|Social dog boarding in the country for city dogs.|
|Sat, 8 Oct 2011|
|I just read this. What a lot of crap. If you want to have a real economy, first of all you need people with capital, entrepreneurial spirit, and education to move here. That's me. Anyone who meets those criteria|
David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is the attorney representing the board in this case. He has gotten a lot of money.
Every cent of it is illegal.
He's the second partner to the biggest law firm in Albany. He must be a good lawyer, right? Well, I'm not impressed.
Now, there are a lot of jokes around crooked lawyers. Here's one from Sandra Day O'Connor: "There is no shortage of lawyers in Washington, DC. In fact, there may be more lawyers than people."
Here's another one:
A man phones a lawyer and asks, "How much would you charge for just answering three simple questions?"
The lawyer replies, "A thousand dollars."
"A thousand dollars!" exclaims the man. "That's very expensive isn't it?"
"It certainly is," says the lawyer. "Now, what's your third question?"
Okay, you get the idea. But maybe being crooked does pay... or maybe not. We'll find out.
David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is in the habit of submitting letters he claims are confidential to the boards.
In the August ZBA meeting, Mr. Everett made three substantial errors.
One, when the issue of the fence as an “accessory structure” came up, Mr. Everett was unable or unwilling to read the passage in town zoning law that specifically defines a fence as a structure. Confusing a “building” with a “structure” should have been cleared up before the ZBA actually voted on the issue. Did Mr. Everett not have a copy of the law in front of him? How could he let the board vote on a matter of law, the definition of an accessory structure, without reading the definition in the law?
Two, Margaret Pino cited “annoying” as a reason to vote no on the noise resolution. I said that “annoying” is not in the law. Mr. Everett did not stop the proceeding and re-read the law at that point. I was right and Ms. Pino was wrong and it is Mr. Everett’s job to speak for the law.
Three, when Amy Abbati read the law on the issue of town court and zoning violations, she was right. The town law says only one thing: an alleged zoning violation goes to town court. He should have simply said she is right. Instead, he mentioned state law and a potential state suit. What does that have to do with town law? Is the ZBA the body that hears issues of state law? No. By clouding a clear issue, Mr. Everett again put his desire to get me above the clear language of the law.
Mistake in planning board: deficient positive SEQR declaration
While serving as the attorney for the planning board, the board ruled that my application to unify two parcels, on his suggestion, should have an environmental review. Mr. Everett acknowledged that the positive declaration was deficient at a subsequent meeting.
Mistakes on the issue of the two lots
Mr. Everett has agreed with and encouraged both the planning and zoning boards to make hay out the fact that my barn and house were on separate lots. Mr. Everett sat on the planning board as attorney when the board refused to vote to put the lots back together.
Was this a big deal? No. I just walked into the county clerk and filled out a form and put them back together. What was he up to? Making a big deal out of nothing? Didn’t he know I can put them back together at the county clerk?
He didn’t know I could do that? Are you really going to listen to this guy?
Mr. Everett was hired illegally by the town board
I have written extensively about Mr. Everett, his firm and the town board on my blog. You can read public officers law there. Essentially, the board hired Mr. Everett in an executive session. This is illegal. There are more problems with the way he was hired than simply spending money based on a secret meeting, but that’s the worst problem.
Every dime he has made in this process is illegal. He claims to be a municipal attorney, yet he let the board, who are not attorneys, get themselves into this mess.
I plan to deal with this in federal and/or state court. Mr. Everett owes the taxpayer at least $60,000.
Are you really going to take this guy seriously if he can’t even get himself hired legally? Why is he getting all huffy because we asked a simple question about a competitor in Chatham and not getting indignant about this? Why?
Illegal requests for payment
Mr. Everett has three times tried to get me to pay for Jay Jurkowski to review my sound report. I think Mr. Jurkowski is the least qualified person in the world to review my sound report, a perception borne out by his comments. He has no credentials, a conflict of interest, has not visited the site, and lacks the ethical compass and intelligence to understand simple stuff.
Town law is clear that I don’t have to pay this. So I won’t pay. Why does he keep harping on it, running up the clock on the taxpayer? I say that this is almost extortion or blackmail, attempted anyway.
The fact that I’m not going to pay it and there is nothing he can do about it and I will suffer no adverse consequences for not paying it is a pretty clear indication that I don’t have to pay it.
He is not supposed to ask me for this money. I would like this to stop.
Mr. Everett applied case law to the wrong Stuyvesant business
In his very first letter, Mr. Everett cited Parkview Associates versus the City of New York, 1988. This case involves a ruling that if the planning board approves something that is clearly illegal in the law, the law is more important than the planning board determination.
The case is significant to Stuyvesant but not in terms of Glencadia Dog Camp. There is no specific law outlawing dog kennels or such in an agriculture zone. There is a specific law that outlaws auto repair shops in an agriculture zone.
So Mr. Everett was right that the case exists. I do appreciate the research. However, he did not know that the only business in the Town of Stuyvesant that is covered by this ruling belongs to the secretary of the zoning and planning boards.
Now that I am aware of this case, I am more determined than ever that there cannot be different rules for different people in terms of class two versus commercial permits.
Conclusion about Dave Everett’s competence
In short, I just don’t think the board should really pay that much attention to the stuff Dave Everett says. He’s been wrong every time. I actually have more cases of him screwing up than I’ve listed here. Really, letting this guy lead you down the path to ruin is just plain dumb.