Lawrence N. Gray, Esq.
20 Fireplace Drive
Frank DeRubeis
Smithtown Planning Director
99 West Main Street
Smithtown, New York 11787
February 9, 2009
Re:
AGAPE Merchant Advance, Supervisor Patrick Vecchio, John Zollo, Esq. &
Nicholas Cosmo-- was a rat in the
woodpile?
Dear Planning Director DeRubeis:
Documents don’t
lie. People lie. Circumstantial confirmation of both is a post facto “CYA” memorandum to the file
by a bureaucrat. The lie is that a
temporary certificate of occupancy was given to the National Tournament
Athletic Center located at S/S 114 Parkway Drive South-174 E/O Ricefield Lane,
Hauppauge in good faith and not because of undue political influence, Inter alia, carried in a black briefcase
by a former Smithtown Attorney into the Office of Smithtown Supervisor and then
over to you. Two underlings from the
Building and Planning Departments in a Grand Jury for questioning and the truth
might surface.
A Final
Site Plan Inspection Request was sent from Smithtown’s Building
Director to you on December 11, 2008.
It has a Resubmittal Date of January 20, 2009 and was date-stamp received
at the Planning Department on the next day, January 21st.
The same day, the 21st,
a memorandum from the Building Department’s Director was sent to you
saying, “The proposed addendum application is for site plan modifications” and
“the
Building Department had reviewed the above addendum transmitted to us on
January 12, 2009 and finds it acceptable.” So why a memorandum from you to the
Building Department dated the following day
–January 22, 2009 – beginning
with the ambiguous phrase, “recently this office received a request
for the Planning Department to inspect the above referenced site for compliance
with the approved Site Plan Exemption.” Recently does not mean “recently,”
as in “somewhere in the time-adjusted, flexibly foggy past.” This phrase generally encompasses everything
since the Creation but specifically denotes no specific point in time – because
it is a temporal pivot around which a cover-up of a corrupt, insider deal was
attempted. Who made the request? Was it
Supervisor Vecchio? Was it Vecchio on
behalf of his former Town Attorney John (Izzo Leaf Bag Case) Zollo, Esq.? Exactly when was “recently?” This memorandum lists eight structural
and other defects that could not possibly be remedied without substantial
materials and assembl ed artisan work crews. All had to be corrected
before a certificate of occupancy could be issued. Zollo is copied in.
The same day as your “request”
memorandum – January 22d – there
appeared a Fax Transmission from your subordinate, Peter Hans, to Joseph
Nowotny. It has an asterisk stating, “Based
on my meeting with Bill White, it is unlikely a TCO [Temporary Certificate of Occupancy] will be issued.” You circled and signed a Temporary Certificate Approved
on the 23rd. You also drew up a Town Board Resolution Request for the Town Board “to accept in escrow the amount of
$10,000… from Agape Merchant Advance… to guarantee on-site improvements as per
Board of Site Plan Review re: National Tournament Athletic Center.” The certificate is crossed out with “not sending to Town Board -- $ sent to TA.” On this 23rd date a memorandum was sent from the Assistant Town
Engineer to the Building Department Director stating that “in accordance with your request,
we have performed an inspection of the above… site to determine if the site
improvements have been satisfactorily completed.” The Assistant
Engineer recommended the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy,
adding that, “it is our understanding that a cash deposit in the amount of $10,000
has already been accepted by the Planning Department for the … completion of
the items listed….” So what was
the point of the Engineer’s recommendation?
The deal had already been cut.
(A copy of the engineer’s memorandum did not arrive at the Planning
Department until January 28, 2009.) A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was
signed by the Building Department Director on the 23rd – but subsequently stamped, VOID.
Next is a January 26th letter by certified mail from the Engineering
Department requesting revised sets of plans for the site with a copy to Nick Cosmo. Now for the tip-off.
The same day – January 26th – witnesses a Memorandum to the File by Senior Planner Peter Hans re Final Site Inspection Request. “This memorandum is meant to clarify
the position of this office as it pertains to the above site.” What
was to clarify? The TCO had already
been signed. As will become clear
this memorandum is one written after the proverbial ___ has hit the fan. It is akin to what lawyers call a
memorandum written ante litem motam –
not in anticipation of litigation – but one which is exactly that. And no dishonest, obscurantist reporting or
editorializing from David Ambro of the Smithtown
News can hide the truth, starting with Ambro’s insufferably disgusting use
of the word, “town” as a linguistic substitute for “Vecchio.” When he writes “the town” or “town hall
sources” and “Vecchio” he might just as
well be referring to Clark Kent and Superman.
Now to the clarifying memorandum, to wit:
“On
Thursday January 22, 2008[9], this office sent a memorandum to the Building
Department stating that we could not recommend the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy based on 7 items. At 4:30
that afternoon, after the memorandum was distributed, I met with the contractor
and the attorney (John Zollo) at our office and explained the issues. He stated that his client would only be
seeking a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy… as more time was needed to
address certain items…. “ “By 4:00 the
next day, the above items were completed and a check was submitted to this
office in the amount of $10,000.
Therefore this office sent over our recommendation for a TCO to
the Building Department.” The memorandum
then lists 6 things that had to be done which list, in turn, contradicts the
list of things that had ostensibly been done to the site by the TCO
applicant. In a nutshell, this
memorandum is suspect. Aside from
cleaning the site up, it is very, very doubtful that the other items in need of
remediation could have been rectified in less than 24 hours in winter’s
January. The only thing certain was
John Zollo, Esq. No other lawyer could
have expedited you like Zollo did. Why?
Any fee which Zollo obtained from Nick
Cosmo must be returned to law enforcement authorities because it is Ponzi
scheme money.
Yours truly,
Lawrence
N. Gray, Esq.
CC: ADA Christopher
McPartland
Town Board
Legislators Lynne
Nowick & John Kennedy
George K. Stevens
Smithtown Messenger