Lawrence N. Gray, Esq.
20 Fireplace Drive
Supervisor
Patrick Vecchio
99 West Main
Street
Smithtown, New
York 11787
February 27, 2009
Re: A Variance for a 1,014 square foot, detached garage for a guy’s
boat zips through the BZA
Dear
Supervisor Vecchio:
I wish to bring to your kind
attention the Smithtown Board of Zoning Appeals Case that is numbered 15886 re Ivan Slotnick, care of Vincent J.
Trimarco, Esq., 1038 West Jericho Turnpike, Smithtown that was decided on
February 10, 2009.
Chairwoman Giannadeo stated that the
requested variance was “to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 12 feet to
6 feet [shake hands with his neighbor?]; reduce the total side yards from 28
feet to 17 feet; increase the maximum square foot[age] of a garage from 750
square foot[age] to 1,014 square foot[age] for a proposed detached garage;
permit environmentally sensitive land to be altered (depth to ground water less
than 10 feet) for an existing 407 square foot deck and a proposed 1,014 square
foot detached garage.” A type II SEQRA
was in hand.
Ms. Charles stated that “it’s a very
deep narrow lot with a trailer, boat, a car.”
Mr. Tanzi stated, “Right. There
was no storage space. It says, ’pending
test hole.’” (Emphasis added)
Chairwoman Giannadeo stated, “Yes.
This is that very, very long garage.”
Three lines of colloquy transcript later appears the following:
“Mr. Benz: Case 15886, Madam Chairwoman, I’ll move that the Board accepts
the application as presented by the applicant as it meets our general criteria
for approval.” Mr. William
Valentine seconded the motion of Mr. Benz with the other board members in lock
step with aye, aye, aye, aye. “CHAIRWOMAN
GIANNADEO: Motion Carried.”
Is there a rat in this woodpile,
Pat? Sure smells like it. And when I smell a rat in the woodpile I
know you’re in there somewhere, Pat.
As it
meets our general criteria for approval
General criteria is a working framework. It is not specific criteria.
One question is exactly what was meant by general criteria vis a vis a “very, very long garage”
that is “a very deep narrow lot with a trailer, boat, a car” with “no storage
space” but “pending a test hole?” Are
the “general criteria” of the Smithtown Zoning Board indeed “our,” as in, “we
sort of make things up as we go along” depending on who is in front of us
represented by what politically connected lawyer whose name appears on every 10th
line of someone’s campaign contribution disclosure form filed with the Suffolk
County Board of Elections? Is “our
general criteria” some catch-all amorphous concept that is ultimately a
function of a phone call from your office, Mr. Supervisor, or one from
Councilmen Thomas McCarthy’s or Edward Werheim? It’s not Councilwoman Patricia Biancaniello. Councilman Robert Creighton is out of it.
This is too much for Town Attorney Yvonne Lieffrig.
Whether it’s “Find the Felons” again or not, here are some
questions for you to ask your Zoning Board.
How many other applicants before it over the last decade have ever been
accorded such favorable treatment on a garage of this dimension with
surrounding setbacks on a piece of land with this dimension? Where in the attached minutes is there any
indication of the specific basis upon which the decision of the board
rests? Where is there an indication of
a rational basis in fact for the decision for a 1,014 square foot detached
garage? This garage caper goes through
as quick as something through a goose.
Now compare below.
Equal
Protection of the Law?
Ignorance of the law – or the slap dash disregard of it – is no
defense. Besides denying people equal
protection of the laws in the form of irrational, deferential and preferential
decisions, the Smithtown Board of Zoning Appeals engages in what would
otherwise be rightly regarded as criminal behavior. Comparisons are important when dealing with equal protection of
the law.
Witness the suspiciously sweetheart treatment given to Smithtown’s Tax Assessor Gregory Hild. In the R-10 Zoning District of Kings Park, Smithtown Tax Assessor Gregory Hild applied for a zoning
variance some months prior to March, 2000. The BZA granted Hild’s “application,
permitting environmentally sensitive lands (slopes in excess of 15%) to be
altered and permitting a structure within 10 ft. of the slopes in excess of 15%
and reducing the minimum buildable lot from 10,000 sq. ft. (actual lot 10,172
sq. ft.) to 5,000 square feet and to reducing the minimum front yard from 40
ft. to 25feet and to reducing the minimum rear yard from 50 ft. to 19 feet
and increasing the floor area ratio from 25% to 50% for a proposed 2,500
square feet with a one floor, single family dwelling including a 660 square
foot attached garage. A few months
later, Hild sold the property – 255 Kohr Road, Kings Park – to Richard Vecchio. The lawyer on the deed
was John Toomey, Esq.
Witness the sweetheart treatment of a Building Department
employee. In the R-10 Zoning District
of San Remo, a relative of Carol
Terlaga, who works in the Smithtown Building Department, applied to the BZA
for a variance for 97 Walnut Road. The
BZA granted Terlaga a floor area ratio increase of from 25% to 49%. It also approved the reduction of the
buildable lot area from 10,000 square feet to 5,277 square feet for a proposed
1,032 square foot first floor and a 1, 210 square foot second floor, 416
square foot attached garage and 125 square foot porch with outside basement
entry.
Witness the case of In the Matter of the Application of Jose
Huaman –against – ADRIENNE GIANNADEO, Chairperson, DOMINICK SALERNO, EDWARD
A. BENZ, WILLIAM F. VALENTINE, and ANTHONY L. TANZI, JR., constituting the
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of the Town of Smithtown, Suffolk County, New York –
Index No. 08-30909 --- an
Article 78 Proceeding.
The petitioner and his tearful wife practically begged these same
zoning board sots to allow a renovation on their home that has been covered
over with tarp because work has been stopped by the Smithtown Building
Department --- the same department that helped out Ponzi Schemer Nick Cosmo’s lawyer John Zollo miraculously get a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
for a sports arena at 114 Parkway Drive South in just 24 hours, the same
department which handed out violations to the Huamans but continues to ignore
those at Montclair Avenue in St. James where the Smithtown Planning Board rezoned from half-acre to quarter acre
residential at the request of confessed builder-briber, Robert Fitzpatrick
who was the partner of confessed builder-briber, Frank Esposito who, in turn, was/is Councilman Thomas McCarthy’s
partner.
The Huamans applied for a permit to build a 408 square foot second
story addition. Denied. He applied to the respondent BZA for a
variance for a rear yard reduction from 50 feet to 40 feet and to
increase the maximum gross floor area from 25% to 32% for a 408 square
foot second story addition for a bedroom bath and closet. The BZA granted petitioner a floor area
ratio of only 30% -- effectively
halting any renovation.
Witness Zoning Board Case
Numbers 13781, 14132, 14006, 12164, 14759, 14024, 14024, 14005, 15419, 14743,
13894, 15128, 14723 and 12943 have, respectively, floor area ratio
increases of 25% to 37%, 25% to 32%, 25% to 34%, 25% to 35%, 25% to 37%, 25% to
40% 25% to 40%,25% to 42%, 25% to 43%, 25% to 44%, 25% to 49%, 2 5%
to 50%. Diagonally to the rear of
Huaman’s property – Case # 14759 – the BZA granted a variance of a floor area ratio
increase from 25% to 35%. Huaman
was limited to 30%. Diagonally to the rear of the Huamans,
an applicant was given a rear yard setback reduction to 34 feet. Huaman was limited to a 36 foot rear
yard setback.
According to Chairwoman Giannadeo Case # 14759 “really met the
character of the neighborhood on the block.”
“Yes it is substantial and it is self created but I do think it
meets the character of the neighborhood.”
Regarding the Huaman’s request, Giannadeo had this to say. “What is the difference on that one [supra] that we approved to 35 percent,
it is just as imposing on the neighbors as this one is.” It seemed to me it is.” For her, the variance requested by
petitioner did not fit the character of the neighborhood. Case # 14759’s renovation was built prior to
obtaining a permit but was not a problem.
Petitioner’s renovation was commenced prior to obtaining a permit and
constituted a problem. Again, speaking
from different cheeks, Giannadeo, with respect to Case # 14759, said, “but we
did see other additions on some other houses.”
But regarding Huaman’s application Giannadeo said that no houses are
similar. Deputy Planning Director David
Flynn noted that “the other one was bigger.”
Giannadeo tried to justify her discrimination by saying that Case
# 14759 was a mistake. There are
ways to remedy a “mistake.” Denying a
subsequent variance applicant equal protection of the law is not among
them. If a rear neighbor’s variance
allowing a 35% floor area ratio was not deemed a detriment then why was Huamans
33% detrimental? The “mistake,”
Supervisor Vecchio, is having an obviously biased, certainly ethically
confused, frustrated school teacher as Chair of the Zoning Board.
Zoning Board Member Edward Benz said: “This time I went out, I read the cases, I went back out and I
looked, and I think the one that we granted to 34 percent, I have a tough time
telling this guy no when we approved the guy right in back of him for more than
he’s requested.” “But I have a tough
time now denying him when the house right behind him, like David [Flynn} said,
almost directly in back of him, and it’s a lot larger than what he’s
requesting. I mean, I can’t come up
with a good reason.”
Deputy Planning Direct David Flynn said: “They referred to a case that they say is similar, and it does
seem to be similar with respect to the lot area and dimensions, its shape, the
zoning district, the terrain, the surrounding land use and even the floor
plans. It does seem to be really – as
far as I can tell, I don’t find a difference.”
“This floor plan of the addition is a little different, but the original
house is the same, other that it’s a mirror image.”
Zoning Board Member Anthony Tanzi said: “My thing is, you can’t
build your case on precedence (sic), which is basically what he’s doing. He’s basically saying, you gave it to this
guy, so you gave it to these 10 people, so you have to give it to me.” Keep silent and people will think you are
an idiot. Open it ad you confirm
it.
Witness
Carl & Helene Fallica versus The Town of Smithtown, Board of Zoning
Appeals, Planning Department, Frank DeRubeis, Building Department, Robert
Bonerba (08-CV-1564) on file at the
Islip Federal Courthouse. 24 Chestnut
Stump Road sits on an acre of land. All
the defendants, including the Zoning Board, will have to give the factual basis
for their decision to restrict the Fallacas a 2,500 square foot house on their
acre of land when (1) none of 21 other homeowners adjacent to or in the
environs of 24 Chestnut Stump Road were so limited; (2) Smithtown’s Building
Code permitted a house on this size lot to be up to 8,712 square feet -- as the
Supreme Court Suffolk County ruled in plaintiffs’ Article 78 Proceeding. The taxpayers await the answer as and when
it appears in the files of the federal court – especially the old folks living
on San Remo’s Cannery Row. Had the
plaintiffs been treated the same as everyone else under existing town law they
could have built a house bigger than 15 Tarleton Road in Fort Salonga. Not for the Fallica plaintiffs, no. They were originally restricted to the size
of Richard Vecchio’s 2,500 square foot house --- all of it to be placed on
their acre’s 43,560 square feet making it resemble a laughing stock version of “Little
House on the Prairie,” along with a real estate appraiser’s commensurately
reduced valuation and plaintiffs living like Ma and Pa Kettle. The
original restriction imposed by the Zoning Board as instigated by and in
conjunction with other named defendants was to “mitigate the impact on the
neighborhood.” This farce of a
disingenuous reason was the product of town government treating two of its
citizens with an evil eye and an uneven hand, or the end product of politically
appointed hacks collectively aspiring to emulate an ass.
Questions
Did a variance allowing a 49% floor area ratio for 97 Walnut Road
produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? Did a variance allowing a 50% floor area ratio for 255 Kohr Road
produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood? Why were the Huamans treated like they
were? Are all of Vincent Trimarco,
Esq.’s clients within “our general criteria for approval?” Are these criteria objective such that they
are neutrally applied? To state this
last question is to answer it. What is
the defense to the Fallacas -- your indicted former Chief Building Inspector
Robert Bonerba was drunk?
A Bunch of Lawless Country Rubes
The Smithtown Board of Zoning Appeals refuses to understand that
when the Court of Appeals of New York speaks that is the law unless reversed by
a higher court or superseded by the Legislature. In Tall Tress Const. v. Zoning Bd. Of Huntington, 97 N.Y.2d 86 (2001) the
court stated that a zoning board is a quasi-judicial body that is bound by and
must follow its own precedents. It is
not authorized to make things up as it goes along, resembling either a bunch of
rubes who just fell off the back of a turnip truck or a bunch or members of an
inherently suspect criminally class which includes former chief building
inspectors and former car dealership owners who double as public
officials.
The continuing disparate treatment of citizens by the BZA is cause
for concern to the Smithtown Council and law enforcement authority. There are just too many instances of the
well-connected or politically wired or criminally corrupt receiving
dramatically favorable dispositions of their variance applications while
persons like the petitioner are given discriminatorily unfavorable
treatment. Start with Supervisor
Vecchio, Tax Assessor Gregory Hild and Building Department Employee Terlaga and
work from there.
Yours
truly,
Lawrence
N. Gray, Esq.
Bcc: