WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
carpetman, hamptons, flooring
27east.com

127 Comments by davbud

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  >>  

East Hampton Ordinance Enforcement Department Faces Staffing Woes

Certainly NOT more Police. We need more Ordinance Inspectors in the East Hampton Town Ordinance Enforcement Department. David Buda " May 8, 12 7:39 PM

East Hampton Town and Surf Lodge Settle For $100,000

Clearly a very significant result, and Messrs Connelly and Gunn (as well as all the Ordinance Inspectors invovled in issuing the Charges) should take pride in a job well done. Now, the Town needs to see the wisdom of hiring more Ordinance Enforcement Inspectors so the Department does not fall down on the job due to the current unanticipated staffing problems. David Buda" May 14, 12 7:48 PM

High-Speed Chase Followed East Hampton Shooting; Driver Identified

BTW, the East Hampton Town Garbage Transfer Station on Springs -Fireplace Road is not located in The Springs. David Buda" May 25, 12 1:08 AM

Plover Nest Destroyed, But By Who? Or What?

Should be "... By Whom?" in the headline. David Buda" Jun 6, 12 10:53 PM

Republican Plan To Restructure Natural Resources and Planning Departments Draw Criticsm

It is my understanding that the proposed plan is essentially a re-distribution of existing personnel between existing Departments. I am not aware from the public discussion held so far that any montetary savings would be generated by the proposed "restructuring." If savings are in fact contemplated and the reason for the proposal, then someone in the know needs to explain how those savings will be achieved. I am all ears. David Buda" Jun 16, 12 2:25 AM

New 'Escape' Comes To Montauk

"Neither Sole East nor the event organizers have 
requested any special permits from East Hampton Town for the event." If a Town Board Commercial Mass Gathering Permit is not issued, this event should not happen at all. David Buda " Jul 20, 12 10:36 AM

East Hampton School District Responds To Student's Death

I would recommend you all read the lead Letter to the Editor published in today's edition of The East Hampton Star, which provides "no holds barred" answers to many of your questions about this tragic event. My condolences to David's family and friends. David Buda " Oct 4, 12 11:01 AM

Old Stove Pub Sign Will Have To Comply With Code

As anyone who drives through the Town of Southampton (from Riverside along Route 24, to Southampton along County Route 39, to Bridgehampton along Route 27) alrteady knows, the Town of Southampton is currently doing a very poor job of enforcing its own Sign Ordinance when it comes to the prohibition against neon signs erected after January 1, 1981. I wonder why? As for Southampton's code, they have established January 1, 2015 as the "extended amortization date." Will the Village of Sagaponack follow suit and extend the deadline? David Buda " Oct 10, 12 1:07 PM

As I read SH Town Code Section 330-202(B), the so-called "amortization law" provision deals only with setting a "sunset date" for those PRE-EXISTING, NONCONFORMING neon and other signs that were erected prior to January 1, 1981, and are deemed to be "historic" exceptions to the current provisions. Newly erected signs, over the past 30+ years, like the garish neon signs that outline an insurance agency office storefront on Cty Rte. 39, are simply not allowed, but are being ignored by the Town. And, moreover, why aren't all of the SH Ordinance Inspectors empowered to enforce the Town's Sign Ordinance? David Buda" Oct 10, 12 4:40 PM

Strict and even-handed enforcement of all Town and Village Ordinances should be the norm, and not require citizen complaints to trigger action by those charged with, and paid to, enforce the laws. Moreover, if the Town issued Notices of Violation and followed up with issuing court summones, the Town would collect more than enough to pay for any extra effort required. Witness the fact that in the Village of East Hampton they adopted new rules regulating real estate signs, and strictly enforce them, collecting $100 a pop in Justice Court from each violator. Enforcement engenders compliance. David Buda" Oct 12, 12 10:01 AM

Exceptions can and should be made for old, classic neon signs, and this may be a deserving example. Who would argue that the neon signs at Candy Kitchen in Bridgehampton or at the movie theatre in Sag Harbor should be removed. But, there must be compliance with the legal process that allows for an appeal and the granting of a limited number of variances. David Buda" Oct 12, 12 10:14 AM

East Hampton Supervisor's Secretary Quits Her Job

The Salary and Benefirts quoted are in fact accurately taken from the East Hampton Town's Adopted 2013 Budget which is available on-line on the Town's web-site. Salary and Benefits are itemiized for each full-time position. Riddle me this however: How does a newly hired Clerk Typist (CSEA Grade 12, Step 1) earn $31,468 in Salary and cost the Town even more ($31,495) in Bemefits. That's hard to comprehend. David Buda " Jan 8, 13 3:40 PM

You totally missed my point. Obviously per capita health care constitutes a greater percentage of the employer's cost burden for a lower paid employee than for a higher paid employee. But, really, how much do you think the Town pays for the health insurance, pension costs, and whatever else is included as constituting the total annual "beneits" for a new Clerk Typist earning $31,468?. How does that possibly add up to $31,495? Perhaps EH Budget Officer Len Bernard can provide an itemized breakdown for us. " Jan 9, 13 2:20 PM

Mission Of Kindness Is Mostly A Mystery

Yes, "real investigative journalism" is appreciated, however, accuracy is essential. This NYS not-for profit corporation was incorporated 12/5/2000, and its most recent IRS Form 990-EZ (for 2011) is dated August 2012, lists three Officers, $17,300 in revenue received, $15,250 in charitable grants made, and $1,951 in assets remaining. David Buda " Jan 31, 13 10:27 AM

IRS filings for the entity list as the Officers, etc., the following: Jay Lockett Sears, Chairman; Layne Anapol, Vice President; and, Laurie Pitcher, Treasurer; all listing "P.O. Box 917, Quogue" as their "address." David Buda" Feb 4, 13 9:37 PM

Process Could Lead To Helicopter Restrictions At East Hampton Airport, Consultants Tell Board

Are you suggesting that no residents of Sagaponack, Bridgehampton, Water Mill, Southampton, etc., use the East Hampton airport? David Buda" Feb 6, 13 10:09 AM

East Hampton Town Failed To Defend Itself In ZBA Appeal

From a review of the Court Orders available on-line through NYUCS e-Courts' website, the Petition for Article 78 relief was personally served on the Town Clerk's Office on January 27, 2010. A Motion was filed with a submission date on March 10, 2010, which resulted in Judge Jones entering an Order on May 24, 2010, directing the Town ZBA to file its Answer to the Petition "within sixty (60) days." The Final Disposition was not entered until November 1, 2010, when the Court determined that the Town ZBA "has no intention to have the controversy determined on the merits" and granted the Petition "upon the default of the respondent." So, what actually transpired from January 27 until November 1, a period of more than nine months (long enough to give birth to a baby)! As Ricky Ricardo used to say, "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!" David Buda" Feb 26, 13 11:46 PM

As a Board Watcher, perhaps you (Beverly?) already know that on July 1, 2003, the Town Board ordered an Appraisal of the subject parcel owned by Evelyn Clark, located at 9 Ocean Lane, Amagansett, for possible acquisition using CPF funds. The parcel is currently listed on the "CPF Project Plan" list of desired CPF purchases for open space. The vacant parcel currently has an Assessed Value of $1,200 (taxed as if it has a fairly low FMV of $150,000). I would like to know what became of the negotiations for CPF acquisition. Since the owner of 9 Ocean Lane is probably married to or a close relative of the owner of the adjacent home at 11 Ocean Lane (separately deeded to Herbert Clark) one would have thought the CPF Fund and the owner(s) would have both benefited by a sale that would have preserved the lot as open space. David Buda " Feb 27, 13 3:13 PM

Board Watcher, you are going to have to be much less abstruse if anyone is going to be evaluate the merits of your reference to a purported "Federal lawsuit that loomed over [the Evelyn Clark] application." Surely you are not referring to the Koncelik family land development litigation in the mid-1990's are you? David Buda" Feb 28, 13 1:33 PM

This matter just gets more interesting all the time. County Deed records indicate the subject parcel was purchased by Evelyn Clark from the County of Suffolk on September 24, 2007, for $1,964.31! This was apparently a Tax Lien Foreclosure Sale parcel acquired by the Suffolk County Treasurer some time before. So why wasn't it able to be acquired by the Town of East Hampton as Open Space in 2003 when a Appraisal was ordered by Resolution 2003-895 (offered by J. Potter, and seconded by D. Weir) under the Small Lots Budget Fund? Why was it auctioned off by the County? Was it intended, or required, to be merged with the adjacent undersized lot owned by Herbert Clark? This whole affair has a certain aroma about it and warrants further inquiry and exposure of the facts." Mar 1, 13 10:17 AM

I suppose the 2007 Deed transaction was merely the redemption of a Tax Sale Certificate by the prior owner(s). Still I would like to know the course of the negotiations by the Town to acquire this "Small Lot" for open space. David Buda" Mar 1, 13 10:31 AM

I, and others, are still waiting, however, not so patiently any more, for you to prove you are not just "blowing smoke." Real Federal litigation is easily researched, once one has an actual party's name as a starting point. So just who is your "poster boy" Plaintiff, or is it all just a figment of your imagination? As my CivProc professor used to say: "Tell, tell, tell! David Buda" Mar 3, 13 8:59 AM

The Landowner's attorneys (Esseks Hefter & Angel, LLC) filed the Article 78 Petition against the ZBA of the Town of East Hampton, only, in NY State Supreme Court on January 26, 2010, and personally served the legal papers on the Town Clerk, as agent for the ZBA, at 2:05 p.m. on January 27, 2010. The initial Return Date was March 4. The same Plaintiff's law firm then filed a second lawsuit in NY Supreme Court on April 6, this one naming the Town itself as the sole defendant, seeking monetary compensation for an alleged "taking" of the subject property, asserting both State and Federal Constitutional causes of action. The Town retained the services of outside counsel (through its liability insurance carrier) to defend the Town. That attorney elected to Remove the second State Court case to Federal Court. Then the State Court (in the Article 78 case) entered an Order on May 24 directing the ZBA to answer the Article 78 Petition within 60 days, and adjourned the Hearing until August 4. One must assume that Order was duly served on the ZBA . What is absolutely distressing is that for a period of about four months the Plaintiff's attorney did not even see fit to tell the Town's outside counsel defending the second action about the existence of the first suit (the Article 78) that had gone unanswered by the ZBA, apparently due to the inadvertance of the Town Attorney's Office. What makes this lack of communication between attorneys even more astonishing is the fact that during the same period of time the same Plaintiff's law firm and someone in the Office of the EH Town Attorney were battling in State Court in another Article 78 proceeding concerning a development application by 55 Wainscott Hollow, LLC, that had been decided in November 2009 by the Planning Board of the Town of East Hampton. It simply cannot be denied that the ZBA's willingness to defend its original decision was adversely, if not fatally, affected by the fact that on November 1 the State Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's Petition for Article 78 relief based solely "upon the default of the respondent [the ZBA]." Thereafter, the Federal litigation was Remanded back to State Court and eventually dismissed. Discussion at yesterday's Town Board Work Session included suggestions that the ZBA simply had a change of heart and decided to "throw in the towel" and reversed itself more or less on its own initiative. To the contrary, the fact a Default Judgment was entered must have weighed heavily in all subsequent discussions about how to resolve the litigation. David Buda " Mar 6, 13 2:49 AM

Second Lawsuit Alleges That Springs Landlord Videotaped Tenants

Yes." Apr 6, 13 2:33 PM

Yes." Apr 6, 13 2:34 PM

UPDATE: Wilson Chains Trucks To House In Latest In Property Dispute

The Judge's inclusion in her signs of a citation to the New York Penal Law ("P.L.") sections on criminal mischief and criminal trespass appear to be totally inapposite, and merely a thinly veiled attempt at intimidation. Both parties' surveys show the Wilson driveway is slightly encroaching on her neighbor's property. David Buda" Apr 12, 13 2:41 PM

It is interesting that Tony's survey shows his driveway encroaching onto his other neighbor's property, however, at the time his survey was prepared, there was a "Proposed Driveway Easement" (to be purchased from the other neighbor?) and also a 1.5 foot landscape buffer. I guess "turnabout is fair play." David Buda " Apr 12, 13 5:14 PM

Does the Judge plan on leaving her bright yellow car parked with two wheels on her neighbor's property for the next 20 years, so as to establish and satisfy the elements of a claim of ownership through adverse possession? An adverse possession claimant must show that possession is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, under cover of claim or right, and continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period of 20 years. David Buda" Apr 14, 13 10:32 PM

Oops, you're right, 10 years in New York, not 20 years like in New Jersey. But, I dare say simply maintaining a driveway that slightly encroaches onto a neighbor's property is not sufficient. On the other hand, parking a bright yellow vehicle on a neighbor's property satisfies the "notorious" requirement and there's more than enough "hostility" in the language of the warning signs placed in said vehicle. However, you misunderstand the nature of the remedy of claiming another's land by virtue of "adverse possession. The claimant must go to Court and prove his/her case and then have the Judgment recorded as a judicial Deed of conveyance of an interest in property." Apr 15, 13 11:44 PM

Again, the legal precept that could possibly be invoked here is "adverse possession," and not "eminent domain." But that requires seeking judicial intervention from the NYS Supreme Court, and not a "self-help" remedy. David Buda" Apr 16, 13 3:30 PM

'Shark Attack Sounds' In Montauk, Dubbed Fundraiser, Wasn't Really

-East Hampton Town Board Resolution 2013-735, adopted July 3, 2013; Category: Permits - Gatherings; Sponsors: Supervisor William J. Wilkinson; Department: Town Clerk
-Approve Mass Gathering with Revised Parking Plan for Fourth of July Party 7/5 & 6/2013
-WHEREAS, an application for Mass Gathering has been received from Lloyd C. Van Horn, Montauk Yacht Club, to hold a Fourth of July Party and Fundraiser for Montauk Playhouse to be known as "Shark Attack" at 32 Star Island Road in Montauk .... David Buda" Jul 26, 13 10:07 AM

Complaints Over Volleyball Games In Springs Lead To Proposed New Limit

The meeting was this past Thursday, August 15. David Buda" Aug 17, 13 12:32 PM

East Hampton Leans In Favor Of Changing Use For Industrial Road Studio In Wainscott

This is probably a highly complex commercial real estate transaction and not a simple garden-variety Lease re-negotiation Really, some effort should be made by the Town Board to explain the terms of the existing "lease" of this town-owned building that is actually part of the East Hampton airport, whereas the FAA has had a say in required "fair market rent" to be charged. It is clear as mud why the Town would consider unilaterally changing the terms of the existing lease for the exclusive benefit of its lessee so "he can sell it to a willing buyer" (sic) (or, perhaps, more properly "assign" the lease with its newly relaxed terms). and reap all the proceeds of the transaction. I understand this municipal asset (building) has a long, tortured history and someone should try to explain why the Town shouldn't simply declare the Lease to be in default because of the current unpaid rent, pursue its contractual remedies, take back possession and seek a new tenant, or sell the building itself. David Buda" Aug 20, 13 9:01 PM

Idea Floated To Shore Up Ditch Plains In Montauk

This article contains an error in paragraph three, by including "both developed and undeveloped" oceanfront and bayfront properties as possible CPF acquisitions . The new State Law, Chapter 423 of the Laws of 2013, signed by the Governor on October 22, adds to the existing categories of lands that are permitted to be acquired by the Peconic Bay CPF Towns for "preservation of community character" the "preservation of undeveloped beach-lands or shoreline including those at significant risk of coastal flooding due to projected sea level rise and future storms." Thus, only UNDEVELOPED beach-land or shoreline properties will fit the bill of particulars. David Buda" Oct 29, 13 11:12 PM

Is anyone arguing that any of the Ditch Plains beachfront land, the areas where one might want to "add sand," isn't already public land? CPF is a program for acquiring private land from a "willing seller" for the benefit of the public. What does the recent addition of a new category of allowable CPF land acquisition have to do with "saving the beaches in Montauk?" I don't get it. David Buda" Oct 31, 13 12:57 PM

"Nature" is half right and half wrong. The Peconic Bay CPF law authorizes acquisitions if they fall within one of the specified categories that are defined as being "preservation of community character." The CPF has always been allowed to spend moneys for "preservation of undeveloped beachlands or shoreline." [NOTE: the word "undeveloped" is quite unambiguous.] What is new is only the following clarifying language: "including those at significant risk of coastal flooding due to projected sea level rise and future storms." What I suppose this means is that undeveloped beachlands or shoreline properties will not be disqualified from consideration because in the future they are likely to be flooded by coastal storms and/or rising sea levels. Sounds like a rather minor expansion of the existing CPF criteria. Certainly this is not the "manna from heaven" hoped for by some politicians. David Buda " Oct 31, 13 5:10 PM

"Mr. Mako" takes note of an article in the EH Star, by Joanne Pilgrim, published Oct. 31: "Mr. Thiele said that one possible use of C.P.F. money along the shore, which is being considered by the advisory board, would be to use the permitted 'management and stewardship' provisions of the fund to pay for beach replenishment on properties that have been purchased with the fund. However, work at Ditch Plain would not qualify, since the beach is not a C.P.F. property." David Buda


" Nov 2, 13 10:56 AM

Minor Accident Sends Three To Hospital

Brandon, nice photo of the other Town of East Hampton recycling center, on Springs-Fireplace Road. Oops!" Nov 27, 13 9:10 PM

'Welcome To Wainscott' Signs Unveiled

Beautiful signs. Now the other hamlets will have to work hard to match them. One small point, however, the Welcome to (the Town of) East Hampton should naturally precede the Welcome to (the Hamlet of) Wainscott at the western border of the Town and Hamlet. The signs should be reversed in their locations. David Buda " Dec 10, 13 12:05 PM

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  >>