Twin Harbors New One O'Clock Shadow
The latest example of why Bayville’s zoning regulations, practices and enforcement are in dire need of a complete overhaul has now sprung up just west of Twin Harbors Restaurant – about three feet west. Despite assurances to the contrary, construction of a brand new structure, including foundation, has been allowed to proceed. This structure, which is one of two, has been completely framed in lightning speed. A Village of Bayville building permit is prominently displayed.
Where once stood two very small, non-conforming bungalows on an undersized lot, will now be two full sized two story dwellings without the benefit of a public hearing before the ZBA., despite the requirements of Village Code:
§ 80-82. Alterations. [Amended 4-28-1986 by L.L. No. 4-1986; 6-23-1986 by L.L. No. 5-1986]
Any alteration to a nonconforming use or building, other than an alteration which would not change the building's front setback, side yard or rear yard, must be applied for to the Board of Appeals in the first instance, and such request must show that any structural alterations to be made in such building, to an aggregate extent, will not exceed 50% of its value as set forth on the assessment roll of the Incorporated Village of Bayville. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent keeping in good repair a nonconforming use or building. (emphasis added)
As a result, Twin Harbors Restaurant, one of the few to thrive over the long haul in Bayville, will now be cast in shadow from the early afternoon on.
Anyone still think there is no problem?
Barry E. Lamb
Bayville
It is clear that the ZBA is not representing the interests of the town and it's people. We saw it first hand, Barry ,and I was lucky thanks to you .I hounded the mayor and fought at the meeting and that is the only way to preserve this town. It shouldn't be but the mayor is flawed in her appointments.I think if ones agenda is not preservation you shouldn't be on the ZBA.
Reply to this
I am literally speechless. I was at the village meeting when this was brought to the attention of the Board and Mayor, how could this be allowed????
Reply to this
Barry and Tom,
I was at the Village monthly meeting (I attend all monthly mtgs)where this issue was brought to the attention of the board and the Mayor, by a man who lives across the street from this project.
Mayor Siegel stated that the bunglalows had to be leveled b/c they were dangersou and had to be repaired. It was ruled that they had to be built on the previous footprints of the prior existing buildings.
The owner has increased the size, expanded the square footage and "cantelevered" the first floor to gain square footage.
THIS IS A PROBLEM> These are rental properties and now more people can be put into a "single" family home, taxing our village services. By the way WHERE are the cesspools???? Where can they possibly go?
Once these bungalows were ripped down they should have never beeen allowed to be rebuilt. They do not meet NC cesspool design stantards. The property size was inadequate for the four bunglaows that were there and is inadequate for even a single family home.
The Mayor chose her appointments and anyone who thinks she still does not have a say in what her appointments do and rule on is sadly mistaken.
Anyone who follows politics in this village and regularly attends the board meetings knows this Mayor weighs in on every decision made in this Village.
Who is looking out for the public? Certainly not this board. Once people bring ZBA violations to the attention of the board the board should follow through by abiding by the laws. It should not be the responsibility of a few vigilant citizens to make sure that these problems are rectified. The board, building dept and anyone else involved should be doing their job and protecting the residents of this Village.
Part of protecting us is preserving our way of life in this village. Not creating unattractive and obtrusive homes/buildings that hurt the character and aesthetics of this Village. If the ZBA can not protect our community maybe it is about time the board of trustees especially the mayor, change the members of the ZBA to citizens who do not have hiden agendas.
Regards,
Ron Marchand
Reply to this
Ron,
Didn't the mayor say at the last Village meeting that the project was stopped? I believe you asked the question?
It is unbelievable that the Village is allowing this construction to take place. Isn't too close to the restaurant?
Reply to this
Jeff
Yes she did say that. That was when the foundations were poured. They were increased in size and a stop work order issued. Apparently it was lifted. They are definitely to close and do not meet todays zoning codes and more importantly Nassau County Board of Health standards for cesspools.
Also so everyone knows, a second identical building is going to be built 3 feet to the left of the one you see in the picture.
Ron
Reply to this
At the last board meeting, I asked what the status was. You might be referring to the meeting before? Mayor Siegels answer was that she believed it was at the ZBA and that was happening "now". Isn't there a code against basements? Those foundations are new and should not have been allowed to be rebuilt in the first place. Guess a builder can still do what they want around here, they just have to start the work and get the village to "compromise" after the fact. The village recently made the one of the builders in my neighborhood fill in the "basement" of a new building-course that was under the threat of a lawsuit. The ZBA (I believe it was Win Froelich at the time) actually used the bungalows in this thread to justify their approval of a variance for a brand new structure to be built 5 feet from the property line. Why have an incorporated Village? The primary reason for it is to be able to control zoning. If they're not even going to do that, why bother.
Reply to this
just wanted to clarify the basement comment. This appears to be a 3 story building, During the framing I noticed that the 1st foor staircase started at ground level, below the top of the cement foundation, this may have been changed but if not it's either a "basement", a very tall "crawl space" or a lower level. Apartment anyone?
Reply to this
Okay...so now what happens...what does twin harbors do about this....it is scary that this was even allowed..although Scream Park was allowed,why should we be surprised..
Reply to this
After the 1992 flood, FEMA raised the elevation requirement of the ground level to 13'. The structure does not appear to be higher than 28' from the 1st floor construction. I see no evidence of canterleavering as stated in an above post. However, as I recall, Mr. Vivona was the owner of those cottages and he seems to have a way of not complying with foundation regulations in this Village. If he expanded the area of the cottage foundation, he should be made to tear it down. But I'm pretty sure that the cottage that existed there covered most of the tiny lot and was therefore grandfathered. Does anyone have proof of how many sq. ft. the foundation exceeds the original structure?
As far as Twin Harbor's loss of sunlight, as I recall, the bar is on that side of the building and has no windows anyway.
Reply to this
Rita,
We do what we've been doing for 24 years in Bayville, suck it up. Ugly concrete planters, bright blue benches in the middle of town, ridiculous street lights, poorly maintained beaches with no amenities, there is no end to the mismanagement of this village's resources. It is as if you cross the bridge and common sense flies out the window.
The chance for change was June 21, 2006, and we missed it. Now is the time for people to start thinking about the next two Board of Trustee Seats that will come up in another year or so and formulate a slate of candidates that can win.
Otherwise we all just have to shut up and put up as our property values go down the drain and Bayville sinks to looking like parts of Queens.
Reply to this
Mary DOnna,
Years back, I think it was either in the Leader or the Enterprise Pilot (being those are the two I read) there was an article written questioning WIn Froelichs placement on the ZBA. Seems to be that the gentleman does not live here in Bayville as his primary residence. He has a brooklen address as his primary address.
The article or its contents were never mentioned again to my knowledge and he still sits on the ZBA.
Interesting he noted this building in his earlier threads. I will go back and re-read.
Rita: Go to metings, the next is in March for the Village. The ZBA meetings are listed on the Village website.
Send this link with this picture to people you know and get them at the meeting.
I am sending this link to people because a picture is worth a thousand words!!
People in my age range/social cirlce here in Bayville usually do not go on blogs, but this is one time I think they should log on!
Reply to this
"Interesting he noted this building in his earlier threads. I will go back and re-read."
Bayvillian,
I was refrring to ZBA hearing (not a blog) in which Win Froehlich used those cottages and several others on the North side of Bayville avenue to justify approving 7 variances on a brand new oversized building built on an undersized empty lot more than the 200 foot radius away, even though there was SUBSTANTIAL community opposition from those who live within the 200 ft radius. To everyone, don't wait for a meeting call village hall, then put your concerns in writing and most importantly follow up. Then go to the meeting. If you wait for meetings the buildings will be finished and then its likely the builder will claim "financial hardship" and unlikely the Village will do anything.
Reply to this
Lisa,
The canterleavering of the building is on the left side it is covered up by the trailer in the picture. The original cottages definetly were not built like that. I did not here Vivonna owned them however I would not be surprised. Are him and Vicky partners??? IF so that would explain why she keeps selling out our communtiy for the benefit of her own wallet. Someone should also look into her connection with H2M.....the village pays them an awful lot of money every year and nothing goes out to bid.....she uses the umbrella of profesional services....
Reply to this
Whether this project is legal or illegal according to our ZBA laws is indifferent to me.
If it is illiegal something must be done immediately.
If it is not illegal then Bayville has a ZBA with zoning laws that are seirously flawed and in need of revamping.
For anyone to look at that project and not think there is a problem with the direction our ZBA zoning laws are headed is unbelievable to me.
If this project is deemed suitable for Bayville, there is a problem. Where is the achitectural review board, where is common sense that this should not be the direction of building in a Village that is short on space and all dependent upon cespools.
Truly unbelievable.
Reply to this
P.S.
I think Vivona owns the cottages to the right of Twins (looking at Twins). I heard someone else owns these.
BTW, Vivona bought and installed a white PVC fence for our Recreation Director last Summer, per gratis...
Reply to this
"Another Resident wrote:
I think Vivona owns the cottages to the right of Twins (looking at Twins). I heard someone else owns these.
BTW, Vivona bought and installed a white PVC fence for our Recreation Director last Summer, per gratis.."
I agree, the owner of the property west of twin harbors is someone else. The fence you speak of is over the permitted height of 4'. BTW there is no permit on file for the Recreation Directors property for that new fence, though he claims it's on his property. There IS a permit on file for Vivonas property even though the fence is NOT ON HIS PROPERTY. Now how did THAT get granted, my opinion? a lax building department...The builder also installed a permanent cement curb across the street in front of the fence, with no permit and noone did a damn thing about it. The building inspector made assurances that the new fence would remain 4' high, and that the installer was not permitted to add the top part. But he did anyway, subsequent calls to the Building Inspector have gone unanswered. The taller fence (also solid as opposed to chain link that used to be there) remains, destroying the waterviews and breezes this side of the neighborhood once enjoyed, now we have a plastic wall. So I guess its ok to do what you want when you work for the village. The other officials look the other way. And I guess its ok for Village officials to receive free expensive PVC fencing from builders too. No conflict there right? To be fair to the Recreation Director, the builder did bend ONE SECTION of old chain link, but for a village official to accept appx 50' of the PVC fencing to replace one section of chain link is ridiculous.
Reply to this
Does anyone know for sure when they began framing this?
Barry
Reply to this
How can we stop them?
Reply to this
I believe framing started on Thurs. March 8, it might have even been on Friday since I remember thinking uh oh another weekend house going up. The only way to have this stopped in the near term is for the building dept to file a stop work order,, but the village attorney can easily over-turn that if the ZBA approved the variances. It will only stick if they've done something not permitted by the Village ZBA. Someone or everyone needs to call the village first thing on Monday.
Reply to this
Hey guys did this project go to the architectual review board probably not. But that would not matter anyway cause the board is the arcitectual review board too. So that board is useless too....
Reply to this
I just spoke to someone who lives near there and Barry, this is the timeline he observed as far as the structure going up:
Lumber delivered Thursday, first floor friday and second floor/roof on saturday.
Also, i've heard from fairly reliable sources that there is indeed something rotten in the state of Denmark....ie, there is some inside dealings between the powers that be at Village Hall and the property owner.
Reply to this
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lisept0312,0,7416106.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
I thought it interesting that just as this house went up, the front page of Newsday has this story.
Everyone should email the writer of this story and send her a link to this blog, let's shine some light on the bad practices going on in this village.
Her email (listed right under her byline) is jennifer.smith@newsday.com
Reply to this
I forgot to add that the headline is
"Cesspools are fouling Long Island's waters"
Where are the cesspools for these houses?????
Reply to this
Jane D -
If you look at the aerial shot Barry put up in the "Skyscraper" thread, you will notice a square of land in the middle of the 4 cottages. I am 98% sure that is where the cesspool is located. I do not know how many rings there are, or if all 4 cottages are hooked into the one pool.
Reply to this
Lisa-
You have seen the plans and property survey?
Reply to this
This is why more Villages should have a professional independent Village Administrator. This person should be able to be out in front of this type of activity by having the authority to hire and FIRE their staff. This would remove politics from the building department and allow for greater oversight.
Clearly, something is rotten. Where is the Village Administrator? How did this take place on her watch? She should be accountable for this.
Reply to this
Wayne,
The Village Administrator has little to do with this and in my opinion has always handled herself exceedingly well. She is polite, helpful and professional every time I deal with her - and I'm not always the most welcome sight when I darken the door of Village Hall.
Removing politics from any municipal government is like removing wet from water. The solution is to have well defined laws and procedures that make it impossible to wander astray.
Rather than putting out fires each time or passing blame, this is what we should be addressing.
Fix the problem.
Barry
Reply to this
Barry,
I agree that laws should be stricter. But as I read somewhere on this blog, what do stricter laws mean if people blatantly ignore them? Those people who are ignoring them are the people we elected into office, people the elected officials appointed or hired.
I do not know the answer or how to go about a solution. But what Wayne says is not far off, in as much as everyone at VH is representing one voice.
I do not think the VA is aware of what goes on in the BD. They appear to operate in isolation. I could be wrong that is just my observation.
Reply to this
Jane -
No, but years ago I showed one of the cottages for rent and the cesspool was being pumped at the time. Needless to say, my customer did not rent there.
Reply to this
Now that the cottages are extra large jumbo size homes (in relation to the plot size) one cannot assume that the location of the cesspools is the same.
One can also not assume that the cesspools that were in place for four very small cottages is suffieciet for two much larger homes.(more bedrooms means more people)
I do not think anyone doubted there were cesspools, it is just a question of where are new ones going to go if the builder is using almost all the lot square footage for building.
Reply to this
I just posted this on another thread that seems to be on the same issue. Sorry to double dip - still figuring my way around here.
John Smith wrote:
Aren't architectural planning board meetings like the one held tonight supposed to be public?
I just went to the village hall and it was locked up and dark. Judging from what I saw through a window, the meeting was taking place in one of the office rooms with space for nobody but the board.
I believe I would have been within my rights to go storming in there and force them to make room for me, but I have to choose my battles and decided that tonight - right or wrong - it wasn't worth it.
Reply to this
sal vivona doesn't own those cottages he owns the ones that used to be next to fishermans reef the guy who owns the lot in question doesn't even live here
Reply to this
Which brings us to another question. How is it that a foundation that was put in the place of the Fisherman's Reef building, without a permit, can remain for years? A summons should be issued every week that the structure remains, and the owner should be facing tens of thousands of dollars in fines. The existing, non-conforming use cannot be replaced with another non-conforming use and that land could be being used for parking for the existing, non-conforming bungalows on the property. Instead it is allowed to remain with foundation anchor bolts sticking out just waiting to impale some little kid who decides to use the foundation as a balance beam (I once saw a 4 or 5 year old girl doing just that).
Barry
Reply to this
I think the term is attractive nuisance. Vivona did the same thing with an empty non-conforming lots new foundation on third st, but the village finally made him cut it a bit smaller-still non-conforming mind you, Unfortunately it required a successful lawsuit by some neighbors against the village and vivona before the village actually did anything. Vivona's actually suing some of the people who complained for 10million dollars, and was even arrested and convicted for punching the lady who lives next door in the face! You can confirm this with Nassau courts. And this is just last year!
Not to take the spotlight off of the Villages practices when it comes to Vivona, but I'm confused here. Barry did you review the files for the skyscraper bungalow? How is it that the existing non-conforming foundations there was allowed to be replaced with a bigger foundations? Why would they permit the bump-out which technically decreased the space between buildings and there is already so much lot coverage already? Has anyone contact Nassau County about the Cesspool issue? I heard from the last tenant at Twin Harbors that theiir cesspool is actually shared with the tiny cottages behind. Not sure a restaurant was allowed to get away with that, especially with so occupation issues.
Reply to this
sorry...not the Twin Harbors cesspool, I meant the old RSVP restaurant building across from the nail salon and meat market.
Reply to this
SAl V. Promised to build a paver walkway for the passage to the beach to the right of those little bungalows in exchange for the original work done there. Neighbors complained and he was caught iin the act.
To my knowledge the paver walkway never was completed, maybe b/c he did not get hte go ahead for his project.
Why do we have an ARB,ZBA and PB if people jusrt do what they want? DOesn't anyone know the old addage you don't throw garbage where you sleep? WHy are these people ruining our Village.
These small non-conforming lots, flag lots with houses built behind each other etc. only hurts our property values...when is enough going to be enough??
Reply to this
Hopefully when Spitzer gets to review the activities of our Village. If not then, as soon as another administration is elected.
On a side note, there's an interesting rticle on the mismanagement of grants by the Huntington Chamber at www.northender.com.
Unfortunately, I'm directly involved in the current lawsuit mentioned above so I can't comment on that. I can confirm however the successful article 78 that my neighbors and I filed against the ZBA for their decision. If anyone needs info, the Blog administrator has my email.
As a general thought though, the Village needs to take responsibility and act on it's own, that's why they were elected. Civilians and Blogs shouldn't be the reason they finally get their act in gear. That's how we end up with builders and owners doing what they want with minimal consequences and that's how people get hurt. If what "In the know" said is true, the Village needs to stop making deals at the expense of the people who live here.
Reply to this
Colour is fun, colour is just plain gorgeous, a gourmet meal for the eye, the window of the soul." - Rachel Wolf
Reply to this