|
16 Unit, 40+ Foot High Condo
Editor and Community:
The below covering letter was sent to 20 of our Village officials regarding the legality of the so called "variances" which were so generously granted on "hardship" (allowing 16 units instead of 3) to the politically entrenched owners of our waterfront property.
In a meeting with the Mayor recently, I expressed my deep reservations at the selection of Barbara Impellittiere "as a liaison between the applicant...and the Village" since her brother’s failure, as Chairman of the ZBA, to follow GML 239-m would cause him to be named personally in a lawsuit by the current or past owners of the disputed "variances".
Originally, this position was to be monitored via Scenic Hudson to avoid the appearance of impartiality, but that has been circumvented and we now find that the monster may now tower a dozen feet above Hudson House, 12 feet higher than the "revised plan" of earlier this year.
In spite of the unlawful "variances" the project has proceeded within the village government circles. Would we accept a 16 unit 40+ foot high condo next to Impellittiere Ford on John Teagle’s property of the same size?
November 27, 2000
To all members of the various Village Boards et al:
We have been presented with yet another proposal regarding the waterfront property which will have the greatest visual impact on Cold Spring, traffic patterns, future voting block, historical disruption, and future projects for this one of a kind area.
I have taken the time to assemble the attached Memorandum of Law to show each and every official participant, and possible participant in the various processes the true law to read for your self, and not the interpretation by any lawyer seeking to intimidate any of our officials.
While you have heard much talk regarding the famous 239-m matter, the attached is black letter law from the Appellate division without any ambiguities. It will show clearly the failure to forward the variances to the County Planning Board was totally fatal, that the so called "variances" have no legal meaning at all, and that for the Village to proceed and grant any approvals based upon these non binding approvals can, and may, subject the Village to unnecessary legal action, especially from property owners in close proximity who will be adversely financially affected.
While discretionary actions of village officials are hard, if not impossible to challenge, when those actions are taken unlawfully or on unlawful foundations, such are almost easy to remedy in the courts, especially the Appellate Division.
This is the most important building controversy to face Cold Spring since the completion of the Master Plan, and I hope you will take the time to be completely informed.
Thank you for your time and attention.
sincerely,
Scott Webster
Cold Spring
| 
