Monday, April 28, 2008


-----Original Message-----
From: John Lucido
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:05 AM
Subject: RE: Commerical sign on Columbia Ave, Hartsdale

Mrs. Bellino was issued eighteen summonses before the Zoning Board of Appeals denied her sign variance. She removed the sign after she received the decision, however, last week the sign went up again and we issued four more summonses. I’ve since been advised that Mrs. Bellino has retained counsel and is appealing the decision of the Town to New York State Supreme Court.

John Lucido
Building Inspector
Town of Greenburgh

-----Original Message-----

Dear Paul,

I am writing to you on behalf of a number of people in the neighborhood who see that the same Blum and Bellino sign that was removed about 2-3 weeks ago is back up again. And we want to know why.

The Minutes of the Meeting in February indicated that this sized sign was unanimously voted by the Board to be removed. After several weeks, because the sign was still there, several neighbors called the Town and were told that she had 30 days to remove the sign after the posting of the Meeting results. By the time I called in early April, I was told that she was in violation, was being fined each day the sign remained up, and that the Town attorney was taking her to court the following Wednesday to get it removed. While I was unable to attend the Wednesday court session, several neighbors were and agreed to go. I called the Town attorney and left a detailed message on her phone that if she would simply call me back and tell me what time the court session was, I would tell the various neighborhood residents who wanted to attend. While the attorney never called me back, the sign was then removed within the following day or 2.

So now that this exact same-sized sign was installed again this week, we are wondering what is going on. I’m told that several people made calls and left messages so it isn’t as if the Town officials aren’t aware of it. Please see what you can find out and let me know.


Anonymous said...



This whiner has to get a life. Mrs Belino has one of the nicest looking houses on that block.

Anonymous said...

I'm shocked that this is blog worthy. Where are the numerous other complaints the town receives about code violations?

Sounds like sour grapes all around.

And yes 4:26, Mrs. Bellino does have one of the nicest kept houses on Columbia unlike those that have turned their property into parking space rentals for the residents of EHA. Um, er, I think that's a code violation?

Anonymous said...

Mrs.Bellino thinks that she is above the law.
What makes her think that because she has the best looking house in the neighborhood she could do what she wants.
The neighbors object and the town should follow thru with fines each and every day.

Anonymous said...

Why hasn't someone on Lawton INSIST that that there be an investigation into how & why that multiple family monstrosity, built with many violations, was allowed? It's right around the corner.


Bellino is small potatoes. Why the blog mention? There are many that believe they are above the law because the building dept. let's them be.

Feiner needs to update blogsite/ emails said...

Ms. Bellino had lost alot of business due to last years flood in the village and moved to a safer place ( her home) to do her business. I see nothing wrong with this. By the Way where is the flood study that was promissed to us back on Feb. 8th on this blogsite

Anonymous said...

The building department does not allow anyone to go against the laws set forth by the planning or zoning board.
It's a shame that a person like Bellino ,who considers herself a smart person would think that she is above the law.
Her neighbors have complained and the town did the right thing by giving her many citations.
Why should she be treated different than any other person that does run a business from their home.
Wouldn't a shingle be enough for her?
Why does she need a sign?
Does she have an address ?
I think having an address on a business card would help anyone find the office.
How many people will be working out of this office?
Sure we all would like to save money by working from home ,but one must consider the neighbors plus the downgrading of properties.
She could take her case to the Supreme Court in Washington if she pleases,she is not above the laws of Greenburgh.
Now about the two family home that you are referring to could you explain as to how long it has been in existence?
Have you ever made a formal complaint?
If you want the town to look into this matter make your complaint and you will see that the building department will check it out.
By the way are you a building inspector that you know of violations in this existing home.
Do you have the same violations in your home, you had better check because one of your neighbors is getting ready to make a complaint against you.

Anonymous said...

Bellino has not lost any money due to the flooding .
She has been working out of her home right along.
If anything she saved money because she had no rent to pay.
She does not need the sign as big as she has, a shingle will do.
Who does she think she is in going against her neighbors and the town?
Is this woman also on a school board or a teacher somewhere here in Greenburgh?
Good example she is setting.

Anonymous said...

WOW! I suppose violations aren't enough. Maybe we should stone her to death.

What a bunch of losers! You all deserve each other.

Find something constructive to get your pants in a bunch over.
I can't believe this topic was posted here.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Bellino run against Paul several years back on the Republican Line????? Is this some sort of payback??????

Anonymous said...

Yes. She did. Smacks of payback.

Anonymous said...

Good grief. I'm not a fan of the woman but REALLY!

I would hate to see a complaint against me turn up on this blog so that people can publicly bash me.

This isn't right at all.

Shame on you Paul and shame on Ms. Bellino's neighbors for participating in this childish behavior.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Feiner should feel very ashamed for posting this.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Belino should take down the sign and try to fix the problems in the School District

Anonymous said...

She may have run against Paul but she didn't run against the building department planning board or the zoning board.
Because she may be affiliated in politics in some fashion does not make her above the rulings.
This is not payback this is following the law.

Anonymous said...

You're a bit off and appear to have anger issues.

No one said she was above the law. She has been issued VIOLATIONS. Let the LAW and those that enforce it do their job.

There are many, many complaints recorded with the building department. Why this one ended up here makes me suspect. This is an attempt to provide a forum to harass.

It is in bad form.

Also, rumor has it that Ms. Bellino confirmed with the town that her sign was within code guidelines before paying to have one made and installed and THIS I believe has become the issue.

Rumor, it's possible someone gave her the wrong information, possibly deliberately, causing this flap.

Lucido! Paul! What's the back story? Surely there is more to it. If you're going to let the public openly trash the woman, present all of the facts.

If I were her, and the rumor is true, I'd be talking to my lawyer as well and questioning this attempt to smear.

Hal Samis said...

This was sent to the Town Board by email. As is the custom, the Town Board usually doesn't read my emails or ignores them.

The issue "refreshments" has to do with the solicitation to provide free refreshments for the Comprehensive Plan meetings. The selection process which yielded BMW was a poor one and fraught with Ethics Code conflicts. I had named Thomas Madden, Planning Commissioner and Francis Sheehan, Head of the Steering Committee and all the public and appointed officials of the Committee as subjects of the complaint addressed to the Ethics Board.

As usual Mr. Lewis, the Town Attorney, does not undertake adequate research.

Whereas I agree with the conclusions regarding the signage on Columbia, this was another mistake by the Buildings Department and like the Dromore Road fiasco, the Town should learn to live with its mistakes or learn how not to make them.

That Mr. Lewis sees a justifiable action here is another one of his slips showing in public.

Following is my email.

"It has been reported that Tim Lewis opined at Tuesday's work session that it is ok to solicit and accept refreshments because it was done on behalf of the Town.

Mr. Lewis needs to stop being so eager to please and do a little work before opining so freely. Granted that he would like to please Mr. Sheehan but for what purpose who knows?

Mr. Lewis' consistent problem as an attorney is that he is lazy and that if page one appears to yield the answer he never bothers to look at page two. This sentiment is shared by others and it is believed that this laziness has cost the Town money.

The Town Board, even its newest members, may be familiar with Resolutions that are put to the Board for their vote of acceptance. Often these Resolutions are found on the Agenda under Philanthropy or as gifts to the Parks Department or the Community Center etc. At the April 9 meeting the Town Board voted to accept $1000 to beautify East Hartsdale Avenue. Earlier in the year, they voted to accept a contribution from the Lanza Foundation for the Library.

When did the Town Board vote to accept a gift from the BMW dealership, the Lexus dealership or the East Irvington Civic Association? Since when is an individual employee empowered to solicit AND ACCEPT, on his own, a gift supposedly on behalf of the Town? The Ethics Code was constructed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. There are reasonable challenges that should red flag soliciting and accepting a gift from the BMW dealership which was before the Town in the past 12 months and is under construction at present on a project that will still require at the least, a certificate of occupancy. And there are arguments against soliciting and accepting from the other contributors as well. Furthermore, there is no proviso that allows an individual to assume this responsibility of acting unilaterally for the Town much less from those in the employ of the Department of Planning or Chairing the CP Steering Committee, positions in areas that demand a high degree of sensitivity as to dealing with developers or those that have current business with the Town. Furthermore the Ethics Code contains a section (570-16) which deals with procedures for requesting propective waivers re questionable areas and this procedure was ignored as well.

Simply put, there are obvious and compelling reasons for the Town to decline these contributions had they been properly been put before the Town Board. That the Town Board did not get the chance to consider the consequences is not acceptable.

Mr. Lewis would do well to familiarize himself with Town Code, NYS Town Law and the practices of the Town Board before he is so quick to propose the easy out. This required reading is long overdue.

He already has accumulated enough strikes to forfeit the season."

Anonymous said...


I beleive the refreshments were provided to attendees, not to Town officials or employees. The vast majority of the people there were not Town officials (at least at the meeting I attended). I did see Paul and Sheehan there, I did not see them eating.

As to "others" not having confidence in Lewis, that is the cheapest form of character assasination. Let the others speak for themselves.

We have had a lot of turnover in the Town attorney and controller ranks. There have been documented complaints about Paul not being forthcoming about key transactions. The tone is set at the top.

hal samis said...

Dear 10:23 Anonymous,

The office of Town Attorney and its job description is to serve the Town, not the Town Supervisor or the Town Board. He receives a salary paid not from the Supervisor's pocket but from taxes collected from the residents of the Town.

Finally returning to your comment about the "vast majority of people there", on all counts I would rule that resident turnout was a disaster, producing the lowest number of bodies yet. Out of a room occupied by 64, subtract the twenty or so persons associated with the consultant team and those residents on the steering committee and you are left with 40 residents. Far less a net number than showed up in Hartsdale or Edgemont. But get this, according to the consultant, last night was the largest turnout out yet. Why do you suppose he said that?
Because true to my analysis of how to "play" small groups, these outreach meetings are really not to solicit input (they already have this and their conclusions) but to make the community feel it is their plan and that the community had a hand in designing the plan.
That is why they take pictures, why they post them on the website, why they give residents their 15 minutes of fame; that is why last night's crew was made to feel that they are "better" than those attending on other nights because more showed up, why the evening is akin to a social experience and why, when you are asked for your opinion you feel flattered and as a result you become a friend and supporter of this $400,000 extravaganza.

It all boils down to knowing how to make people feel involved even though their input will be filtered and diluted and discarded if it deviates from the plans that have been written for other communities and become the boilerplate for each successive client.

Again the basic premise that attendees are given is that there is a legal basis for having a comprehensive plan; what is never mentioned is there is also a legal basis which clearly says that a comprehensive plan is not required by law.

What the CP committee and the consultant dance around is that under NYS Town law, if you do decide to have a comprehensive plan, here it what it should include.

If the Town Attorney marches to the wrong drummer, that is a willful decision of the job holder.
As you have pointed out, resigning is an option that some individuals have chosen.

How have you come by your observation that I should let others speak for themselves, did you ask the Town Attorney for his opinion. "Others" are free to speak or not speak. In blogs going back months, if not years, I have identified some precious Lewis "moments" that may well have been mouthed by "others", indeed have.

When Mr. Lewis attempted to curtail my comments at a Public Hearing, he cited NYS Town Law from the mid 1970's. What he didn't cite (i.e. page two) was the allowances granted by open meetings laws which were codified in the early 1980's.

When the Library sought to lease the vacant former Frank's Nursery building, Mr. Lewis allowed the matter to drag on until it was finally killed by environmental issues. However, Mr. Lewis did not realize that "rent" is not an item allowable under the referendum approved bonding. Were the lease executed, who was going to pay the rent? "Others" might even argue that if this were known the Library would not have lost precious months negotiating a lease for which it had no funding.

When Mr. Lewis approved the contract with the Library construction manager, Triton, he did so without checking the Triton bid amount in response to their RFP and the amount that Triton itself included in the Library budget. Thus the Town contracted to pay $680,000 vs the amount that was bid and accepted, $612,000.

"Others" may care to discuss substantive legal issues in the areas of existing lawsuits brought against the Town.

Your apparent understanding of the Ethics issue would the kind of interpretation that Mr. Lewis would arrive at. Who consumed the refreshments is not the issue nor would it be necessary to have eyewitness accounts of who had a bottle of water, who had a cookie, who had a soda. And, if it were so, would you care to add whether these observations were also true at ALL of the now five outreach meetings.

At last night's meeting at the Woodlands School, Town elected officers and/or employees Sheehan, Juettner, Morgan, Madden did partake. As did Town appointed officials on the CAC, Zoning Board and Planning Boards.

And there was no advisory forbidding these persons from having refreshments.

So much for addressing stupidity from the land of anonymous.

However, since you obviously don't get it, the issue is whether those falling under the Town's Ethics code (elected officials, appointed officials, employees) violated the code and its attempt to legislate the "appearance of impropriety".
Soliciting and accepting a contribution (something of value which extends to the larger feast provided at the Hartsdale and Edgemont meetings) from parties that have business with the Town is the backbone of the new Ethics Code approved last year. Written in large part by a lynch mob, Mr. Sheehan took pride in announcing after their adoption that they were (and I forget his exact words then) on the order of his recent Comprehensive Plan quote in The Scarsdale Inquirer "practically bulletproof".

So this year, the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee headed by Mr. Sheehan and probably enacted by Planning Commissioner Madden (I leave that to the Ethics Board to determine who made the actual solicitation) asked for someone(s) to provide the free refreshments dangled as a lure for those attending the outreach meetings.
Who was asked and who agreed so far? The BMW dealership (Hartsdale and Edgemont), the Lexus dealership (Multipurpose Center) and the East Irving Civic Association (East Irvington). For certain, both the BMW dealer and the East Irvington Civic Association are before the Town. The BMW (in the last 12 months, a period covered under the Ethics Code) was before the Town regarding approvals of their now under construction building next door to their existing facility, which will require a CofO at conclusion. What about a Civic Association? Civic associations as a matter of rote act as a pressure group and this particular group has weighed in regarding their desires concerning the proposed shopping center on Tarrytown Road. And given the other interests of this particular civic association, I suspect (strongly -- I just don't have the specifics in front o me -- that they have sought the Town's forbearance with regard to acquiring additional green space within their borders -- as though Taxter Ridge was not enough.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to move off the topic which gave iffy entree to discuss Tim Lewis (in the original post, "the Town attorney was taking her to court...") and his department and to elaborate on the Comprehensive Plan charade.

hal samis said...

OK, a little sloppy in directing the mouse.

The second paragraph beginning with "Finally and ending with paragraph, "What the CP..." should all follow the paragraph starting with: "If the Town Attorney..." and those paragraphs to the end of the post. Thus "If the Town Attorney..." becomes the new second paragraph.

Confusing, yes.

ed krauss said...

Starting with Stephanie and ending with "appearance of impropriety," this is a slam dunk. How does one not have the opportunity to confront and/or cross examine her accuser?

Answer: The Feiner Blog.

Knowing Mrs. Bellino as I have, she is a law abiding person and would not intentially break the law.Nor does she feel she is above the law.

Therefore it leads me to believe someone, part of the administration, told her the sign was OK. Somewhat like the the member of the administration who told Me. Troy that Dromore Rd was zoned for multiple housing, or the BMW dealer that he could build a second story WITHOUT showing it on his drawings AND get a CofO.

As to the "free-of-charge" refreshments provided by groups the have matters before the town or any other Board, any moron studying hard to be an idiot, can see that the BRAND NEW ETHICS CODE, expressly rewritten to avoid this, has been violated.

The fact that the writer approvers, as well as the Ethics Board member(s) along with Members of Boards to be solicited were present to witness this flagrant breach of ethics simply prover yet again "there ain't no ethics in Greenburgh."

Who are they kidding? And "we the people" allow this king of behavior to go on year after year...SHAME ON US for not doing anything about it, and SHAME ON THEM, ALL OF THEM who flaunt it.

Why not do away with anything that is not enforced and let's bring Tombstone to Greenburgh.

A final note on Stephanie's critics-without-names, grow a pair!

Anonymous said...

And what about whomever told the Greenburgh Health Center not to worry about the zoning of the Knollwood property they wanted??

Anonymous said...

1:02 I was at the meeting where this sign was asked for and I remember that Bellino was told to put up a much smaller sign .
Her neighbors were there expressing their feelings about the large sign that was already on her property.
They did not like it.
So to my knowledge she was given the choice of the smaller shingle type sign but she decided to take on the town and leave the larger sign up on residential property.
Is she in violation ?
I think so and that means she is going against the town law .

hal samis said...

Dear 4:44,

There is no disagreement that she is not complying with the law and what the Zoning Board ruled.

What she is doing "in taking on the Town" is holding the Town responsible for the actions of its employees.

Simply put, Bellino was told by the Buildings Department that her proposed sign was suitable and legal. With that assurance, she ordered a sign, which is tasteful albeit large for a residential street. However, the point is not what is wrong with the sign or how it looks but that she was told it would be allowed. With that foreknowledge she ordered a sign and incurred a sizeable expense,$900.

Although I cannot verify this, I am told that she was willing to drop the issue if the Town would reimburse her for the cost of the sign and that this resolution was rejected by the Town.

If this is true, then I agree with her position because I believe that the Town has a responsibility to residents to provide accurate information. Elsewhere this is working its way through the legal process on the Dromore Road matter.
If you don't get immersed in the consequences, the matter is quite simple: did the Town dispense accurate information to the developer which caused him to undertake a considerable investment?

In both examples, the Town gave out faulty information and caused financial harm to those that asked the question. In both examples, the questions were not about any esoteric or brand new regulation should someone might argue that the Town's representatives would be breaking new ground for interpretation in giving an off-the-cuff response.

And as for Ms. Bellino and the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board chose not to alter the existing Town code; their job was not to censure the Buildings Department.

It is my consistent posture that those who head Town Departments should be responsible for knowing what their Department does and how it should perform. They are not paid to be generalists; they are being paid to experts in a limited area.

If they give out incorrect information, their employer, the Town, should be held responsible.

Is it any different from a situation familiar to most of us.
A store advertises a sale and when you go to purchase the product, they say the advertisement was wrong. If you are like me, I holler and fuss and cajole until they honor their offer.

That is all, as I understand it, that Ms. Bellino wants.

Anonymous said...

Dear Hal,

When the orignal Dromore property -- single family home -- which was destroyed by fire as I understand was demolished, the demolishment permit clearly indicated the property was not in the Central Ave zone. The builder knew.

Anonymous said...

Dear Hal,

When the orignal Dromore property -- single family home -- which was destroyed by fire as I understand was demolished, the demolishment permit clearly indicated the property was not in the Central Ave zone. The builder knew.

Anonymous said...

Dear Hal,

When the orignal Dromore property -- single family home -- which was destroyed by fire as I understand was demolished, the demolishment permit clearly indicated the property was not in the Central Ave zone. The builder knew.

Anonymous said...

and why is the newcomers party allowed at veterans if lewis says no guests etc from outside of TOV? Oh, I see, if they are Pauls guests that is OK

Anonymous said...

Thank you Hal for an explanation of the Bellino sign situation.

I couldn't agree with you more as I would be making a fuss myself, had this been my experience.

Given the facts, what is the purpose of this being published here?

Draw your own conclusions.

Anonymous said...

Mrs. Bellino has/had every right to put up the sign, yes, even the size is correct. It even says on the Town of Greenburgh website that the sign is acceptable.
If the building inspector has made a mistake, he should let the rest of us know, instead of bashing her to death.
To my understanding, she was even issued a permit at one point!

I agree, this blog is pointless.

hal samis said...

Ms. Bellino WAS issued a permit which is the basis of her legal action.

The Town never likes to admit that it is wrong.

But sometimes it would be best to do so.

That the Town Attorney goes along with this game is why I added my comments about him on this topic earlier, 4/30/08 @ 9:40 am.

Now, to the comment which was repeated to excess today @12:03 (yes, you can worry about whether it got transmitted but 3x?) regarding Dromore; although I don't have my files in front of me, I recall that the demolition was done by the developer after he took title -- the same developer who had purchased this property which he had believed to be in the Central Avenue mixed use zone. And why did he purchase that property? Because he had been told by the Town's Planning Department and told by the Town's Building Department and not only him but also his Architect on a separate occasion that the property was zoned to permit multifamily and was within the mixed use zone. Should I repeat this again in this one post or do I have to follow your heavy finger and resend the post twice more.
Just because the Town illegally changed the Zoning map after an error was discovered, does not erase the fact that he had been given erroneous information by several Town staffers who should be held accountable.

Even the first family of the ECC at the time believed that the property was within the mixed use zone.

It is this theme of Town mistake overshadowed by the assumption that the property owner should suffer the result is what is truly vexing. In these times of budget concerns, maybe these employee repeat offenders should not be rewarded by getting raises. How's that for a novel idea?

If you have a problem with Dromore or Ms. Bellino, I suggest that you instead focus your concerns on the proper target: the Town Department heads who repeat the same mistakes even more times than you.

Anonymous said...


Go check your files. I know you know the answer to this. The developer knew or should have known it was not within the CA zone. Just because he uses a lawyer friend of Pauls doesnt change that. And the Town Council never voted to put that land in the CA zone. And you know that too.

P. McGuire said...

I can not believe what I'm reading here regarding Ms. Bellino & her sign.

I am shocked that this complaint has been posted here on this blog but then, to learn that she followed the appropriate steps to ensure that her sign was within allowable limits, was given incorrect information, makes this mention here completely unconscionable.

Clearly, there are "haters" blogging. Why not let us all know who you are? If it was good enough for Paul to put his name on it, why not you?

Ms. Bellino is owed a few apologies. PUBLIC apologies, since this was an attempt to PUBLICALLY embarrass her.

This is a disgrace. I hope she sticks it to the town but good. If I were her I would make it my mission to do so.

Lynch mob and Salem witch trials come to mind. How awful.

Paul, you're a dog. You should have removed this blog post. Whether she is right or wrong, this is completely inappropriate.

I'm embarrassed for you.

hal samis said...

Dear 3:55,

I checked and you are making up tall tales. Par for anonymice.

The developer or any applicant is not expected to go back to check resolutions to create a zoning map. Why should he? Wouldn't anyone assume the Town Planning Commissioner would know what he is talking about? Everyone in Town Hall pointed to the zoning map on the wall. Even famous lawyer believed in the zoning map. When you go to the Town web site and see the Town Code, do you feel that it is necessary to check the code against the resolution that created to see if they got it right?

We both know that the resolution and the zoning map don't agree. And we also know that Town code says go by the zoning map. And since there is disagreement, the matter will be concluded in open court not on this blog.

Which is why the Town Attorney is afraid the matter will go to trial and why Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Bass, Ms. Juettner, Ms. Barnes, Mr. Bernstein and Ms. McNally will be deposed, not something that they are looking forward to. Maybe they should try and hire Mr. Weingarten since he may be their last hope.

Everytime Mr. Bernstein gets near a court, the Edgemont anonymice try to out Grisham, John Grisham.

You see, I haven't come near the answer you had hoped to read. I'm right; you're wrong. I'm pretty good with words and I don't need you to try to put words in my keyboard.

See you in court.

Anonymous said...

Is this why you are so anti - Lewis? That is he actually willing to support a defending a lawsuit to protect zoning rules in Edgemont?

hal samis said...

I am against Mr. Lewis because he heads the Town's legal department.
I am also against the Peter Principle.
And, this is not a comment about skin color (it is sad that I feel I have to assert this because of anonymous pond scum) in the Town's legal department, the cream has definitely not risen to the top.

Mr. Lewis, in the Dromore matter, is not defending zoning rules in Edgemont or elsewhere. He is defending incompetence and it is fitting that he be the champion.
If the Town loses, how will Edgemont feel about him then?

Everyone who thinks they know the law and see it as such a simple issue is probably the same everyone that said the same thing about Bernstein legal malaise. It was always so clear and unquestionable. Always...until...

The Dromore matter is one of whether the zoning map, flawed or not, is the final arbiter or whether the resolution creating the zoning map is the final arbiter. Both sides have a basis derived from existing Town code. Both sides have arguments that should be heard and decided in the kind of venue in which they are appearing.

None of this would have occurred had the map been accurate. There would be no defense. Illegally changing the map (because even correcting mistakes has a process) does not speak well for those who argue that the process ending with the resolution is to be respected.
Similarly, the process and the resolution that said, go by the map, should also be respected. Why Edgemont residents feel that one resolution is more worthy than another resolution is tenuous.

So whether you want to rehash Dromore to death or not, there still remains a similarity between the Dromore issues and Ms. Bellino's matter which is not situated in Edgemont, however both share Mr. Lewis. The Town granted her a permit. Was this a mistake. Can I get my money back if I made a mistake and shorted Google at $450 a few weeks ago?
You, I and the Town have to take responsibility for our actions.
Because the Town has deeper pockets (or used to) and a staff on call to defend its mistakes is just a well-dressed bully picking on the little kid.

Might makes right. And you are alright with supporting a Town Attorney who is willing to live this role.

And, on a more "global" view, with the same Supervisor in office but with Tim Lewis as Town Attorney, do you have any idea of how many lawsuits have been brought against the Town, primarily for wrongful action. Because of our history on this blog, I'll even let you subtract the Dromore suit from the total.

Anonymous said...

What about Fortress Bible? what have you to say about that.

Anonymous said...

I think Bellino was told to put up a shingle type sign when she went before the board .
Her neighbors were against the large sign and were ok with the shingle type.
I was under the impresswion before one receives a permit they have to go before the zoning board or the
planning board befor the building department hands out a permit.

hal samis said...

You do not have to go to these Boards to get a permit. If you need to go to these Boards, the Building Department should tell you, not issue a permit.

The only reason she went before the Zoning Board is that after her sign went up, complaints were made and the Building Department issued violations -- on what they had allowed by their permit.

Is there anyone out there who knows how to get in touch with

Anonymous said...

How do you know that she had a permit?
If she had a permit I do not think it was for a sign of that size .
As you know many of us are offered the size of a finger but then we take the whole hand.
I'm sure if a permit was granted the Building dept. would take full responsibility for the error and would not have citted her over and over again for their mistake.
Look the sign is against the zoning laws since she lives in a residential area nothing changes that.
If there was the slighest chance for her to put up the sign legally the zoning board with all their wisdom would have granted her request the night of the meeting..
This time I cannot agree with you Hal.

ed krauss said...

To 5/4 1:54 PM

I'm sorry you disagree with Hal, but I am confounded by the rest of your points.

(A)You don't even know if Ms. Bellino had a permit, yet you're sure it wasn't a permit for a sign that size.

(B) You're sure the Building Dept. would taked full responsibility if they erred.

Are you kidding or what. Since you apparently agree with Hal sometimes you're probably an intelligent person. However, even intelligent people can be naive. So I'll tack your position up to naivete.

Being forthcoming about mistakes in Greenburgh is not an "endangered species," it's a nonexistant species in our government.

I hope you never have the experience wherein a government employee gives you misinformation, you act on it, spend big bucks, only to find out it was wrong and you're out all that money...unless the person who gave you the misinformation steps up to the plate.

Dromore and Bellino are not unique, they are the ones not swept under the rug.

Anonymous said...

Gee, Greenburgh Health Center -- which was solved by allowing them an unallowed use of property