Friday, January 30, 2009


An Appellate Division decision dated January 27, 2009, held that the Zoning Board of Appeals’ determination that a real estate sign in Hartsdale (side street near E Hartsdale Ave) exceeded the maximum size permitted under Chapter 240 of the Town Code was not unreasonable or irrational.


Anonymous said...

How nice that you omitted the individuals name here.

How interesting that you even published this topic again.

How funny you don't tell the entire story.

hal samis said...

Stephanie Bellino
Blum & Bellino
63 Columbia Avenue

The villain is the ZBA and the Town Board liaison to the ZBA is former ZBA member, Francis Sheehan.

As Esquire Magazine asks:

Why is that man laughing?

sorry hal - the town was right said...

here is the decision - it was correctly decided - this is a residential neighborhood - not the east hartsdale business district where the blum and bellino firm had an office. this is a victory for the neighborhood and the rule of law which cannot be jettisoned because a building inspector bumbled.

Decided on January 27, 2009


(Index No. 8446/08)

[*1]In the Matter of Blum & Bellino, Inc., et al., appellants,


Town of Greenburgh, et al., respondents.

Thomas J. Abinanti, White Plains, N.Y., for appellants.
Timothy W. Lewis, Town Attorney, Greenburgh, N.Y. (Edward M.
Lieberman of counsel), for respondents.

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals filed March 17, 2008, which, after a hearing, affirmed a determination of John Lucido, as Building Inspector of the Town of Greenburgh, dated June 21, 2007, in effect, revoking a permit for a business sign on the ground that the sign did not comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Greenburgh and denied the petitioners' application for an area variance for the sign, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), entered July 28, 2008, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners Stephanie Bellino and James Bellino own a home in a one-family residence district in the Town of Greenburgh. Pursuant to a permit authorized by John Lucido, as Town Building Inspector, they erected a lawn sign outside their home advertising the petitioner Blum & Bellino, Inc., a real estate business operated out of the home. However, Lucido, in effect, revoked the permit and ordered the sign removed after he determined that it did not comply with the Sign and Illumination Law of the Town's Zoning Ordinance (Code of Town of Greenburgh, ch 240; Local Law No. 11 [1969] of Town of Greenburgh, hereinafter the Sign and Illumination Law) as to size. The petitioners challenged the revocation [*2]before the Town of Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter the ZBA) and, alternatively, sought an area variance permitting them to maintain the oversized sign. In a single determination, the ZBA rejected the challenge and denied the area variance. The petitioners commenced this proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge the determination. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. We affirm.

The ZBA's determination that the petitioners' sign violated the Sign and Illumination Law with respect to maximum size was neither unreasonable or irrational (see Matter of Louchheim v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton, 44 AD3d 771; Matter of Gjerlow v Graap, 43 AD3d 1165; Code of Town of Greenburgh § 240-3[C][16]). Further, the Sign and Illumination Law, as applied to the petitioners' sign, is not preempted by Real Property Law § 441-a (see generally DJL Restaurant Corp. v City of New York, 96 NY2d 91, 94-96; Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v Town of Red Hook, 60 NY2d 99, 108). Also, the ZBA's denial of the requested variance was not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion, and had a rational basis (see Matter of Bull Run Props., LLC v Town of Cornwall Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 50 AD3d 683; see generally Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608).

The petitioners' remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court on appeal or without merit.

James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court

Anonymous said...

glad to see the decision was with costs - blum and bellino should pay for their abuse of the permit originally granted to them.

hope the town sends them a bill.

Anonymous said...

Sure. Let's forget that Lucido signed the permit with the sign dimensions and admitted the "mistake".

Let's forget that there were 672 violations issued in 2008 and Paul posts this one here.

Let's forget that Stephanie Bellino once ran against Paul.

Let's forget that when Paul originally posted this topic here a great majority of blogers felt it was inappropriate as it was a thinly veiled "personal attack"



Slander? Personal attack? Why don't you self delete?

stink-a-roo said...

I heard the sign was very expensive and that the town did not want to fairly compensate Ms. Bellino for the error so that she could purchase another sign to replace the original one.

Is it possible that the error wasn't an error at all?

Anonymous said...

Should the town reimburse every business that puts up a sign that is too big and must be taken down?
The community has insisted that our sign laws be enforced. If the town would reimburse offenders, wouldn't our taxes go up?

what am I missing? said...

Mr or Ms 6:23. If a person applies for a permit for a sign and is granted that permit including specifications and dimensions of said proposed sign, goes and spends hundreds of dollars having it designed, hangs it, receives violations because the sign does not conform to code, you believe there is no responsibility on the towns part to either a) not issue a summons or B) compensate you for the original, approved sign so that you make purchase another one adhering to code?

Anonymous said...

*waves to Paul @ 6:23*

Speak Freely said...

Wooooooo weeeeeee! Classic example of what can happen to you if you piss Paul off.

My sympathies to the Bellinos. 627 town issued violations and this he's sure to mention twice on this blog?

Wow. Gloat much Paul?

big difference said...

this was a legal case that went to the appellate division
its quite different from all the other violations

good job town and superlawyer lewis

Dear Sorry Hal at 3:59 said...

When did cocern for "the rule of law" ever stop Town Officials FROM BREAKING THE LAW!!!!! The Town Board BROKE the law with its contract with the Valhalla School District, Sheehan in turn BROKE the law by violating the First Amendment Rights of the school superintendant of Valhalla when he ordered his Herald, Gil Kaminer to tell her to keep quiet or else, the Town Board BROKE the law when they recently screwed the people of Fulton Park by voting on a resolution without it being posted and lets not forget the MULTIPLE LAWS that the Town BROKE with its ILLEGAL sewer taxes that we all need to read about at the website that the Town does not want you to read as you might learn something.

The "rule of law" never stopped these folks from doing what they want.


Dear Speak Freely: Are you suggesting that the town not enforce the laws and town code? Should some people be exempt from compliance? The Appellate division found that the town acted appropriately. Should the town have looked the other way?

Speak Freely said...

If the town approves and issues permits for items that do not conform, how is the town able to enforce the code? They can't.

It appears as though the town made a mistake but wanted to take no responsibility in making that mistake. If it were me, I'd be looking for compensation for my out of pocket expenses to be able to replace the sign with one that conformed. Do you think it was fair of the town not to offer a reasonable solution given that the infraction was a direct result of the departments incompetancy?

The above assumes that the mistake wasn't a deliberate one. If I were Ms. Bellino, I'd be questioning the events.
Don't you find it odd that Paul has brought this up here on several occasions? Is this something the entire town would be interested in? Is the issue deserving of all of this air time?

Anonymous said...

What kind of people are you who think that someone who owns a business and runs it from their home is entitled to ruin the rest of the residentially zoned neighborhood by sticking up a business advertisement sign on their front lawn. Supporting this kind of nerve by some residential homeowners who are too cheap to rent an office in a business zoned district, is a sure-fire way to totally trash property values, and therefore tax revenue. This is not the Bronx even though some greedy, "who cares about the neighbors type" individuals are trying to make it so.

Anonymous said...

The sign looks fine and the house it is infron of is one of the better looking and manicured houses compared to the others on the block.

dear 10:46 pm said...


Anonymous said...

Dearest 10:46,

You choose to not read what has been written here. People are not questioned or campaigning for Ms. Bellino to keep her sign, they are questioning the events surrounding the sign debacle and why it's been broadcast here, why the Bellinos have been singled out.

Clearly you are a disgruntled neighbor. Have you walked down Columbia Ave to witness the sea of cars parked in back at the house at the end of the block. ? They are running a nice business back there. Have you been in the chiropractor's office in that house on Columbia down by EHA? Have you walked around the block to see the monstrosity built on Wilson? 2 curb cuts, 2 family, altered landscape, a fleet of commercial vehicles parked in the back. None approved. Everyone knows about, nothing done about it.

The store front Church, not a church, behind this monster house on Central. How long has this been there? Town claims it's not a church. Faux stained glass windows in the front. Uses the Sacred Heart school gym for holidays to hold SERVICES when their space can not accommodate the holiday flock.

Walk down to Casserella's. Flatbed parked in metered spaces, cars parked in the street, on the sidewalk obscuring any traffic leaving Wilson. Most recently huge signs erected and attached to the light pole further obstructing oncoming traffic. Casarella's alone has killed the property values in the area and by way of their illegal practices and aids in causing this intersection to be the most dangerous and difficult to navigate in Hartsdale. Fact: When Casserrella is issued a summons, whoever complained finds their property damaged. Can't be proven but police reports have been filed. Fact: Any parking parking enforcement officer that issues them a ticket runs the risk of being physically threatened. Nice neighbors you have there 10:46!

There is a rather substantial daycare center run out of one Hartsdale homes. It is well known. It operates openly.

The Bellinos clearly did the right thing by getting approval to erect this sign, the "mistake" made by a town department came to light and then it was pursued in a court of law. LEGALLY!

Others in your neighborhood do what pleases them illegally, fragrantly, no consequences ever, no intention to follow the letter of the law and the town is aware of it and sanctions it! What do you say about that 10:46?

10:46, Are you Paul or are you just a petty neighbor.Why don't you do us all a favor & spend your time cleaning up the neighborhood of those who openly disregard the law instead of those who conform or challenge our laws through the proper channels.

Oh, forgot. You can't because the town already knows about these lawbreakers and turns a blind eye thanks to nun-nuts like you.

hal samis said...

How about this for an equation?

a) Building Department issues permit, claimant takes this as consent and purchases costly sign =

b) Planning Department displays zoning map, claimant takes this as accurate and purchases costly parcel of land =

c) Paving contractor replaces roadside curbs he mistakenly poured in violation of code, Town Board approves change order to pay twice for making the correction =

d) Town Assessor makes $2.4 million mistake, Town Board announces she is doing a great job because two other communities made the same mistake =

e) Town Board votes to eliminate back door garbage collection, Town Board buys brand new trucks for back door garbage collection =

f) Money Magazine conducts survey of cities and mistakenly includes a few Towns but not the thousands of other Towns in the country, Town Supervisor ignores that the competition was excluded and praises himself for Greenburgh making the list =

g) Town awards no-bid contact to after school program start-up run by person lacking a college degree and education credits so that K-8 graders can learn how to invest the tax dollars provided by taxpayers to kids who have "earned" them in violation of child labor laws =

h) Library Construction Manager lies about geothermal drilling permits, requests bids for drilling plan that will not be allowed, changes drilling plan after awarding the contract, new geothermal plan results in expensive DELAYS and change orders and the Town Board punishes the responsible party by approving their fee increase from $612,000 to $800,000 because "the job took longer" =

i) Town government renounces year-old Fund Balance policy denying the use of funds to cover operating expenses, political choices in an election year require fund withdrawals to blunt even higher tax increases =

j) Town bond rating after reaching new highs based upon the Town policy of collecting excess taxes to build a compensating fund balance against borrowing needs (like you go to the bank to borrow $10 but agree to keep $20 in a savings account) begins its descent in 2009 when the fund balance protection is no longer =

k) Town celebrates a block grant to build sidewalks along 9A but has to kick in $200,000 of its own and obtain additional grants to do the job; meanwhile the State which is responsible for 9A laughs at Greenburgh because NYS won't have to assume the responsibility and cost =

l) Town Board reduces funds to Police Department budget with the result that there are fewer officers but finds funds to continue hanging for-sale artworks in Town Hall, subsidize private tennis lessons, subsidize meals on wheels for communities outside Greenburgh, support the Valhalla School District, buy software for the Assessor so that CERT claims against the Town can be processed more smoothly etc. =

m-z) BMW height, GHC zoning, Fulton Park, use of town cars, sewer districts, curtailing public comment, awarding consultant fees,
energy czarinas, __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ( add your own)

so that a+b+c+d+++ = time for a change.

When will the Messiah appear?

Anonymous said...

Dearest 7:44am
I am 10:46 and I'm not a Town official of any sort - just a person in TOV who is totally disgusted at the violations of the zoning code you describe in your neighborhood.
As I understand it, and from my own experience in my neighborhood, if you or your neighbors make a complaint to the Building department, a violation will be investigated and if valid and not corrected, a summons will be issued and the offenders will have to appear in Town Court. Fines (usually too lenient) are levied.
Everyone who is living in a residentially zoned neighborhood has the right to seek remediation. After all, you are paying taxes to live in a residential area, not a business zoned area.
Get busy - and get your neighbors to join with you. You must be persistent, but it's your pocketbook that the violators are stealing from.

7:42 said...

You must add Hal Samis's comments onto yours to create a perfect picture of what is wrong and ILLEGAL about the way Greenburgh is run by both the town board and their department heads. By the way, I took the time and read through the info on the sewer website. I don't live in Edgemont but I now know that the town has been cheating me as well on my sewer taxes. I understand why town officials (especially Regula) do not want this information to be known by everyone.

anon must run for office said...

when anon runs for town supervisor and the two seats up for re-election in 2009 (juettner and sheehan spots), the trinity we need to change things will be in power.

until that date, keep waiting.

pogo said it along time ago - we have met the enemy and the enemy is us.

Anonymous said...

Dear 7:44 AM
The ECC and Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations encoruaged the Town Board to hire a code enforcer to issue violations. The code enforcer has issued many violations over the years. People who are active in the community are not exempt from the law.

Anonymous said...

12:28. What are you saying? That because a code enforcer exists all violations are enforced. Clearly what 7:44 is saying is that violations are either not issued or they are overlooked.

Also, what does "People who are active in the community are not exempt from the law." mean? Who do you suggest thinks they are exempt from the law?

Anonymous said...

So - 1:18 - when was the last time you reported a violation to the code enforcement officer - probably never. Rather you sit around, complain and hope the officer just happens by your area and looks for a violation. That's not how it works. As the TV ad says "Call - Call now" and I might add, call early and often, if you want results. So many people complain - and so few make the call. Don't be a coward.

hal samis said...

How about seeing if the Appellate Division would rule for Greenburgh taxpayers?

On the Agenda at the Town Board meeting being held in Fairview (where there should be no offical Town Board meeting in the first place but screw you) is of course yet another Xposure presentation.
Introduce Sonja Brown to introduce Director Carter to introduce Ray Thomas to introduce the kids...

If that doesn't faze you, then consider later in the evening when the Town Board votes to approve Change Order #59 for the Library expansion. This one vetted by Al Regula says:

"Whereas, during the course of construction it was determined that the canopy over the Main Entrance needed to be raised in order to fit the Main Entrance sliding doors, Exit signage and lighting..."

Ma, you made the pants too long...

Cost to taxpayers: $18,261.00

Anyone else beside me think that this should be picked up by the Architect and/or the Construction Manager?

juettner should pay too said...

it should also be picked up by juettner - she is the town board liaison to the library. at every turn juettner never advocated for a project manager which might have caught this gaffe.

how long will the leaders of unincorporated greenburgh (except for the ecc which has finally seen the light ) that it cannot afford juettner,

juettner has been on the board since 1991 - enough is enough.

in fact, demand should be made that juettner resign - she has done a terrible job and still wants to give the money to the valhalla school district!!

Let's be consistent! said...

Anyone else beside me think that this should be picked up by the Architect and/or the Construction Manager?

Tricky question. As in the case of this blog topic, a town department mistakenly approved a sign to be erected in dimensions that did not conform to town code. Once discovered, the town demanded that the individual who purchased and erected the sign should not only pay for new sign replacement costs, but pay all town fines imposed associated with the non-compliance sign.

Given that the towns attitude is in this case and universally is "If we make the mistake, you will pay for it" I suppose we must uncover who measured for and who approved the wrong canopy (I would think this is a shared error but maybe not) and if it is the towns faux pas, we should demand that the Architect or GC correct the issue at no cost. This would make the issues of who's financially responsible for costly mistakes consistent town wide.

If the Architect or General Contractor if found to be solely responsible for the costly error, clearly we should pay for the mistake, as this would be consistent with town practices.


ed krauss said...

If one goes to the Town building department, asks for a permit, is granted that permit,acts on the valid permit and buys a sign, that permit subsequent to the paid for purchase is revoked, why should the recipiant of the valid permit have to pay ANYTHING?

Let's say you own a piece of land, apply for a building permit, go through the same process listed above and spend six figures constructing a PERMIT APPROVED house. Then an OOPs happens. The building department "realizes" it made a mistake. Tearing down the house may be correct-based on the code- BUT! BUT! BUT! who should pay for the "error?" Cleary, if the error is that of those who are responsible to know what they are PAID or volunteer to do, it's not the landowner/builder's problem.

Stephanie Bellino followed the rules. The interpretation of the "rules" was "hucked up." Now she not only has an expensive sign paid for and unusable, she has legal fees.

This is not the first time a Town dept. has messed up.However, as noted by Hal Samis above, the "other" times the TOWN( nee, us taxpayers) paid for or is paying for the screwup.

The Town should be responsible for its REPRESENTATIVE, in this case the building dept, and its dept. head. Any costs incurred by Stephanie should be reimbursed to her, and the dept.head should be reprimanded or worse. As a matter of history, the same individual granted a building permit to a developer on Kathwood, where no permit should have been given, cost legal fees and consternation on the part of the neighbors...but the "short memory syndrome" is alive and well in Greenburgh.

WE seem to be unable to learn from our mistakes. This latest "library OOPS" trust me, is not the end of the "library OOPS'". If the Town pays for someone elses mistakes, we are really. reaally STUPID. The library mistakes ARE AND SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY THE ARCHITECT AND C.M. who signed off on the APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS. NOT BY US.

If the Board approves the $18,000+ outlay, it should come out of THEIR pay. Anything else is MALFEASANCE!

Stop the B.S. Feiner! Pay Stephanie what she spent based on "your man's" approval.

memo to ed krauss said...

if you notice the court awarded costs against bellino - this is not usual and only illustrates how frivolous the appeal was.

ed - please dont descend into reflexive feiner bashing.

several judges looked at this case and found the town was right and bellino flat out wrong.

we dont need more commercial activity in residential neighborhoods.

stick to what you know.

memo to ed krauss said...

if you notice the court awarded costs against bellino - this is not usual and only illustrates how frivolous the appeal was.

ed - please dont descend into reflexive feiner bashing.

several judges looked at this case and found the town was right and bellino flat out wrong.

we dont need more commercial activity in residential neighborhoods.

stick to what you know.

Anonymous said...

the court is right that the sign is not in compliance and the court had the right to deny her any exception but the court was not involved in the back-story.

It is the back story that landed them into the court and the unfairness of it to be blamed on the town.

Why should the town take no responsibility for their mistakes?

Anonymous said...

bellino can file a small claims action unless she failed to preserve her rights

and given the state of the real estate market she is probably better off getting out of the business anyway

ed krauss said...

11:11AM.Thank you for your addition to the equation. The court ruled on the law, not on the incompetence which created the law suit in the first place.

10:57AM. I try to stick to what I know, and I am CERTAIN I know injustice when I see it. Why do you discount the building dept. error? It has to be responsible, don't you think?

As to awarding court costs, I plead NO CONTEST.

Regarding Feiner bashing, I don't consider it bashing because Feiner hired the head of the building dept., Feiner is the COO, he is in charge of the every day operations of this Town, and when something like this arises, he should do everything to stop it before it gets to the litigation phase.

If I criticize Feiner UNJUSTLY, then and only then can I be characterized as a Feiner basher. When I JUSTLY attribute blame where it belongs, I am telling the truth.

Back to "stick to what I know," I know this town is run like a tiny candy store and the buck stops at the CEO,CFO,and COO's desk.

The other four people on the dais with him,don't work full time (although they get full time fringe benefits including pensions and lifetime health care)so the administration of this town or MISadministration, falls on his shoulders.

I rest my case.

Given the fact that Stephanie had an approved permit to put the sign on her lawn, what did she do wrong? How about it, 10:57AM?

Anonymous said...

The problem is inconsistency in enforcement of the Town Code, not the existence of a part-time code enforcment officer with an enormous geographic area to cover.
In Feinerville the Town's chief elected officer decides where to send the resources of the Town - and he chooses to recognize and punish those who have offended him.
If consistency (forget fairness and/or legality) existed there might be someone who would run for office - doesn't anyone recognize that NO ONE ever challenges Feiner twice? We live in an atmosphere of officially condoned terror - run against the Supervisor and he will ruin your business, even if it takes him years. That threat is enough for all but a few very courageous people. No wonder most who oppose Feiner prefer to remain anonymous. Letters to Bob Bernstein's partners or going after Stephanie Bellino's sign, or calls to Lasser's clients, or blog-based innuendo about Hal Samis' personal life are the weapons of our own homegrown tyrant.

Disgruntled Greenburgher said...

In the Bellino incident a Town official made a mistake and isssued a permit. The party who relied on the Town official's action then spent money which will be lost now that the mistake is corrected.
In the Dromore Road incident a Town official made a mistake and filed an errorneous map. The party who relied on the Town official's action then spent money which will be lost when the mistake is corrected.
The law is the law and the outcome is presumed to be just.
Or does the outcome depend on the aggreived party's relationship with the Supervisor?

Anonymous said...

There are an awful lot of provisions of the Town Code which aren't enforced.
The Town Code permits only two 20gallon trash cans per residence per week. Maybe once upon a time it was enough - but it is unlikely to be the case today.
Perhaps our Town Supervisor should READ the Town Code and undertake the appropriate LEGAL steps to remove outdated and/or unenforceable sections. Once edited to understandable language and enforceable dictates, it should be enforced.
If the Town's Building inspector is confused by the Code and issues a permit by mistake, how is anyone to know what is, or is not, allowed.

memo to ed k said...

bellino had a small claims case for possible reimbursement
did she ever make a request? or was she belligerent about how she was done wrong

was it so much trouble to put out a sign that conformed with the law?

after the zoning board denied her losing in court was a foregone conclusion

she continued the nonsense to the app div - and got fined with costs

Anonymous said...

5:06pm - can you or anyone tell me - is it legal, according to Town Zoning Code, for a home owner to put any sign outside their home in a residential district that advertises that a business is going on inside that home?

I hope not - I live in an area zoned residential. I do not want to see signs on my neighbors lawns advertising their home business because that changes the neighborhood to a business district, which is not what I am paying for in my taxes, and not where I thought I was buying a home.

Anonymous said...

Sorry 5:32 - signs are permitted provided they meet the requirements of the Town Code.
Ms. Bellino thought hers did and so did the Building Department - until the inspector was advised he had misinterpreted the code.
Doctors, lawyers, architects and engineers all have signs advertising their "home-based" businesses.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, 9:16pm for the info. "Doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers have legal signs on their lawns advertising their "in home business" you say.

That means that if I, as a person in a residentially zoned area, have any of these prestigious professionals on my block they can have clients who fill the street and parking spaces with the cars of those seeking their services. Instead of having offices in a business district, they turn a residentially zoned area into a business district. Thanks for the heads up on this fact. I will find out who my new neighbors are, and unless they have just won the Nobel Prize in their feild, I will move, in case they want to take advantage of the neighborhood via the Zoning Code.

And, just as an aside, are these signs limited to the so called professionals? Can a person in a residential district put up a sign advertising any home business - like - "Call girls for hire, inquire here" or maybe more discretely - "escort services - inquire here" or "Lucky day service master"

The above sounds like a joke - but I am really wondering about this. My resources are limited and I hope not to squander them due to a neighbor who devalues (beyond what the economy has already done) the purchase I have made.

Doctor Who said...

So who do I contact in reguards to my neighbor operating a business from his home with his clients parking on the street?

home business and bellino said...

you should first check the town code - home based businesses may be allowed

in nyc for example, home based businesses are allowed so long as the use does not exceed 20% of the living space

unfortunately with the economy, home based businesses will probably be increasing

regarding bellino - a whole neighborhood does not have to suffer because the constable blundered

Anonymous said...

Dear 6:20AM
Edgemont agrees enthusiastically. The Dromore Road map mismarking should be thrown out of court - and costs assigned to the developer. The same building department which screwed up on interpreting signage in front of the Bellino's screwed up on the Dromore Road mapping. See a pattern?

hal samis said...

Dear 9:25,

Edgemont has better to represent itself than you. At least some of its civic leaders know the difference between Departments. The Buildings Department has no authority over Town maps.

The only pattern here is that many of those who won't sign their names to their posts do so because they are ignorant of the facts.

hal samis said...

make that Building, no "s" Department.

Anonymous said...

Dear 11:46PM -
The relevant portion of the Town Code is Chapter 240-3, Section B, Paragraph 5.
Yard signs for professionals are permitted and there are strict size and wording limitations. Following 240-3:B:5 there are guidelines for seeking variances, which implies that the rules can be adjusted for good reason (which in Greenburgh is subject to personal interpretation).

abinanti must go said...

too bad those who live where abinanti is the county legislator are unaware of his wanted to hurt a residential neighborhood with illegal signage

Anonymous said...

11:46 says "there are guidelines for variances, which implies that the rules can be adjusted for good reason, but in Greenburgh it is subject to personal interpretation"

I think you mean that if a variance is required, the applicant must appear before the Zoning Board and present a good case for a variance. Neighbors are notified and urged to attend this meeting and state their opinion on the variance. Then the entire ZB votes on it.

It is not up to one individual to give a pass to an illegal business sign in a residentially zoned area.

amen and bill bellino said...


that may have been true in sadaam hussein's iraq but not here.

kudos to our zoning board volunteers

now lets get a bill out to bellino for the costs

Anonymous said...

Dear 11:52 -
Who do you think determines whether a variance is required?
Building inspectors have been taking meetings with property owners to discuss the need for variances for years. Most property owners have learned that bringing along a negotiator like Ben Franklin and/or other members of his firm results in a fasttrack resolution - without the need to actually file for a variance.

Anonymous said...

Complaints concerning the illegal sewer charges should be directed to the comptrollers and the attorney's general office in albany.