HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-11-22 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 22 , 1985
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in special session on
Friday , November 22 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 12 : 00 , Noon ,
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Virginia Langhans , James Baker ,
Barbara Schultz , Carolyn Grigorov , Edward Mazza , John C .
Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Town Building
Inspector ) ,, Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) ,
ALSO PRESENT : Henry Aron ( Chairman , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals ) , Attorney Peter J . Walsh , Peter Loomis , Linda
Loomis , Nancy Phillips , Joan G . Reuning , Julian Euell ,
Zehna Euell , Jerold M . Weisburd , Jennifer Rondeau ,
Sanford Reuning , Claudia Weisburd , Pat Reuning , Chris
Reuning ,
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 12 : 20 p . m .
CONSIDERATION OF THE WAIVER OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD ON JULY 17 , 1979 , WITH RESPECT TO ITS
GRANT OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE INLET VALLEY LAND CO - OP ,
INC . , CALKINS ROAD .
For the record , copies of each of the following letters from
members of the Inlet Valley Land Co -Op were distributed to each of the
Board members , the Town Attorney , Mr . Euell , and the Secretary , and
each was read by them , prior to the commencement of this meeting .
1 . " November 22 , 1985
To : Montgomery May , Chairman , and members of the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
From : Sanford and Joan Reuning
Lot # 3 Inlet Valley Land Cooperative
Let us state at the outset that we welcome Mr . Euell ' s
desire to build at the Inlet Valley Land Cooperative . After a
number of years of inactivity in the affairs of our cooperative ,
his recent interest in the affairs of the group and a stated
desire to build a home on Leasehold # 5 has been met with a
positive response .
Mr . Euell ' s suggestion of a possible ' intent to discriminate
on a racial basis ' has absolutely no basis in fact . Mr . Euell
was voted in as a member of our cooperative by unanimous vote .
On several occasions , the most recent about one year ago , we
defended the right of Mr . Euell , and of Ms . Loomis , to continue
• to hold their interest in the cooperative even though they had
not yet been able to build . We will not tolerate inuendo [ sic . ]
Planning Board 2 November 22 , 1985
of racial discrimination , and urge Mr . Euell to go to the Human
Rights Commission if he feels he has a problem .
Now to the matter at hand before the Planning Board : As you
are well aware , New York State law requires a developer to file
an Offering Plan for approval by the Attorney General . In a
memorandum to the Planning Board and its Chairman , Henry Aaron
[ sic . ] [ Aron ] dated 7 / 13 / 79 from Town Attorney , James Buyoucos ,
he stated that final aproval from the Planning Board ' should
contain a provision substantially as follows :
a ) Approval of the subdivision is further contingent upon
the applicant having complied with all requirements of
law for the establishment of a cooperative including
the obtaining of the consent of the Attorney General . '
From the minutes of the Planning Board meeting of July 17 ,
1979 it is clear that this provision was included as a contingent
in final approvals . ( See Pg . 11 , No . 3 , 5e , 6 which outlines
conditions to be met before building permits be issued . )
Further , in the sales contract between Jerold Weisburd ,
Pres . of IVLC , and Sanford and Joan Reuning , dated 9 / 15 / 79 it is
stated that ' . . . before November 1980 . . . the final submission of
the Offering Plan to the New York State Attorney General will
have been made . '
The fact of the matter is that. Mr . Weisburd did a ) initiate
the process of filing an offering plan , b ) receive communication
from the Attorney General on 7 / 26 / 79 that his submission was
incomplete , c ) at some later date knowingly abandoned the
• process . The Attorney General ' s office thought that the project
had never begun and was abandoned .
Mr . Weisburd has from very early in the history of this
development ignored the requirements of NYS law and the
provisions of the Town Planning Board approvals . These facts are
now public knowledge , yet he continues to claim that these laws
and rulings do not apply to him . The Town Board must not become
a party to this travesty .
The State Attorney General has stated to us that a ) the
present form of IVLC would never have received approval from
their office , b ) that the Corporation and the development is
presently judged to be illegal , c ) that it will take only a
matter of a couple of weeks for Mr . Weisburd to convert IVLC to a
homeowners association , issue deeds for individual lots , and
submit an Offering Plan as he has been so ordered to do .
The situation of Mr . Euell ' s building permit can be very
easily solved by Mr . Weisburd complying with the Attorney
General ' s order . Nine months have passed since he was first
informed that he stood in violation of the law and ordered to
comply with conversion to a homeowners association .
Mr . Euell speaks of hardship . . [ sic . ] We at Inlet Valley
all share in hardships caused by Mr . Weisburd ' s failure to comply
with the law . Ms . Linda Loomis informed all members , including
Mr . Weisburd , last spring that she was ready to build as soon as
the legal situation was cleared up . She is unable to build . It
• appears we have put our life savings into property which we now
find we do not legally own . We cannot get bank financing for new
construction , to complete construction , or to refinance high
i Planning Board 3 November 22 , 1985
• interest mortgages . We cannot use our property as collateral for
loans , or market homes for re - sale .
It is not the members of IVLC that are stopping Mr . Euell
from building , it is not the town that is stopping Mr . Euell from
building , it is Mr . Weisburd ' s failure to comply with the law
that is stopping the building . In early February the Attorney
General ' s office set 6 months for Mr . Weisburd to rectivy [ sic . ]
the situation of this development . Nine months have now passed .
here [ sic . ] [ There ] is ample reason to believe he can simply
comply and get this matter settled as directed by the Attorney
General ' s Office . Then Mr . Euell could build , and other members
could be relieved of their financial hardships , as well .
Since the town is now aware of the illegalities of the
subdivision , of the failure to comply with the terms of the
Planning Board ' s approvals , calling for an approved offering plan
and for complete compliance with Federal , State and local law ,
and of the continuance of an unresolved legal situation with the
IVLC corporation , it must now uphold action revoking Mr .
Weisburd ' s building permit until there is resolution pursuant to
the Attorney General ' s order .
[ sgd . ] Sanford and Joan Reuning "
[ Attachments to the Reunings ' letter - -
( 1 ) Page 1 of Memorandum dated July 13 , 1979 , from James V .
Buyoucos to Henry Aron .
( 2 ) Letter dated July 26 , 1979 , from Daniel A . Furlong ,
• Principal Attorney , NYS Department of Law , to Jerold
Weisburd , c / o Mazza , Williamson , Clune , Esqs .
( 3 ) Letter dated July 31 , 1985 , from Rhonda Greenstein ,
Assistant Attorney General , NYS Department of Law , to
Assemblyman Sam MacNeil . ]
2 . " Linda Loomis
113 Lake Street
Ithaca NY 14850
( residence )
Lot 8
Inlet Valley subdivision
( future residence )
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Representing Lot 8 as a member of the Inlet Valley
Subdivision , I feel disadvantaged by the extralegal status of the
CoOperative .
My father , Peter Loomis , moved here this summer , we intend
to build at Inlet Valley . Our present housing will be
unavailable to us when our landlord completes graduate work and
sells his house this winter or spring . I am concerned not only
for our own situation but for Julian Euell ' s and for that of
Inlet Valley residents unable to refinance mortgages ( or indeed
to sell shares ) .
Although financially handicapped , we have viewed charitably
the procrastinations of the developer , and hoped these would be
Planning Board 4 November 22 , 1985
• rectified soon for legality and financial soundness . We have had
in mind at all times our ideal community and future , with minimal
rancor and maximum cooperation . To that end we have been
generous to the limits of pruriency , and shall continue so .
Sincerely ,
[ sgd . ] Linda Loomis
11 - 22 - 85 "
3 . " November 22 , 1985
Hon , Noel Desch , Supervisor
Town of Ithaca
Hon . Montgomery May , Chairman
Ithaca Planning Board
Seneca Street
Dear Mr . Desch and Mr . May :
We wish to clarify a number of points with reference to the
letter of Mr . Julian Euell to you dated November 20 , 1980 [ sic . ]
[ 198510
First , his ownership of Leasehold # 5 is , unfortunately , as
much in limbo as all other members ' ownership interests in the
Inlet Valley Cooperative . The illegal situation of the
development cannot be ignored . Note that the subdivision
• approval on July 17 , 1979 , was granted not to Mr . Weisburd but to
the Cooperative , which the Attorney General ' s office has stressed
to us is not recognized by the state as having any legal status .
This fact alone appears to us to invalidate the entire
subdivision approval by the Planning Board . Under this
circumstance how can a building permit be legally issued ?
Second , Mr . Euell knew of the legal issue over the building
permit Mr . Weisburd obtained for him by 8 a . m . on November 15 ,
for he called two members of the Cooperative at that time to
express his feelings on the matter . He had as much time , if not
more , to respond to the concerns we raised as we had time to
raise them .
Third , there was never any indication by the Planning Board
in 1979 that the offering plan requirement was to be ignored .
The expectations alluded to by Mr . Euell did not exist . The
building permits Mr . Weisburd obtained in 1979 and 1980 were
erroneously issued by the town because no one - - except Mr .
Weisburd- -was aware that he had not completed the process of
obtaining an approved offering plan for the development . There
was never any question of an ' implicit waiver ' of the offering
plan requirements .
Furthermore , we do not see ourselves as fortunate because
the building permits were mistakenly issued . On the contrary , we
would have been infinitely better off if the town had become
aware that the legalities had not been completed in time to
• prevent us from being plunged into our present chaotic situation .
And the town should be aware of our present plight . Five
members are now attempting to carry the financial burden of the
Planning Board 5 November 22 , 1985
Cooperative , which was designed for nine members to support .
Without the monthly payments of Mr . Euell , Mr . Weisburd , and two
other members , we are unable to afford urgently needed road
maintenance , and it is only a matter of time before we will have
to default on the first mortgage on the land . We will then face
foreclosure on the whole property . We are very concerned about
our financial ability to keep our road passable for emergency
vehicles .
We cannot get out of this situation by selling because no
one can sell until Mr . Weisburd complies with the offering plan
requirement . Nor can we refinance or use our homes as collateral
for loans . Ms . Loomis is prevented from building , as she planned
to do this fall . Others cannot obtain the lower interest rates
now available . The Phillipses can neither refinance nor obtain
even so much as a home improvement loan to complete their home .
At this point it is impossible to foresee the final
ramifications of this mess . It is clear , however , that the final
subdivision approval was intended to work in conjunction with
state law for the avoidance of these eventualities . To permit
Mr . Weisburd to construct another home - - this time with full
knowledge of his failure to comply with the law- - subject to these
chaotic conditions is harmful to all concerned and would
constitute a capricious withdrawal of an earlier condition that
was included in the final subdivision approval after extensive
legal work and painstaking consideration by the Plannning Board
at that time .
• We wish to point out also , that under the Cooperative setup ,
members held controls over all construction on the development .
These controls may be continued in some form of deed restriction
when the situation is finally resolved . At present , however , the
Cooperative is in limbo , and the new situaiton is still subject
to negotiation , so it is possible that construction initiated
during the interim could violate what is ultimately agreed upon .
To grant a building permit under these unresolved legal
circumstances is therefore to create a risk of future litigation .
We were assured by the Attorney General ' s office more than a
week ago that Mr . Weisburd can have the offering plan complete in
another couple of weeks , thus resolving the legal situation here
and we presume enabling the Planning Board to issue a building
permit to Mr . Euell in compliance with the subdivision approval
conditions . He could then still proceed this winter with his
construction .
With reference to Mr . Euell ' s feeling that he is the object
of racial discrimination , we wish to point out that the members
of the Cooperative unanimously voted him in as a member in 1980 .
On several occasions , when Mr . Weisburd pressed members to act
against Mr . Euell and Ms . Loomis because they had not yet built
on their sites , the two individuals Mr . Euell referes [ sic . ] to
in his letter were outspoken in his and Ms . Loomis ' s defense ,
strongly and successfully contending that both were entitled to
remain members . Nevertheless , we strongly encourage Mr . Euell to
• pursue the matter as he suggests with the State Division of Human
Rights ; this would be unquestionably the most effective way to
resolve his concern .
Planning Board 6 November 22 , 1985
• [ sgd . ] Larry & Nancy Phillips
Lot # 2 "
For the record , in addition to the three letters set forth above ,
the Board members each reviewed Chairman May ' s copy of a letter dated
November 20 , 1985 , from Julian Euell to Supervisor Desch and Chairman
May , said letter reading as follows :
" I am Julian Euell , the owner of Leasehold # 5 at Inlet Valley
Land Cooperative . This letter protests certain actions taken by the
Town , of which I will say more in a moment , and requests an exemption
or waiver of the application of the Planning Board ' s conditions
applicable to the Cooperative with respect to a building permit for
me .
As you are undoubtedly aware , Jerry Weisburd , with whom I have
contracted for the construction of a house on my Leasehold at Inlet
Valley , had requested from the town , and obtained for me a building
permit . I had intended that the house be constructed this winter so I
may occupy it in late winter . That permit was issued .
Subsequently - -November 19 - - I learned that a complaint had been
made to the Town by two individuals not more than 3 business days
earlier , and that with rather blinding speed the Town had decided to
revoke the building permit issued to me . I was astonished to learn of
this action and greatly distressed to find the Town was willing to
proceed without the slightest notice to me or an opportunity to be
heard or to present any facts , information , or argument with regard to
• this . If this was not a violation of my due process rights , it was ,
in the least , highly discourteous .
Please let me note the anomalous nature of the Town ' s action .
When the subdivision for Inlet Valley was approved , it was done with
the understanding and expectation by all that some time would pass
before an offering plan was completed and filed with the Attorney
General . Given these expectations , the Town and would -be residents of
Inlet Valley proceeded : building permits were issued , and
Certificates of Compliance were issued . Those residents have resided
peacefully without any interference from the Town since that time .
However , the same circumstances , whatever they may be , are
applicable to me as to the other residents at Inlet Valley . If the
conditions for issuance of a building permit for me have not been met ,
they have not been met for them either . Moreover , in at least one
case , no Certificate of Compliance has been issued although the
dwelling is being resided in , and has been for two years , and it is my
understanding that the lack of a Certificate of Compliance was brought
to the Town ' s attention some considerable time ago . To my knowledge ,
there has been no action on this .
I thus find it highly unusual that the Town is willing to enforce
what it believes to be a condition imposed by the Planning Board at
the time of subdivision approval ( without conceding on my part that
that is a valid condition ) with such rapidity and without notice to me
but in this highly differential and perhaps discriminatory manner .
Although I am not happy to raise -this issue , please let me be
• explicit about one point . I am black , and the way matters have
proceeded is , in my view , highly suggestive of intent to discriminate
on a racial basis . The facts that having me construct and occupy a
Planning Board 7 November 22 , 1985
• home at the Cooperative , thus adding to the value of the property , and
my participation in the Cooperative ' s maintenance , would affirmatively
benefit these individuals , and that my presence there would not in any
way disadvantage them , is further support for this conclusion .
Without in any way limiting my options I want you to know that I am
weighing a lawsuit or a complaint to the State Division of Human
Rights against the individuals concerned . I would expect the Town to
treat these individuals exactly as it did me , or afford to me the same
implicit waiver extended to them . This is not intended to constitute
a threat of any sort , but rather to acquaint you with the depth of my
feelings .
As I indicated above , I had planned to occupy my house in the
late winter . I know both of you are acquainted with building
conditions in this area and appreciate that the extra good weather we
have been experiencing will not continue . Furthermore , if we are
unable to put up the shell of the house almost immediately , I will be
effectively precluded from construction or occupancy on my original
schedule and I will be subsequently damaged by the Town ' s action .
Without conceding the validity of any condition imposed , I
therefore request that the Town Planning Board , which imposed the
original condition of filing an offering plan , meet on an emergency
basis ( by telephone if necessary ) and waive the application of such
provision in this case , thereby permitting the reissuance to me of the
building permit which I believe to have been wrongfully revoked .
I respectfully make this request on the grounds that failure to
do so would impose an extraordinary hardship on me . I would add that
I was provided with a copy of the Proposed Offering Plan prior to
acquiring an interest in Inlet Valley , I have participated in the
Cooperative ' s affairs since then , and I am frankly not in need of the
Town ' s protection in this regard . I hereby acknowledge that the
issuance by the Town of a building permit in this case does not
constitute an endorsement or representation by the Town that the
requirements of the State for filing an offering plan have been met .
Thank you for your consideration . I hope to hear from you at
your earliest possible convenience .
Very truly yours ,
[ sgd . ] Julian Thomas Euell
Julian Euell
cc : John Barney
Lewis D . Cartee "
For the record , also reviewed by the Planning Board members
present was a copy of the following letter , dated November 19 , 1985 ,
from Lewis D . Cartee to Mr . Jerold M . Weisburd .
" November 19 , 1985
Mr . Jerold M . Weisburd
House Craft Builders
Inlet Valley Land Co -Op . , Inc .
167 Calkins Road
• Ithaca , NY 14850
Re : Building Permit for Lot # 5
Planning Board 8 November 22 , 1985
• Inlet Valley Land Co -Op . , Inc .
Dear Mr . Weisburd :
Building Permit No . 3018 , dated November 6 , 1985 , for Lot # 5 ,
Inlet Valley Land Co -Op . , was issued erroneously and is revoked on
receipt of this letter .
You may re - apply for a building permit for Lot # 5 when you have
met all the conditions as outlined in the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Minutes dated July 17 , 1979 . A copy of the Minutes is enclosed
for your information .
I am returning your check in the amount of $ 40 . 00 for the revoked
building permit for Lot # 5 .
If you have any question regarding this matter , please call me at
273 - 1747 .
Very truly yours
Lewis D . Cartee
Building Inspector
xc [ Copies to ] - Noel Desch
John C . Barney , Esq .
Jean H . Swartwood
Lawrence P . Fabbroni
• Peter M . Lovi
Montgomery May
Henry Aron
Nancy M . Fuller
Julian Euell "
Chairman May stated that the Planning Board was sitting in
special session to take up the request of Mr . Julian Euell for the
waiver by the Planning Board of certain requirements which the
Planning Board had established for the development of the Inlet Valley
Land Co - Operative so that the building permit which was issued to Mr .
Euell , and subsequently revoked by the Building Inspector , could be
re - issued . Chairman May asked if the Town Attorney , John C . Barney ,
had anything he wished to state at this time .
Town Attorney Barney stated that most everybody was present at
the Planning Board meeting the other night [ November 19 , 19851 , with
the exception of those residents , or potential residents , of Inlet
Valley now present . Town Attorney Barney stated , by way of
background , that it had been indicated at that time that , with respect
to the building permit which had been issued a couple of weeks ago to
Mr . Euell in connection with Lot # 5 at Inlet Valley , there were some
requirements imposed by the Planning Board in July of 1979 leading to
this subdivision , and it had been made clear , also , that these
requirements have not been fulfilled , most particularly , and the one
of most concern , the offering plan requirement , and , based on that ,
• the building permit was revoked by the Building Inspector . Town
Attorney Barney stated that , also , at the time it was significant to
note that seven prior building permits had been issued , Mr . Euell ' s
Planning Board 9 November 22 , 1985
being the 8th or 9th , he was not sure , those others all issued in
ignorance in 1980 and 1981 . Town Attorney Barney stated that when Mr .
Euell learned of this letter from the Building Inspector to Mr .
Weisburd revoking the building permit , he wrote to the Planning Board
requesting a waiver from the offering plan requirement in his case .
Town Attorney Barney recalled that when he was at the Planning Board
meeting on Tuesday [ November 19th ] he had reported that he had made an
effort to reach the Attorney General ' s office , but was unsuccessful .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he did reach that office on Wednesday
and spoke with Assistant Attorney General Rhonda Greenstein , Town
Attorney Barney stated that ( 1 ) it is correct that no offering plan
has been filed , and ( 2 ) this deficiency has been made known to Mr .
Weisburd and it is her [ Greenstein ] understanding that an offering
plan is being put together . Town Attorney Barney elucidated on the
offering plan , noting that it involves some change from the " co - op "
format to a " homeowners ' association " format with individually deeded
lots . Town Attorney Barney spoke of Assistant Attorney General
Greenstein meeting with Mr . Weisburd last week and stated that , as far
as the Attorney General is concerned , she wants to see the matter
resolved - - and quickly - - with a new offering plan which they [ the
Office of the Attorney General ] would find acceptable . Town Attorney
Barney stated that it was his understanding that , if there were no
reasonable progress , at any time the Attorney General would consider
taking action with respect to any other projects for which Mr .
Weisburd is responsible , and that would include Commonland Community .
• Town Attorney Barney stated that the question before the Planning
Board is whether it would be appropriate , given the fact that some
seven permits were issued to people out there , and given the fact that
Mr . Euell leased this property and became a member some time ago and
is now seeking a building permit , to waive the requirement , relative
to his lot , of filing an offering plan with the Attorney General .
Mr . Jerold Weisburd asked permission to speak at this point and
was granted same . Mr . Weisburd stated that he thought there was some
confusion here in terms of this matter before the Board . Mr . Weisburd
stated that the Board was seeing before it two Jerry Weisburds - -
Jerry Weisburd , sponsor , and Jerry Weisburd , contractor . Mr . Weisburd
stated that Mr . Euell bought the land five years ago ; there is no
leasehold involved ; a building permit is involved . Mr . Weisburd
stated that the revocation of the building permit is essentially
stopping Mr . Euell ; he [ Weisburd ] is only incidentally connected
because he [ Weisburd ] is his [ Euell ] contractor .
Mr . Weisburd stated that there are two very important , but
separate , issues here . Mr . Weisburd stated that one is concerned with
the sponsor ' s obligations and whether he has met those . Mr . Weisburd
stated that he has not been given any opportunity to respond to
whether he has or has not met his obligations . Mr . Weisburd stated
that he took issue with the conclusions that have been drawn , adding
that they may be drawn , but not before he has been heard , and it is up
• to the Planning Board to discuss the sponsor ' s obligations . Mr .
Weisburd stated that the issue now , however , is Mr . Euell and why he
Planning Board 10 November 22 , 1985
• should be denied a building permit when all the others stand as do all
the previously issued certificates of occupancy .
Attorney Peter J . Walsh , asked permission to speak and was
granted same . Attorney Walsh introduced himself , gave his address as
612 Security Norstar Building , and stated that he was representing Mr .
Weisburd as well as House Craft Builders . Attorney Walsh stated that
he would like to elaborate on what Town Attorney Barney had said ,
adding that he knew this was very much on the minds of the Board
members . Attorney Walsh stated that Mr . Weisburd was right to want to
separate those actions - - those pertaining to him and those pertaining
to Mr . Euell . Attorney Walsh noted that the Board members had before
them certain correspondence with respect to dealings with the Attorney
General . Attorney Walsh stated that an offering plan was not
completed and filed , within the parlance of the Attorney General ,
which , in the Attorney General ' s lexicon , has a special meaning .
Attorney Walsh stated that they are now dealing with the Attorney
General directly through Rhonda Greenstein , Assistant Attorney
General . Attorney Walsh stated that he has met twice with the
Attorney General ' s office , directly , and they [ Weisburd and Walsh , as
Counsel ] are going forward with the process necessary to complete that
filing . Attorney Walsh stated that they [ the Attorney General ' s
office ] will insist that they [ Weisburd and Walsh , as Counsel ] have
such a filing and they do not have a problem with that . Attorney
Walsh stated that the form in which the office of Attorney General
• wishes to have it [ the offering plan ] is not the same form as it
presently is , i . e . , a co - op , or land co -op . Attorney Walsh explained
that in a co -op there is a corporation which owns the land and in the
homeowners ' association form , as in Commonland Community , the
individuals who own the houses also own the land on which they sit
with the association owning the surrounding lands . Attorney Walsh
noted that this is a somewhat different form and will involve coming
back to the Town . Attorney Walsh stated that the Planning Board
approved Inlet Valley as a land Co -Operative and the Attorney General
is aware of that . Attorney Walsh enunciated a number of steps , like
that , to be taken , noting among them that when the form of ownership
is changed over the land now owned by the Co -Operative would have to
be deeded by it to the individual homeowners , and stating that , thus ,
it is not entirely within Mr . Weisburd ' s control as developer .
Attorney Walsh stated that the plan goes to the Attorney General and
to a number of other entitities that , arguably , say they have a hand
in it . Attorney Walsh stated that , in any event , it goes to the
Attorney General ' s office and they will permit , to the members of the
Co - Op there now , thirty days for comment . Attorney Walsh retraced the
situation as it stands now , noting that ( a ) the Attorney General
indicated what she wishes to be done ; ( b ) they are going forward with
that ; ( c ) it will be done - - not within the next two or three weeks
- - but it will be done .
Attorney Walsh stated that the pulling back of the building
permit from Mr . Euell will constitute considerable hardship on him ; he
• is prepared to work on the house now , and he wants to do that .
Attorney Walsh stated that Mr . Euell is aware of the offering plan and
its filing . Attorney Walsh stated that he did not think the
in -process matters should be held to impede Mr . Euell . Attorney Walsh
Planning Board I1 November 22 , 1985
stated that Mr . Euell has asked the Planning Board to waive , in this
instance , the filing of the offering plan and put him on the same
basis as all the other people out there who have received building
permits and certificates of occupancy , even if the Town feels that
those have been issued erroneously .
Attorney Walsh asked if there were any questions at this
juncture , adding that he would be glad to answer if he could . There
being no questions , Attorney Walsh continued , stating that they are
going forward with the Attorney General , and adding that that office
been very specific about what it wishes to have done . Attorney Walsh
stated that there is no doubt at all that that will be done . Attorney
Walsh , commenting that he would like to speak to one matter which was
raised , stated that the Attorney General has , indeed , been aware that
an offering plan has not been filed since at least 1983 when a
connection was made with respect to the Commonland Community filings .
Attorney Walsh stated that , given the circumstances , which are a
little bit unusual , they [ Weisburd et all did not think it improper to
waive that requirement , in this instance , putting Mr . Euell on the
same footing as everyone else .
Chairman May asked Attorney Walsh to describe what he thought a
possible time frame might be . Attorney Walsh offered that the
offering plan would be in the Atorney General ' s hands within a few
weeks at the outside ; she will look at it and comment at the same time
• as the present owners , with something coming to a head some time in
January .
Mrs . Langhans commented that it really does not make any
difference what contractor Mr . Euell has . Attorney Walsh responded ,
no , absolutely not . Attorney Walsh described a typical scenario which
might occur between a potential co -op resident and the sponsor ,
stating that the sponsor might say that he will give you an interest
in the cooperative properties of this land and , at the same time , the
potential resident is aware that Mr . Weisburd is a designer , a
contractor , and a builder and quite willing to design and construct a
home . Attorney Walsh pointed out that then , and now , all the persons
involved were perfectly free to have their own builder , designer ,
etc . , however , in this case , Mr . Euell has asked him to do this .
Mrs . Grigorov wondered just what some of the changes in the Co -Op
might entail . Attorney Walsh stated that , briefly , without all the
complex legal language , in the land co - op form the co -op itself has
title to the land and has given individuals a lease to the property on
which they have built a house . Attorney Walsh stated that the
Attorney General has concluded , after exploration , that they - - the
various residents in Inlet Valley - - thought they were acquiring
actual ownership , and wants the matter cast in another way to be in
accord with what they thought they had at the time .
Mrs . Grigorov stated , posing it as a question , that the Attorney
• General was not against the co -op format , as such . Attorney Walsh ,
replying that Mrs . Grigorov ' s assumption was correct , stated that the
Attorney General has had experience with co -ops where an individual
Planning Board 12 November 22 , 1985
• owns his house , adding that a co -op , as such in New York City , is a
very common kind of ownership wherein the co - op owns the entire thing .
Attorney Walsh pointed out that here , in this instance , the individual
leases the land but owns the house . Attorney Walsh stated that in his
conversations with the Attorney General about the particular form , the
Attorney General said that she had no particular brief for either form
as a general matter . Attorney Walsh noted that the talk here was
predicated on what the individuals had thought they were getting .
Chairman May commented , at this juncture , that an offering plan
in place would have taken care of that . Attorney Walsh responded that
the offering plan was pretty clear , and the Town saw that , and added
that it makes quite clear that it is a land co - operative and people
who did buy were able to be aware of that . Attorney Walsh commented
that if the offering plan were filed and completed at the time , it
might not have minimized confusion at the time . Continuing , Attorney
Walsh offered that the Attorney General does not say - - " good " , or ,
" bad " - - just that it has all the information they are requiring in
it .
Chairman May stated that even though this was not a public
hearing he would ask if there were anyone who wished to speak .
Mr . Julian Euell introduced himself to the Board and stated that
he teaches at Ithaca College . Mr . Euell stated that he wished to make
• it clear that he knew what he was buying into . Mr . Euell stated that
he did not think he has been cheated . Mr . Euell stated that he is
here to buy a house . Mr . Euell stated that he also knew and is aware
that the Inlet Valley Land Co -Operative is in a conversion process and
he is extremely willing to participate in the conversion process and
wants to live in it . Mr . Euell stated that he , however , never
anticipated this problem because the issues involve Mr . Weisburd and
the collective . Mr . Euell stated that he would like to distinguish
himself , that is , make a distinction between himself as the person who
is asking to build a house and using Mr . Weisburd as a contractor and
himself as a participant in the conversion of the property from a
co - op to a homeowners ' association .
Mr . Sanford Reuning introduced himself and stated that he and his
wife are the residents at Lot # 3 in the Inlet Valley Land Cooperative ,
Mr . Reuning noted that the Board had before it a copy of their
statement to the Board , however , he would , at this time , read it into
the record . Mr . Reuning read his statement [ set forth above ] . Mr .
Reuning added the following comments as he read his entire statement
aloud :
1 . Second Paragraph - - Mr . Reuning made reference to Mr . Euell ' s
letter of November 20 , 1985 to Messrs . Desch and May .
2 . Mr . Reuning referenced some of the quoted statements in his and
Mrs . Reuning ' s letter [ paragraphs 3 , 4 , and 51 and commented
• that , with respect to some of these quotes , the Board will see
they differ from Mr . Weisburd ' s attorney ' s statements .
Planning Board 13 November 22 , 1985
• 3 . Mr . Reuning referenced paragraph 9 of his and Mrs . Reuning ' s
letter and commented that he has heard from Mr . Weisburd before
that members thought they were buying into a homeowners '
association . Mr . Reuning stated that that is patently false .
Mr . Reuning stated that he has never heard anyone say that they
were buying into a homeowners ' association .
Chairman May referred to paragraph 8 of Mr . and Mrs . Reuning ' s
letter where the statement is made " that the Corporation and the
development is presently judged to be illegal , " and asked Town
Attorney Barney if he might have any comment on that . Town Attorney
Barney responded that he did not think you can say that the entity is
illegal ; it has been alleged that it is illegal to sell shares . Town
Attorney Barney briefly expanded on his use of the term " shares " ,
describing the process as much like the selling of securities upon the
filing of an offering plan in the office of the Attorney General .
Town Attorney Barney expressed his agreement with Attorney Walsh in
that an offering plan is somewhat of a work of art , and in that they
do not approve the actual offering ; they do require that you disclose
everything before they accept .
Mrs . Nancy Phillips introduced herself to the Board and stated
that she and her husband reside at Lot # 2 in Inlet Valley . Mrs .
Phillips stated that , first of all , she and many other members of the
Co -Op did not see any draft of an offering plan before they purchased
• shares in the Co - Op . Mrs . Phillips then read her and her husband ' s
letter in its entirety [ also set forth above ] . During her reading of
her letter , Mrs . Phillips added , [ at paragraph 10 , after reading , " We
were assured by the Attorney General ' s office more than a week ago
that Mr . Weisburd can have the offering plan complete in another
couple of weeks , " - - '° not in January " . Mrs . Phillips also added to
the last sentence in that paragraph [ after reading , " He could then
still proceed this winter with his construction . " ] - - " and on a sound
legal basis . " Upon completing the reading of her and her husband ' s
letter , Mrs . Phillips stated that what they were after is providing
Mr . Weisburd with an incentive to complete the offering as they have
been told by the Attorney General he could do . Mrs . Phillips stated
that by granting this waiver you take away that incentive .
Mrs . Langhans wondered if she were correct in stating that the
members have no obligation to the co - op until the house is built .
Mrs . Phillips replied , no , and stated that the members are responsible
for maintenance , etc . , payments to the co - op . Mrs . Langhans commented
that , so , nine people were paying . Mrs . Phillips stated that nine
members were paying up until several months ago - - three months to be
exact - - when four members stopped paying . Mrs . Phillips stated that
Mr . Weisburd , Mr . Euell , Mr . Mandl , and Mr . Rondeau stopped paying .
Mrs . Langhans noted that only Mr . Euell is without a home .
Ms . Linda Loomis introduced herself from the floor and stated
that she is a member of the Co -Op and hopes to build on Lot # 8 . Ms .
• Loomis , noting that she , too , had submitted a letter to the Board
[ also set forth above ] , stated that she has been looking forward to
building , adding that it is within some possibility now which it was
Planning Board 14 November 22 , 1985
• not before . Ms . Loomis , commenting that hers is the same situation as
Mr . Euell , stated that she had hoped to build this fall , although she
has not applied for a building permit . Ms . Loomis stated that , if a
permit is granted to Mr . Euell under these conditions , she feels that
she should have one too , even though she also feels that it is
extra - legal and she did not believe she should have one . Ms . Loomis
stated that , nevertheless , if the Board does grant a permit under
these conditions , she requests that it give her one also .
Mr . Weisburd asked to speak at this point and stated that , in
these comments that have been made , one can see , he thought , what he
was talking about before , and that is a blending of the roles of
contractor and sponsor . Mr . Weisburd pointed out that the permit was
issued to Mr . Euell and stated that it is not fair to get at him
[ Weisburd ] by using Mr . Euell , adding that he has had a permit issued
just like everyone else . Mr . Weisburd noted that certain points have
been raised and stated that he would be more than happy to discuss
those points before the Planning Board , adding that he has not done
that up to now . Mr . Weisburd stated that one permit has been revoked ,
however , seven certificates of occupancy have been issued , which , it
is argued , are not correct . Mr . Weisburd stated that he did not argue
that some of these people have hardship but it has little to do with
the Town . Mr . Weisburd stated that Mr . Euell deserves the same
treatment that everyone else deserves , or , withdraw everyone else ' s
permits and certificates . Mr . Weisburd stated that he did not see any
• grounds for singling out Mr . Euell ,
Attorney Walsh stated that he would like to respond to the time
element . Attorney Walsh stated that the Attorney General has , as he
said earlier , told Mr . Weisburd , as developer of the project , that he
must complete the offering plan . Attorney Walsh stated that there is
absolutely no question but that that will be done . Town Attorney
Barney spoke at this point , and noted that there was a statement made
here about a six -month deadline imposed . Town Attorney Barney asked
Attorney Walsh if he were familiar with that . Attorney Walsh stated
that he met with the Attorney General in February and he did not
recall a six -month deadline , adding that he did not have it in
writing , certainly . Attorney Walsh stated that the Attorney General
has become impatient , to be sure , however , it had been felt that there
was the possibility of resolving this - - essentially among the members
of the co - op - - hoping that those with interest could flail out the
problems . Attorney Walsh stated that this has not occurred , so , the
Attorney General says - - " I have concluded that it must be in this
form . " Attorney Walsh stated that the statements with respect to the
time that this can be completed are , themselves , not complete .
Attorney Walsh stated that there are a number of steps to be
completed ; it is not just - - " Complete a document and then the
developer gives them deeds . " Attorney Walsh stated that another
entity owns the property and , thus , is involved another action
separate and discreet from the final offering plan . Attorney Walsh
stated that Town Attorney Barney is correct in that these matters
• involve the completion of an offering plan before sales may occur and
that has been admitted , however , the creation of the Co - Op is legal
and it must be dealt with . Attorney Walsh stated that , under the
Co -Op ' s charter and by - laws , as it exists , they will have to aprove
Planning Board 15 November 22 , 1985
• this , as will the Town have to , as to the change in form . Attorney
Walsh stated that , along with this , the Attorney General may have said
- - complete the draft and get it in - - but , certainly , in his
conversations they have not suggested that the entire thing could be
wrapped up within the next week or two . Attorney Walsh stated that it
just is not going to happen that way .
Town Attorney Barney apologized for interrupting again and asked
Attorney Walsh if he [ Barney ] would be correct in stating that ,
procedurally , he [ Walsh ] anticipated drafting a proposed offering
plan , submitting that to the Attorney General for their review and ,
simultaneously , to the residents of Inlet Valley , and , that will be
done , presumably , before any need to go to the Town . Attorney Walsh
replied , yes , and listed the processes which have to be done to the
point of the Co - Op deeding out land to the residents and then offered
to the homeowners ' association . Town Attorney Barney noted that , as a
first step , is the submission of the proposed offering plan , and
Attorney Walsh responded , yes . Town Attorney Barney wondered what
might occur assuming , for some reason , there is no agreement .
Attorney Walsh stated that they will submit it anyway . Town Attorney
Barney stated , posed as a question , that Attorney Walsh will submit it
as a homeowners ' association and as separately deeded lots . Attorney
Walsh stated that the filing will be as closely as is possible to the
existing practices and rules and as closely as possible to that agreed
to by the Attorney General . Attorney Walsh , commenting that while one
could argue this , stated that he suspected that , while their part of
• that may be done within a stated period of time , the whole matter may
not be so readily concluded because there are a number of actors and
quite a lengthy array of hoops to be jumped through before all the
parts of it are really laid to rest . Town Attorney Barney stated that
he recognized what Attorney Walsh was saying and he would indicate to
the Board that he agreed , however , with respect to the preliminary
submission , he would ask what time frame Attorney Walsh saw for that .
Attorney Walsh offered that it could be a relatively brief period , and
Town Attorney Barney offered , in response , that today is November
22nd , Attorney Walsh stated that their discussions with the Attorney
General contemplate that they [ Weisburd ( and Walsh ) ] would be willing
to meet with the members of the Co -Op to take their input on that ,
adding that two weeks ago he submitted a letter , in draft , to the
Attorney General , inviting them [ the members of the Co -Op ] to
participate . Attorney Walsh , indicating that the Attorney General was
not acting as arbitrator , stated that the conversation last evening
was asking if the Attorney General has approved that draft , adding
that they will approve by their request . Attorney Walsh stated that
the Attorney General told him that he might go out and mail out that
letter . Attorney Walsh stated that it is going out today .
Continuing , Attorney Walsh pondered the point that a couple of weeks
may be a reasonable time frame , and stated that he thought it could
be , certainly , not more than three to four weeks , at least in that
arena , for them to pull the whole thing together and submit to the
Attorney• General . Attorney Walsh expressed the thought that , fairly ,he thought it is possible to have this actually , really , going some
time in January . Attorney Walsh stated that he would like to note
that he did not know everything that would have to be in that , adding
Planning Board 16 November 22 , 1985
• that they have discussed some things which should be included and some
things which can be omitted from what would be a " standard " offering
plan .
Attorney Walsh requested a moment to speak to the matter of
" incentive " as it has been mentioned , and stated that , to say that to
issue the building permit is to take away the incentive to complete
the offering plan , is simply not true . Attorney Walsh stated that Mr .
Weisburd ' s incentive as sponsor is not a function of Mr . Weisburd as
contractor . Attorney Walsh stated that Mr . Euell ' s building permit
does not affect that in any way , and added that he can assure the
Board that they will complete the offering plan . Town Attorney Barney
injected that , however , they are not entirely unrelated , and stated
that , in fact , the Planning Board believes they required that a plan
be approved and they conditioned the issuance of building permits on
that . Attorney Walsh opined that that was not quite accurate . Town
Attorney Barney offered that they could debate it , but , in any event ,
he did not think anyone thought we would be arguing this six years
later . Town Attorney Barney recited the situation at present , noting
that the Planning Board has been asked to waive the offering plan
requirement in the particular instance of Mr . Euell ' s building permit
issuance and subsequent revocation , and , the Planning Board is
essentially asking for a time frame in order to consider such request .
Attorney Walsh stated that he could assure both the Board and Town
Attorney Barney that that will be done in the most expeditious manner
possible . Attorney Walsh stated that he might point out that the only
• one who is hurt by the pulling back of the permit is Mr . Euell , and ,
as he has indicated himself , there is no hurt to him by its issuance .
Chairman May asked who the president of the Co -Op is . A voice
stated that Alan Wood is the president .
Town Attorney Barney referred to the Minutes of the Planning
Board Meeting of July 17 , 1979 [ page 111 and asked Attorney Walsh if
there were available a Certificate of Incorporation , with Attorney
Walsh responding , yes . Town Attorney Barney asked Attorney Walsh if
by - laws were available and any amendments , with Attorney Walsh
responding , yes . Town Attorney Barney stated that , if a waiver is
granted and before a building permit is issued , he would like to see
the other four requirements that relate to the Co -Op met , including
the name of the person to receive litigatin and current names of the
officers and the name and address of each leaseholder with a
description of his or her leasehold . Attorney Walsh indicated that he
had no problem with such a request . Attorney Barney stated that , for
the record , he was referring to page 11 , item # 5 , parts a . , b . , c . ,
and d .
Mr . Weisburd asked if he could point out something in regard to
the Minutes that have been referred to - - July 17 , 1979 , and stated
that , at that time - - he did not think Mr . Cartee was the Building
Inspector , Larry Fabbroni was - - the first permit was issued by Mr .
• Fabbroni . Mr . Weisburd stated that he felt it important to know that
e " in that section talks about a copy of an offering plan and
approval by the Attorney General or proof of exemption from
Planning Board 17 November 22 , 1985
• requirement of approval , " all when obtained . " Mr . Weisburd stated
that Mr . Fabbroni knew at that time that it had not been obtained but
had no problem issuing the permit in view of that . Town Attorney
Barney stated that he accepted that - - but not five years later . Mr .
Weisburd stated , however , some time later there was a vote not to
complete the offering plan and mentioned Co -Op minutes of August 17 ,
1981 . Attorney Walsh requested permission to speak and stated that
there is a State requirement for an offering plan and they will do
that .
Chairman May asked how long Mr . Eue l l has owned that land . Mr .
Euell responded , since May 1980 .
Mrs . Phillips asked permission to state that they can document
the " six months " , adding that they have it on tape from February 1985 .
Mrs . Phillips stated that , furthermore , at that time the Attorney
General was appalled , saying that it had to be a homeowners '
association and there was never any question about that . Mrs .
Phillips commented that , also , Attorney Walsh raised questions about
the sponsor and the contractor . Mrs . Phillips stated that the Co - Op
does not have standing in State law and they were assured that this is
a fairly simple matter and does not affect the land . Town Attorney
Barney offered that he thought there has to be a distinction drawn
between what the Attorney General requires and what the State , the
Secretary of State , requires , and commented , as an example , that he
• can file for a co - op and send it to the State just like that , but ,
whether the Attorney General recognizes it is another matter . There
followed an exchange between Mrs . Phillips and Town Attorney Barney as
to their discussions with the Assistant Attorney General , Rhonda
Greenstein , and , as to their actual import under the law , with Town
Attorney Barney joshing that he was not quite certain that Mrs .
Phillips had reached quite the same high level of sophistication he
hoped he and Attorney Walsh rose to , and to which he hoped the
Attorney General could rise . Town Attorney Barney stated that ,
seriously , no matter what , if there is any change , or transfer in
ownership , or change in how developed , it must come before this
Planning Board , adding that this aspect is a massive change and ,
therefore , not a waiver . Town Attorney Barney stated that one of the
big questions in his mind is the road which was clearly on the minds
of the Board at the time of approval also . Town Attorney Barney
stated that these are all issues that we need not get into today , but
what Attorney Walsh is saying will take a long time . Mrs . Phillips
injected that the incompletion can be laid directly at Mr . Weisburd ' s
door . Mrs . Phillips continued , stating that they want full
participation in any documents presented to the Town and they want an
opportunity to record the whole thing .
Mrs . Jennifer Rondeau , Lot # 6 , Inlet Valley Land Co - Operative ,
asked permission to speak and stated that the first thing she wanted
to say is that her husband and she are Mr . Euell ' s only next door
neighbors , so they have a particular stake in having him build , and ,
• they want him to build this season . Mrs . Rondeau stated that they
were very much surprised when all this came up and they would urge the
Board to reinstate the building permit at this time . Mrs . Rondeau
Planning Board 18 November 22 , 1985
• stated that she was a little concerned about some other things that
are being said which may impinge on Mr . Euell ' s ability to build .
Mrs . Rondeau stated that there is a fair amount of disagreement about
just what the leaseholders would like to have happen , about what has
been actually done , what has actually happened , and actually what the
Co -Op would like to see happen . Mrs . Rondeau stated that this is a
serious problem , adding that the by - laws cannot be abrogated . Mrs .
Rondeau expressed her concern with statements made indicating that
Inlet Valley Land Co -Operative does not exist . Mrs . Rondeau stated
that her husband and she are prepared to sue for their rights under
those by - laws . Mrs . Rondeau stated that she took issue with a number
of things that have been said here , adding that there are a number of
them who are not happy with the present situation , but she would point
out that there is conflict . Mrs . Rondeau stated that it was her
understanding and sentiment that the reason for the filing being
delayed is because there is such disagreement amongst the membership .
Mrs . Rondeau stated that Mr . Weisburd has tried and tried , and a
number of others have tried , unsuccessfully , to see what to do and
this makes any attempt to file rather difficult , if not to say ,
impossible . Mrs . Rondeau stated that everyone has been making their
best effort . Mrs . Rondeau stated that it would be a deep injustice to
require one of their members to suffer a real hardship .
Mr . Reuning asked to speak and requested that the Board let all
of them be treated equally , commenting that everything is really not
• quite equal , and adding that things have been done illegally in many
respects - building permits have been issued not following the
sanctions of the Board . Mr . Reuning stated that , now , we know , and
now is the time for the Board to stand up and be counted . Mr . Reuning
commented that when Henry Aron was Chairman of the Planning Board this
was a very important step and it is right to follow it now . Mr .
Reuning stated that their group is split apart , true , but by the
actions of the developer .
Mrs . Phillips requested permission to speak again and stated that
if this Board can find any way of enabling Mr . Euell to build
immediately and , at the same time , really help them with this problem ,
they could not be happier . Mrs . Phillips stated that they do not want
to stop Mr . Euell ; they do want this to be on a sound legal basis .
Chairman May confessed that he had met with a number of surprises
here . Chairman May stated that one of the real concerns is this road
situation , particularly as it pertains to fire protection . Chairman
May stated that the Planning Board was very concerned about lots # 5
and # 7 back in 1979 . Chairman May , noting that the Board has been
told that the road is in a poor condition , posed the question of
whether the Board would want another house up there with the road
possibly impassable . Ch airman May asked if there were any Board
comments . There appearing to be none at the moment , Town Attorney
Barney suggested that the Board might address that concern , if the
permit were to be re - issued , by conditioning that upon the inspecting
• by the Town Building Inspector of the road and requiring that the road
be put in a suitable condition . Town Attorney Barney commented that
the road , as a private road , is not a concern of the Town , except as
•` Planning Board 19 November 22 , 1985
• it is concerned about its condition . Town Attorney Barney stated that
he did not understand , from the statements , that the road is
impassable but , perhaps , not in the best of condition . Town Attorney
Barney pointed out another aspect on the road matter is that , when
approved in 179 , there was a requirement that a spur could be put to
this particular lot [ Minutes , July 17 , 1979 , page 12 , item # 9 ,
paragraph b ] . Town Attorney Barney stated that he thought this has
been started - - according to Attorney Walsh . Town Attorney Barney
suggested that such might be a condition of any certificate of
occupancy .
Mrs . Grigorov stated that she was not quite clear on a point , and
asked if everyone has to agree on this offering plan . Town Attorney
Barney stated that the only requirement , which is a problem right now
for Mr . Euell , is the filing of the offering plan , and added that he
did not know if all have to agree , however , initially , the plan is
submitted by Attorney Walsh and Mr . Weisburd .
Mrs . Langhans asked if she understood correctly that the Attorney
General ' s office would not approve a co - op . Town Attorney Barney
stated that the Attorney General has indicated that it be in the form
of a homeowners ' association . Mrs . Schultz wondered if the members
would have to pay more for their deeds , with Town Attorney Barney
responding that he would think not . Chairman May pointed out that ,
however , as a homeowners ' association there would have to be
• subdivision approval and they would have to come back to the Planning
Board , Town Attorney Barney indicated his agreement . Mrs . Langhans
commented that it really would not be the homeowners that write the
covenants and by - laws - - it is the developer . Town Attorney Barney
stated that he did not want to be in the middle of this . Chairman May
stated to Town Attorney Barney that he understood , however , he would
like to ask - - what about Ms . Loomis ? Town Attorney Barney stated
that he thought it is only Mr . Euell who has applied at this time ,
however , if she does come in and make application for building permit ,
he would think that the Board would be hard pressed to deny it .
Continuing , Town Attorney Barney noted a slight difference in the
situations , and stated that , in the one instance , a permit was issued
and then revoked , while , in the other , no application has been made .
Mrs . Grigorov asked Town Attorney Barney if he thought , if the Board
did grant this waiver , it would slow down the process . Town Attorney
Barney responded , probably , adding , however , he also did not think it
is the job of the Planning Board to enforce therequirements of the
Attorney General . Town Attorney Barney stated that this requirement
does not have to be there , but it is there , and it is not a bad idea .
Town Attorney Barney stated that there is a representation that
there will be one filed within a few weeks , and suggested that one
could grant his [ Euell ] building permit , but condition the certificate
of occupancy on the filing of the offering plan . Attorney Walsh asked
to speak and stated that he was just thinking about the period of time
required for construction , and , he thought there would be no
• difficulty at all in the Town issuing the permit and conditioning the
certificate of occupancy on their submission of the offering plan to
the Attorney General . Mrs . Schultz wondered about asking for a bond .
. 0
Planning Board 20 November 22 , 1985
• Chairman May wondered from whom . Town Attorney Barney stated that the
problem with that is that the only person we could ask for a bond from
is Mr . Eue11 , Mrs . Langhans wondered if a date could be set for the
filing of the plan , for example , December 15th . Town Attorney Barney
posed the question - - What is your enforcement ? - - quipping , it is not
filed , so sue me . Town Attorney Barney stated , to strike a more
serious note , the problem is , what is the Town ' s responsibility and
what is the Attorney General ' s responsibility , and added that it is an
Attorney General ' s deficiency , not the Town ' s , and yet , the Attorney
General could hold other projects hostage . Mrs . Langhans asked Town
Attorney Barney if they were holding Commonland , to which he replied ,
no , not at this time , but they have indicated that they could .
Attorney Walsh stated that , as a practical matter , the Attorney
General is hot after this matter , and he [ Walsh ] has , as he was sure
the Board has noted , resisted a time of ten days to a week or two .
Chairman May wondered why this was not done in February . Attorney
Walsh stated that the reason for that is that there was no agreement
on form at all , but now , the Attorney General has said it will be in
" this " form . Mrs . Grigorov commented that she wished there was
something more specific the Board could do , other than withholding the
building permit , to avoid delay . Chairman May asked Town Attorney
Barney if there were any way we could require a bond of the sponsor .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he thought he would be hard pressed
to sustain that , pondering , perhaps , as an unusual matter , and
• commenting that we are a little hard pressed to sustain anything
because we issued seven permits . Mrs . Langhans stated that the
permits were issued in good faith . Chairman May pointed out that we
have three people from the Co -Op asking the Board not to grant a
waiver , out of nine , and two asking the Board to do it , and four have
stopped paying . Chairman May stated that it was also disturbing to
him to hear that Mr . Weisburd has stopped paying dues on a road that
concerned him in 179 , and still does . Chairman May stated that Mr .
Euell ' s problem concerned him also . Mrs . Langhans wondered how much
construction could be done that would be on hold over the winter .
Chairman May offered that buildings are being started now , with Mr .
Baker commenting that quality usually suffers .
Mrs . Schultz stated that , first off , she had no confusion between
Mr . Euell ' s problems as an owner and Mr . Weisburd as a
developer - contractor , and , second , as far as the building permits
issued in 1980 and 1981 , those were done in good faith and she did not
think anyone expected the Attorney General to get their stuff done
quickly , but , four or five years have passed . Mrs . Schultz stated
that she did not see any other incentive to get that done , adding ,
granted we do not have a commitment to get the Attorney General ' s work
done , but we do have a commitment to uphold our own work . Mr . Baker
stated that he agreed . Mrs . Grigorov commented that , then , it is very
hard to penalize the one person . Chairman May , commenting that he
finds that maybe we are not penalizing one person , stated that he
[ Euell ] has been a member since 1980 , but was just recently issued a
• building permit that was revoked and that is difficult - - he did have
trouble with that - - but , he has known the circumstances of the Co - Op .
Mr . Euell interjected that he agreed to those , adding that he thought
, f
Planning Board 21 November 22 , 1985
• it unfair to withhold his permit . Mr . Euell stated that he has begun
his financial obligations and what will be done is to destroy his
capacity to do further borrowing . Mr . Euell stated that he is already
in debt to family and friends to initiate this project . Mr . Euell
stated that , unfortunately , Ms . Loomis cannot , but he is able to , and
he has already started . Mr . Euell reiterated that the building permit
was issued and he has begun . Chairman May asked what had been done .
Mr . Euell stated that when the building permit was issued the driveway
was established , they cleared the land , and in the middle of that
process it was revoked .
Town Attorney Barney stated to the Board that the decision was
theirs . Chairman May wondered what the Board can do to insure ,
injecting that he thought Attorney Walsh ' s idea that the initial
filing will wait until occupancy is unreasonable , the filing . Town
Attorney Barney offered , on the other hand , then at that point the
Town can step in and say - - you have not done this . Continuing , Town
Attorney Barney stated that the offering plan is clearly the first
step ; next is your [ the Board ' s ] review , and added that he found it
difficult to pinpoint a time when all is completed - - for example , the
homeowners say - - I do not like it . Town Attorney Barney pointed out
that the submission has to be done and , if not done , then there is an
objective test . Chairman May wondered about the building permit thing
being held off for , say , two weeks until the filing .
Mr . Mazza reminded the Board that he had not in the past and
would not now participate in matters relating to Mr . Weisburd because
of possible conflict of interest , and asked to be excused . Chairman
May gave Mr . Mazza permission to leave .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he could offer a recommendation ,
for what it is worth . Chairman May asked him to , please , do so . Town
Attorney Barney suggested that the offering plan requirement be waived
in this case and that the permit be issued , but with conditions , and
the conditions include that the certificate of occupancy , that is , the
building may not be occupied until there has been a submission that
the Attorney General may accept , and , that there be at least one
meeting among the homeowners out there now , that is , all of the Co -Op
members , with the developer after the filing , and , that the road be
brought up to whatever requirements it is felt will be suitable for
emergency vehicles to get in and out , and , that the spur from the road
to Mr . Euell ' s property be in place . Chairman May asked Town Attorney
Barney if he felt safe with that . Town Attorney Barney responded with
the comment that while it may not be safe , he thought it was within
the confines of what the Town can do .
Ms . Loomis spoke from the floor and asked if the Board will
include her in that resolution . Chairman May responded , no . Town
Attorney Barney suggested that Ms . Loomis come in with her plans and
apply to Mr . Cartee for a building permit , adding , however , today we
are dealing with only Mr . Euell .
• Chairman May stated , SO MOVED . Mrs . Langhans SECONDED .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
. r
r Zr
Planning Board 22 November 22 , 1985
• Aye - May , Langhans , Grigorov .
Nay - Baker , Schultz ,
The MOTION was declared to be carried .
Mr . Cartee requested to be heard and asked if he were correct in
stating that if Ms . Loomis applies for a building permit , it is to
come back to the Board . Chairman May stated that Mr . Cartee was
correct .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the November 22 , 1985 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 2 : 00 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
•
•