so anyway that’s just part of history that house was built in 1890s.
Mr. Jappen: This has an eight bay parking or carriage house.
Mr. Barber: Yes, in the back.
Mr. Sierra: How long has it been vacant, that apartment?
Mr. Jappen: The apartment?
Mr. Sierra: In the basement.
Mr. Jappen: About 5 years or so.
Mr. Barber: Do the call buttons still work?
Mr. Jappen: Yes, but the maid never comes.
Mrs. Jappen: I played with them a little bit but they don’t work.
107-109 Highland Avenue Grace Der Ohannesian Interpretation of the zoning ordinance
Ms. Chatterton: Good evening. My name is Mary Lou Chatterton, I represent Grace DerOhannesian. My address is 1 West Main Street, Goshen, New York. Ms. DerOhannesian resides at the property located at107-109
01/18/2017 Page 24
Highland Avenue and we are here today to seek some interpretation guidance on some of the statutes here. I do have written submission with copies if you’d like to… I don’t know does the clerk…
Mr. Smith: Is this new?
Ms. Chatterton: What? Yes I didn’t give this to anybody before so...
Mr. Smith: Ok, we’ll take it and make copies. You have an extra copy for us?
Ms. Chatterton: I have plenty of copies for everybody. How many do you need, five?
Mr. Smith: Well, I’m not gonna read it right now but…
Ms. Chatterton: No, I know. I just figured… you need six?
Mr. Smith: Sure, we take as many as you got.
Ms. Chatterton: I’m getting six. You get six.
Mr. Smith: So, counsel, I think it’s pretty clear that under the Middletown Zoning Ordinance if you have more than four persons who are not related in the dwelling presumably it is not a family. So it seems to me if you are claiming that this is a single family up there in the house that you gonna have to show us some proof addressing all the criteria of the code and there’s about eight of them as to why you are claiming that’s a family - if that’s what you are claiming. I think that’s what the claim is here.
Ms. Chatterton: Well, we have couple of other issues before we get to the functional equivalent of the family issue. One deals with the condemnation placard that was put on the residence with a “Do not Occupy. Unsafe Structure” notice on it. Now, the placard only relates … references the violation… alleges the violation that the residence is a multiple dwelling. There is nothing that I can find from the facts of this case to indicate number one that the structure is unsafe; number two with respect to a “Do not Occupy” , there was no prior notice given to my client that any “Do not Occupy” notice was even thinking about being issued. In addition the placard itself although it has a “Do not Occupy, Unsafe Structure” notice on it expressly states that Ms. DerOhannesian and essentially her blood
01/18/2017 Page 25 relatives can stay but anybody else has to leave so with respect to the issuance of this placard which in itself is still stuck to the front of my client’s house for all her neighbors to see that somehow this structure is unsafe and imminent danger of falling down around everybody’s ears.
Mr. Smith: It doesn’t say that, does it?
Ms. Chatterton: Well, it says it’s unsafe and it has a “Do not Occupy” on it yet it also expressly permits Ms. DerOhannesian and her blood relatives to remain.
Mr. Smith: If you look at the State code you will see that the unsafe includes illegal.
Ms. Chatterton: However… but I’m talking about “Do not Occupy” notice. We got no prior notification of that as you’ll see in Exhibit C there was a recent technical bulletin issued by New York State Building Standards and Codes which was issued in order to discuss so that housing enforcement officers and the like understood due process requirements with respect to unsafe structures and “Do not Occupy” notices. We didn’t get any prior notice; we don’t understand how the structure can be unsafe and “Do not Occupy” if the condemnation notice which is annexed as Exhibit B, you can look at that; the condemnation notice is B. You’ll see it’s condemned, yes, because they claim it’s illegal but this also is unsafe and occupancy has been prohibited so we have a condemnation notice which is in addition to not receiving proper due process notice is internally fatally inconsistent. You can’t have an unsafe structure …
Mr. Smith: So you are making a legal argument, I understand. We’ll take a look at it.
Ms. Chatterton: Ok.
Mr. Smith: There’s no emergency because well, the Board doesn’t know, we agreed to call off enforcement on anything regarding this property until the ZBA has made determination and this matter is presently pending in the City Court, it’s been stayed there so that they could come here and we are not going to take any enforcement action until the ZBA makes a decision and the Court makes a decision.
01/18/2017 Page 26
Ms. Chatterton: I understand, I understand that but our point is for those grounds alone that condemnation notice should be vacated and it should be removed. In addition with respect… a couple of other… just briefly with the points because it’s all written in a thing. Also with respect to the condemnation notice to the extent that it is ordering everyone other than blood relations to leave the house that condemnation notice conflicts with Middletown’s own code because under the Middletown code three unrelated people can constitute a family, you know what I’m saying? So you can’t limit, Middletown code doesn’t even limit the people who can reside in the house to blood relations, you can’t do that anymore that’s clear, your own code doesn’t even permit you to do that but we’ve got a condemnation notice that I really don’t understand what it was trying to achieve. It appears to only trying to achieve to get anybody other than a relative out of the house. And so from the way I read this there’s a real conflict here with Middletown’s own code and the due process requirements that in interpreting a statute this body should take into consideration. In addition, again, with the multiple… the only allegation there was that it was a multiple dwelling which I don’t think demonstrates any sort of unsafe condition. In addition…
Mr. Sierra: Is this a multiple dwelling structure?
Ms. Chatterton: No, it is in a single family residence zone. Oh, I have some pictures. Let me bring them up to Alex just to show the size of the house. It’s on a double lot, it is a huge house, it is one of the Victorians built in 1893. It probably had families and servants with multiple buttons like the other house did.
Mr. Sierra: So are these people that are residing in this home paying rent?
Ms. Chatterton: They contribute money to the house. According to the Middletown code in addition … now we are getting to basically the functional equivalent of the family.
Mr. Smith: Ok, are we ready to do that because that’s the heart of this.
Ms. Chatterton: Ok but then after that I have another one for you, another point.
Mr. Smith: Why don’t you do the other points and then we’ll get to the heart of that, all right?
01/18/2017 Page 27
Ms. Chatterton: Ok. Well, we also want an interpretation under the City of Middletown code the definition of a family. If you have 3 people or less and they are sharing expenses, that’s a family. There’s no… the presumption doesn’t get triggered in that situation. In addition the presumption doesn’t appear to be triggered at all if the people residing in the house are related by blood, marriage or legal adoption. Now, the presumption that it is not a family gets triggered if you have four or more people who are not related. Right, we all agree on that I hope. That’s the statute.
Mr. Sierra: So what’s the scenario here, are they related by blood?
Ms. Chatterton: No, but this is the interpretation of the statue that we would like to know so that my client knows what this Board would permit her to do going forward.
Mr. Smith: Well that will be the final decision. We got to get to the facts here sooner or later.
Ms. Chatterton: I understand that but I want … my point here is under the Middletown Code it’s our position that you can have a related family and three additional people that are also contributing to the expenses of the house without triggering the presumption.
Mr. Smith: I don’t think that’s correct but we’ll address it.
Ms. Chatterton: Well, I have provided a number of fact patterns in my written submission that you can review. For example, let me just give you a couple of examples. One is, let’s say you have with all these blended families and divorcees and widowers, people that aren’t even divorced, you’ve got a mother that’s got custody of three children. They are related, they are four people. She moves in with but doesn’t marry a man that’s got custody of his two children. Now, you have people within that total group that aren’t related.
Mr. Sierra: They are blood related.
Ms. Chatterton: Not the mother and father who aren’t related or married and the children who are children of different parents so my question is we are asking, I have a number of scenarios there, I’m asking the ZBA to take a
01/18/2017 Page 28 hard look at this because if you are saying that if you have more than four people ...
Mr. Sierra: We can’t rule off of presumptions.
Ms. Chatterton: I understand that.
Mr. Sierra: We need to get to the facts and what the facts are for this property so I need to know what the facts are for this occupancy right now.
Ms. Chatterton: I understand but I am also asking for an interpretation of the statute. For this occupancy at the time that the violation and the placard was issued my client lived there with her son, her son’s significant other who was about 9 months pregnant, who has she since had a grandson and with five other people who were not related by blood or marriage to her. Ok, now the house has 7 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms. As you’ll see I have letters from the housemates describing how they are residing in the house.
Mr. Smith: What exhibit is that?
Ms. Chatterton: That’s Exhibit D.
Mr. Sierra: So are you claiming that all these, her son, her son’s significant other and these 5 other people are a family?
Ms. Chatterton: Well no, we are claiming that the entire group… that the non-related people constitute the functional equivalent of the family in terms of how they use the house and how they live in the house. However, we are also arguing that with respect to my client’s relationship with her blood relations there is no… she doesn’t have to make any showing there is no presumption there. And if there were 3 people also included paying the expenses that the presumption wouldn’t be triggered there, they would be considered a family under the code. Now, I understand the issue that we have right now was she had more than 3 who were not related.
Mr. Sierra: So do you want us to change the code? Or what exactly are you asking for because you are losing me. You keep coming in and out of the facts. So I need to know, are you trying to change this code?
Ms. Chatterton: No, I’m not trying to change the code. Well, number one I’m trying to get an interpretation of the code, number two I’m happy to
01/18/2017 Page 29 discuss now the facts of the people who were in the house at the time that it was issued now they will be 2 less. See this is why I’m bringing up the three issue. Two people are leaving as of February 15. They’ve had to find other housing and they are gone. So going forward…
Mr. Smith: Who are those two people?
Ms. DerOhannesian: Brendon Eustace and Chrissy Cutler.
Ms. Chatterton: Now that’s why I have letters from the remaining 3 individuals…
Mr. Smith: Ok, I’m looking at the police report and we’ll share this with you…
Ms. Chatterton: Thank you.
Mr. Smith: … that indicates Justin Blondell…
Ms. Chatterton: That is my client’s son.
Mr. Smith: Ok, Amilcar Rodriguez, Christine Cutler, Larry Gantt, Brendan Eustace, if I’m pronouncing that right, I think what we are going to need is, and I’m using the code, I see the letters, I haven’t had a chance to really read them, I don’t know that they address all these criteria in the code but we need these criteria addressed; we need to have proof of any other relationships.
Ms. DerOhannesian: What kind of proof is that?
Ms. Chatterton: Well, like documentary like birth certificate…
Mr. Smith: Birth Certificates, marriage documents …
Ms. Chatterton: Well, they are common law, I mean the child just been born, I don’t know if you want his birth certificate.
Mr. Smith: In terms of the permanency and transiency we need licenses, voter registrations…
Ms. Chatterton: Well, I don’t think they vote.
01/18/2017 Page 30
Mr. Smith: Well, we need to know that. We need to know how they share expenses in document form, we need to know whether anybody has children in schools, we need, well I said driver’s license, also we need tax returns and believe me, the ZBA is not interested in financial thing, that kind of thing can be redacted but we need tax returns to show permanency and transiency whether or not they are filing out of this house, employment, I know some of that is in the letters, how long each person has been there, whether furniture and appliances are commonly owned and how everybody in this building occupies the whole building. See that’s the definition of the single family – everybody occupies the whole building. You don’t have locked rooms …
Ms. Chatterton: There are no locked rooms here. As you see they have access to the whole house.
Mr. Smith: The ZBA needs to hear that. And I will provide you with a copy of these reports.
Mr. Sierra: Are you claiming that they are all family?
Ms. Chatterton: We are claiming that obviously not the people… there are blood relations but we are claiming that the entire unit comes within the definition of a functional equivalent of the family. In addition to that since it appears going forward that there will be my client’s blood family plus three as I read a statute they are family, the three unrelated.
Mr. Smith: I wouldn’t make that assumption…
Ms. Chatterton: Well that’s one of my arguments there so you can, you know…
Mr. Smith: … you better give us the facts. You also better enlighten us as to exactly who is going to be in there let’s say a month from now or 2 months from now, whenever these people are leaving and who’s gonna be in there and are more people gonna be brought in?
Ms. Chatterton: No, we would…
Ms. DerOhannesian: According to the police report that you have Amilcar Rodriguez is soon to be my fiancé, my husband.
01/18/2017 Page 31
Mr. Smith: Ok.
Ms. DerOhannesian: He will not be living there though. We will not be…
Mr. Smith: See we need to know these things.
Ms. Chatterton: Ok.
Ms. DerOhannesian: And then it’s just the three that are already listed.
Ms. Chatterton: Yes, going forward what we have is we have three housemates that are not related one of whom is an RN, employed at Orange Regional. She’s been living there for over a year. The other, Larry Gantt is … he works as a job coach for the developmentally disabled in Rockland. The third is a student who’s been there for over a year, he’s in Orange County, he’s in his last year, then he’s going to go in the nursing program in OCC, he wants to stay here, he wants to get a job here. These are not… I mean we do understand you don’t want these comings and goings but you know if we can demonstrate these are frankly people that you’d love to have in your community, they work, they go …
Mr. Sierra: The Board is not here to make a decision on these people. The Board is here to make decisions on this property. When she decides to sell this property who are the people that are coming from 20 years from now. We can’t decide on John Doe from today, because John Doe from today could die and could be John Doe from tomorrow. As a Board we need to collectively make decisions on this property.
Ms. DerOhannesian: I’m not looking for a use variance.
Mr. Sierra: So what you are asking for today is an interpretation of the code only?
Ms. Chatterton: Correct, correct, we are not asking for any variances we are only asking for an interpretation of the code so let me … so you want more documentation of all the criteria there.
Mr. Smith: Exactly, exactly. You don’t have to regurgitate what you already told us. I mean we’ll read your submission.
01/18/2017 Page 32
Ms. Chatterton: Ok, and then … so when shall I get you additional documentation?
Mr. Smith: 30 days is good enough?
Ms. Chatterton: Ok, the next… when is the next…
Mr. Smith: Third Wednesday in February.
Mr. Sierra opened public hearing.
Mr. Barber: You said there’s no locked doors in the house, so when one of your tenants leave they don’t lock their bedroom door?
Ms. Chatterton: No, there are no locks on the bedroom door.
Mr. Barber: Ok.
Ms. DerOhannesian: There are only locks on the exterior doors.
Mr. Barber: Ok.
Mr. Luis: You mentioned that they are all like kind of family but you also… made a statement that two of them had to find other housing. If they are family why are they … you made it sound like they are being forced out to find other housing.
Ms. Chatterton: No, don’t answer that. I’m sorry and again I just want to say because there is this criminal court proceeding pending I … my client submitted a letter on background but I’d rather answer the questions I just don’t want her making any statements unfortunately which is another problem with the rebuttable presumption, puts you in this untenable position.
Mr. Smith: Wait, let’s be clear here and I want to be fair. I’m the prosecutor in the criminal case. I’m certainly willing to state right now on the record that nothing your client says will be used against her in the City Court.
Ms. Chatterton: Well, I don’t know that that is a sufficient… let me do some research on it and then at the next meeting I’ll let you know if I’m comfortable with that because I’ve been doing this for a long time and
01/18/2017 Page 33 sometimes you have stipulations and then it turns out that they don’t work but I appreciate that and I’ll let you know at the next meeting.
Mr. Smith: Believe me they work here.
Ms. Chatterton: Ok, that’s fine. Well, obviously in looking at this they are actually now expecting a baby so they are moving out and want to get their own place so that’s why they are leaving. When I said they had to leave they are expecting a baby.
Mr. Luis: They are leaving on their own?
Ms. Chatterton: Oh yes.
Mr. Luis: And then you mentioned the homeowner that your fiancé, you are going to be getting married and you are not going to be living there?
Ms. Chatterton: No, no that he is not. They…
Mr. Luis: So you are going to get married and you are not going to live together?
Ms. Chatterton: Well, they have different residences. He may move in or he may not move in. But if they are married then that comes within the blood definition so…
Mr. Luis: And if you move out what are you trying to do with the property if you move out? If you get married and you move out what’s your intention with the property at that point?
Ms. Chatterton: Well, number one I don’t know that you intend to move out, I mean the whole purpose here is she’s lived at this house for 23 years. We would like to remain in the house I mean a lot of times you know modern relationships you know sometimes you get married you both have houses you don’t necessarily move into each other’s house.
Mr. Smith: Let me just say this, the ZBA, I mean normally we are concerned about the decisions that run with the land. This issue tonight though is really whether or not the Code Enforcement Officer was correct in issuing the citation to this property owner for not complying with the City ordinances now. So it’s not like a variance which runs with the land; your
01/18/2017 Page 34 interpretation is limited to now. Having said that though, one of the criteria for determining whether or not there is a family, existing as a family or a functional equivalent of a family is the permanence or transience of the people. So some of these issues are relevant but I don’t want you to feel that some decision you make tonight is going to be binding on this property somehow for years and years and years. It’ll probably only be binding on the people that are there now. But you can take into consideration whether people are planning on moving in, moving out, on permanency just like you would if you were determining any other family, ok?
Ms. Chatterton: Yes.
Mr. Smith: I brought Mr. Steenrod here because he’s been in the dwelling and he’s got some brief testimony.
Ms. Chatterton: Should I sit down?
Mr. Smith: Well, unless you have… You have anybody you want to have testify tonight?
Ms. Chatterton: No, not tonight.
Mr. Smith: Ok.
Mr. Streenrod: Edwin Steenrod, Code Enforcement Officer, City of Middletown, Department of Public Works. On November 21st I received a written directive from Commissioner Tawil to investigate the use of 107 Highland Avenue. We received complaints that it might be a rooming house. Before visiting the property physically I reviewed the City records concerning this dwelling. It’s in an R-1 zone. The owner according to the City records is Grace Blondell, the proper address is 107-109 Highland Avenue and its property class is a single family. In addition I reviewed the records of rental permits; there are no single family rental, two-family rental or current multi-dwelling family rental. On the 22nd of November I visited a house at approximately 11o’clock in the morning. I knocked on the door, a young lady answered the door, I identified myself, asked for Grace Blondell, she informed me she wasn’t home. I asked her when it would be a good time to find her there. She didn’t feel like she could make that commitment. I asked her “Who are you?” she responded not with her name but she said “I’m one of the tenants”. I attempted to gain more information from her but she became evasive and did not answer that there were more tenants, nor did
01/18/2017 Page 35 she give me her name. A young man came up from behind her, said to me “We live here as a family, there are no tenants, we are not answering any more of your questions” and he shut the door. I discussed this matter with the Commissioner and the City attorney and the Search Warrant was applied for and received, filed in the Court of the City of Middletown. On November 28th I accompanied two police officers to set address and a Search Warrant was presented to whom we now know as Justin Blondell, the son of the owner. The police report is what I’m gonna read: “On the above mentioned date and time police officers Reyes and Troia were dispatched to 107-109 Highland Avenue to execute a search warrant with code enforcement officer Edwin Steenrod. Upon arrival, officers executed the search warrant and discovered that there were seven people in the house during the warrant check with more residents out of the house. Officers file checked all subjects and vehicles on the premises. R/O noticed that the New York State Registration SCMBKT was on two different vehicles in the driveway. One subject, Larry Gantt, stated that he pays rent to the homeowner, but he would not state how much.” These are the names, pedigree of the people found here: Brendon P. Eustace-107 Highland Avenue, Justin T. Blondell- 107 Highland Avenue, Grace E. DerOhannesian-107 Highland Avenue, Joseph N. Drake-234 Ridge Road, Middletown, New York, Larry Gantt- 2 Mallory Road, Spring Valley, New York, Mr. Gantt is the gentleman who stated that he did pay rent, Zachary S. Walsh-107 Highland Avenue, Amilcar Rodriguez-29 Seaman Road, Poughkeepsie, New York, Chrissy Cutler-107 Highland Avenue, Christine M. Cutler- P.O. Box 321, Unionville, New York. These matters were discussed with the Commissioner and the City attorney and two actions were taken. The Condemnation was noted before but I will read it to you: “This building is condemned as per Property Maintenance Code Section 108.1.4 of the Uniform Fire and Building Code of the State of New York. This building is occupied contrary to law as a multiple dwelling in an R1, single family zone of the City of Middletown, New York. All persons except for Grace DerOhannesian, significant other, mother, father, siblings and children, shall vacate the premises by December 31, 2016 at midnight. Anyone occupying this dwelling after December 31, 2016 other than those people noted on this placard shall be considered in violation and trespassers on this property and shall be subject to all ordinances, codes and laws pertaining to such class of persons, once the dwelling has been returned to a single family dwelling as per the City Code, an inspection will be conducted and if in compliance, the condemnation shall be lifted.” At the bottom of the notice the City adds this on their condemnation posters: “This structure is unsafe and its occupancy has been prohibited by the code enforcement official. It shall be unlawful for
01/18/2017 Page 36 any person to enter such structure except for the purpose of securing the structure, making the required repairs, removing the hazardous condition or demolishing the structure.” That particular statement in reality does not reflect what the statements above did say. Underneath the present codes we have to state why the condemnation and how the condemnation can be rescinded which we met those requirements as far as determining the people in that building.
Mr. Smith: Did you make any other observations or had any other conversations with occupants on the day you were there?
Mr. Steenrod: All of the… well, there was one room that was found empty, that room was locked and the officers did force the door. However, I can state that the majority of the doors did not have padlocks …
Mr. Smith: Did not have padlocks?
Mr. Steenrod: No, they did not. They had skeleton key from the old days; this is a very old house, it’s got an addition on it but it’s a very old house. Most of the tenants would not cooperate as far as giving us any information. The young man who said he paid rent then was asked by the officer how much, he said my uncle is an attorney, I’m not gonna answer any more questions. In addition after discussing this matter with the Commissioner and the City attorney, Information was filed with the Court. “The facts on which this accusation is made of my own knowledge and observation as follows: On my own knowledge that Grace Derohannesian, the owner of the property at 107 Highland Avenue, Middletown, New York did fail to comply with the City Code Section 475.9. The owner violated City zoning regulations by operating a multiple dwelling in an R1 zone which is prohibited by this ordinance.“ That’s it.
Mr. Sierra: Any questions from the Board?
Mr. Barber: How was that door locked? By a skeleton key?
Mr. Steenrod: Yes, yes. There was no padlock and that was the only one that had to be forced. The rest of them the people…. the vast majority of the people were in the bedrooms, they were there.
Mr. Smith: Did you see any evidence of cooking utensils in the bedrooms?
01/18/2017 Page 37
Mr. Steenrod: No. TVs, stereos, that sort of thing. I did not observe any cooking utensils such as hotplates or anything like that.
Mr. Sierra: Any other evidence that you see consistent with a boarding house?
Mr. Steenrod: Just a number of people. They are non-related. Our presumptuous statute that when there’s four or more unrelated individuals that is presumed to be a multiple-family operation.
Ms. Chatterton: Alex, can I just ask a question just a factual…
Mr. Smith: As long as you direct it to the Board.
Ms. Chatterton: Yes, I’m just not sure when Mr. Steenrod said that one of the doors, one of the rooms was locked, could he just identify which room? I’m gonna reserve my right to ask some other questions later but I’m just not sure what room he’s referring to.
Mr. Smith: Can you tell us what room you are referring to?
Mr. Steenrod: No.
Ms. Chatterton: I’m sorry he doesn’t know or he just doesn’t remember?
Mr. Steenrod: It was on the second floor. If I was going from the street to the back it was the second bedroom on the left hand side from the rear.
Ms. Chatterton: Ok, thank you. So we are back here in 30 days with the documentation?
Mr. Smith: Yes and why don’t you call me before then.
Ms. Chatterton: Yes, I’d like to talk to you.
Mr. Smith: We were gonna have a meeting so we gonna get to do that.
Ms. Chatterton: Right. And I have on my calendar something in the Criminal Court for tomorrow but that’s still stayed then, right? I don’t have to show up?
01/18/2017 Page 38
Mr. Smith: You don’t have to show up.
Ms. Chatterton: Ok. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sierra: Any questions form the public? Any other questions from the Board?
No one came forward. Mr. Sierra kept public hearing open.
Adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
______Martina Tu, Clerk
01/18/2017 Page 39