NEWSDAY 08/16/2012

5:31 PM By David Uberti

Photo credit: Brittany Wait

The Sea Cliff Village board of trustees redefined what a tree is — legally, at least.

The board voted unanimously Monday night to change the definition of a “tree,” increasing the minimum trunk diameter from 6 inches to 8 inches. The fallout: residents seeking to remove trees will now need permits only for those 8 or more inches in width.

Residents must apply for the $25 permits through the village’s Tree Committee, a four-person group that evaluates each application — including an on-site inspection — individually.

The village granted nearly 200 such permits in 2011, village officials said, bringing in about $5,000.

“Two inches may sound small, but it actually is a big difference,” said village administrator John Mirando, adding that the increase in diameter amounts to more than a 40 percent growth in trunk area.

Despite the change, Anthony Losquadro, chairman of the Sea Cliff Property Owners Committee, said the ordinance by definition violates owners’ rights.

“You have to go begging before a tree committee … to remove a tree,” he said.

Over the last five months Mayor Kennedy has been very outspoken with regards to a constitutional question lawsuit commenced by Anthony Losquadro. Kennedy was quoted in Newsday, The Glen Cove Record Pilot, and the Gold Coast Gazette.

Three weeks before the election, in a mudslinging effort directed at the Property Owners Party candidate, Kennedy said,”  We have no laws on the books that are unconstitutional. The Village submits that this is a frivolous lawsuit that does nothing more than cost the taxpayers money and drains time from our staff from being of maximum service to our residents. I am confident that our Village will be triumphant.”  March 1, 2012 Gold Coast Gazette

After the Village lost the decision on the lawsuit, the Mayor told Emily Ngo of Newsday on July 24, 2012, “It’s the last thing in the world that we wanted: anything that was unconstitutional on our books,” he said, adding that “constitutionality issues should be taken up with the state attorney general’s office, which approves local laws.”  In this interview the Mayor now attempts to sidestep responsibility and blame the N.Y.S. Attorney General’s Office.

The Mayor repeats those comments to the Glen Cove Record Pilot. He says “This law was passed in 1979, and was enacted only after it was submitted to the N.Y.S. Attorney Generals Office.”  Glen Cove Record Pilot

Now, at the August 13 2012 Village Board meeting, the Mayor denies making all of these statements to the press. Pushing his credibility beyond the breaking point, he says, in essence, the reporters fabricated their interviews.

While the Mayor may now wish he never made such statements, the fact remains he was directly quoted by reporters. Additionally, he never wrote any letters to the editor refuting the printed quotes.

Mayor Kennedy clearly has difficulty being truthful. Such behavior is starting to make some wonder if he is suitable  as the leader of our Village.

Watch the Video of the Village Board Meeting

Watch the debate on changes to the Village Code that will add more restrictions on fences. Bill 4A-2012 will regulate any height fence erected near driveways. The issue arose during a dispute by two neighbors, one of which wanted to erect a fence on his property line, and his adjoining neighbor didn’t want a fence alongside his driveway.

Under questioning, the Mayor initially declined, then claimed he couldn’t remember the resident who will benefit from this new law. The Mayor and Trustee Carol Vought claimed no particular inspiration for the new law. They claimed fences along driveways is an issue they noticed just driving around the Village.  SCPOC intends to file a FOIL demand with the Village to ascertain the identity of the mystery person, and to check the veracity of the Mayor’s statements.

Watch the video on the debate of Bill 4A-2012

A proposal to repeal an Oyster Bay Town ordinance that requires permits for tree removal was introduced in the Town of Oyster Bay.

Supervisor John Venditto said the current code has been slammed by many residents as “adding insult to injury” — permit fees on top of “government intrusion,” as he put it.

He invoked former President Ronald Reagan, paraphrasing, “Government typically is not the solution, it’s usually the problem.”

Sea Cliff POC applauds Supervisor Venditto’s strengthening of property owners rights in the Town. Due to the nature of the power grid on Long Island, our electric service is almost entirely dependent on overhead wires strung along telephone phones.  Excessive overgrowth from trees places our electrical service, our health and safety in jeopardy every time a storm passes through. In 2011, Hurricane Irene left areas without power for days due to trees falling on power lines. Road crews needed to remove downed trees from blocked roadways before they could even reach affected areas.

Misguided tree permit ordinances can have other consequences. Falling trees can land on houses and cause property damage and personal injury. Insurance companies may increase premium rates due to rising experience ratings if there are many claims in a given area. Tree permit requirements tend to discourage residents from removing trees in dangerous situations.

Diseased or dead trees are not the only trees that can be danger of falling. Oftentimes a tree that appeared to be healthy will fall in a storm. Even tree experts cannot predict when or where a tree will fall. Therefore it is imperative that residents not be burdened with a tree permitting process.

SCPOC demands that the Village of Sea  Cliff Board of Trustees adopt similar tree regulations  as those proposed by Supervisor Venditto.

Newsday reports on the story:

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/oyster-bay-tree-proposal-baffles-activists-1.3902987

The Village Board of Trustees propose to amend the Village code. The changes include additional restrictions on fences (4A-2012), and changes to the definitions of “height/setback ratio plane.”

The SCPOC opposes changes incorporated in “4A” to for the following reasons:

1. The Village Board refuses to identify the resident who requested the fence restrictions. Therefore we cannot evaluate whether a conflict of interest exists with the Trustee’s or the Administration.

2. The fence restrictions in Bill 4A are an overreaction designed to cure one resident’s complaint with more restrictions on the entire village.

3. Bill 4A is a “Robin-Hood” scheme, where the law is designed to benefit one resident at the expense of another without compensation.

4. Property owners will not be compensated for loss of use of property and loss of privacy that fencing can provide.

Bill 4A-2012 (fences on property lines) doc

Bill 5-2012 (floor area and height-setback) doc

Jill Nossa of the Glen Cove Record Pilot reports on the decision against the Village. See attached article. GlenCoveRecordPilot

It is an insight into Mayor Kennedy’s character to see how he attempts to pass off responsibility of the Village laws to the N.Y.S. Attorney Generals office.

However his comments are nonsense. The Village is solely responsible for the laws it enacts. We called to the Village’s attention that its law was unconstitutional, and asked them to repeal it. In response they advised that they concluded it was constitutional and that they intended to enforce it. It is also untrue that most other municipalities have such laws on their books. Further, most of those who do have such laws on the books know it is unconstitutional and do not enforce it or threaten to enforce it.

Originally published: July 24, 2012 9:18 PM Updated: July 24, 2012 9:20 PM By EMILY NGO  emily.ngo@newsday.com

A Sea Cliff village code provision that allows the building inspector to enter residents’ properties without consent or warrant “is unconstitutional on its face,” the State Supreme Court in Mineola found.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by village resident Anthony Losquadro, who said his civil rights were violated in November 2010 when buildings superintendent Andrew Lawrence entered his yard to examine a shed and dog run.

The village code’s right-of-entry provision unconstitutionally “authorizes unconsented and warrantless inspections of residential real property without regard to an emergency situation,” acting Supreme Court Justice Steven Jaeger said in the July 18 partial judgment.

The decision serves as a reminder to officials “not to infringe on residents’ and taxpayers’ rights,” Losquadro said Monday. “A lot of local governments put these laws on the books, knowing that . . . most people aren’t going to take the time to challenge them, but they just came across the wrong guy.”

Sea Cliff Mayor Bruce Kennedy said the village is still studying the judgment and has not decided its next move.

The village was in the process of reviewing its code book before the lawsuit, and the provision could potentially be modified, Kennedy said.

“It’s the last thing in the world that we wanted: anything that was unconstitutional on our books,” he said, adding that constitutionality issues should be taken up with the state attorney general’s office, which approves local laws.

Lawrence could not be reached for comment.

Judgment on whether Lawrence had consent to enter Losquadro’s property — which Kennedy called “the real case” — is still pending.

Losquadro’s lawyer, A. Thomas Levin of Garden City, said the matter would probably go to trial.

According to court documents, Lawrence said Losquadro’s housekeeper said he could enter; she said she gave no such permission.

Kennedy said the village had de facto consent.

Losquadro in 2010 was told he needed a permit to build his tool shed and received a stop-work order, documents show. He said he has paid $2,750 in fines and applied for a permit for the shed.

Losquadro, 47, earlier this year publicly assailed the village for raising taxes. He ran for trustee in March but lost his bid.

In 2011, we commenced litigation against the Village of Sea Cliff based on the view that portions of the Village code were unconstitutional. Following an incident with Andrew “Drew” Lawrence the Building Superintendent of the Village over a toolshed and alleged “dog run,” Lawrence stated that he had the right to search any property for any reason in the Village.

We felt constitutionally protected Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Villagers were violated. In fact, Lawrence stated verbally and in writing that he had the right to search any home or property without a duly authorized search warrant. We disagreed.

There controversy boiled over into the Village of Sea Cliff 2012 local elections. While the Sea Cliff POC candidate was running for Trustee, he was simultaneously suing the Village for an unconstitutional search of his property by the Village Building Inspector Andrew Lawrence.

In an article by Newsday’s Carl McGowan on March 4, 2012 “Losquadro said he sued the village last year because a building inspection at his home was “unconstitutional.” The inspection led to charges that Losquadro’s shed and dog run violated the building code. He said he has appealed his conviction on those charges and has not paid the $2,750 in
fines. Mayor Bruce Kennedy, who supports Hayes and Powell, said the lawsuit was
“frivolous.”

Kennedy also made statements in the Gold Coast Gazette, and in robocalls to
voters, that “We have no laws on the books that are unconstitutional. The Village submits that this is a frivolous lawsuit that does nothing more than cost the taxpayers
money and drains time from our staff from being of maximum service to all
our residents. I am confident that our Village will be triumphant. ” See attached Gold Coast
Gazette article.

On July 19 2012, the Honorable Steven M. Jaeger of the NYS Supreme Court agreed with us. In his ten page decision on a motion for partial summary judgement, he struck down Section 48-7 of the Sea Cliff Village Code as unconstitutional. Judge Jaeger stated ” Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgement declaring that Section 48-7 of the Code of the Village of Sea Cliff is unconstitutional on it’s face.”

Judge Jaeger further stated, “Overall, defendants [Village of Sea Cliff] have failed to raise any triable issue of fact, or any legal authority to support the constitutionality of Section 48-7 [Village Code]. The other elements of the case will continue to trial.

Apparently Mayor Bruce Kennedy either has no understanding of basic constitutional issues, or little concern for the rights of residents.

Furthermore, Andrew Lawrence is an Village official with a bad attitude. He walks around the Village with a gold shield on his belt like a western sheriff. The is a growing chorus of residents in the Village that are extremely unhappy with him. He had no prior experience as a building official prior to his employment by the Village. If fact his prior employment experience was as a locksmith and part time home inspector. Lawrence was hired by Kennedy. Incidentally, Kennedy also appoints the Village Justice, which makes contesting Lawrence’s decisions very difficult in Village Court.

GOLD_COAST_GAZETTE FRONT PAGE

GOLD_COAST_GAZETTE Pg10

North Shore School Board is now distraught over loss of Glenwood Plant. However the school board sheds alligator tears over the loss of tax revenue. The Board won’t remind you how they tried to squeeze LIPA for even more money in 2004.

Lipa has responded by closing the plant.

NEWSDAY

Kessel calls for 2-year freeze on LIPA’s tax rate

Published: October 27, 2004 8:00 PM By ERIK HOLM. STAFF WRITER

Long Island Power Authority Chairman Richard Kessel yesterday called for school districts and others that levy property taxes to freeze the power authority’s tax rate for the next two years, saying LIPA already pays $278 million a year – up 25 percent from five years ago. But LIPA isn’t alone in having to deal with skyrocketing taxes, especially in Nassau County. “Everyone’s taxes have probably gone up 25 percent” in the past five years in Nassau, County Assessor Harvey Levinson said yesterday. “LIPA isn’t alone on that.”

Though Levinson’s office could not immediately confirm the average tax increase in Nassau in that time, it said the total amount of money collected through taxes is up 27.8 percent, and the average homeowner is paying 45 percent more in school taxes – which makes up the largest portion of the tax bill. Figures for Suffolk were not immediately available. Kessel’s demand for a tax freeze comes amid wrangling among LIPA, the Nassau assessor and the North Shore School District over payments LIPA proposes to make on two small plants it owns in Glenwood Landing. Kessel and the power authority contend that LIPA, as a state-run agency, doesn’t have to pay anything at all, but has offered to pay so-called payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOT payments, amounting to $2 million on the two plants. PILOTs are the equivalent of property taxes for government-owned parcels of land.

But the North Shore school board has said that, under its reading of the rules that govern LIPA, there’s a chance that the power authority or KeySpan may be responsible for much more than $2 million. In the middle is Levinson, who said yesterday that he “was close to making a decision” as to how much LIPA would have to pay.

Kessel cautioned yesterday, however, that the small plants in Glenwood Landing were among 16 across Long Island for which LIPA had offered to pay $2 million apiece in property taxes. Any increase in the payment at one plant, he said, would mean the price LIPA would have to pay at the other plants would likely go up, as well. And since any increase in taxes to LIPA translates into increased costs – and potential increased rates – for its customers,

Kessel said he didn’t want any more taxing entities to “dump their problems on the back of LIPA.” Already, LIPA customers spend about 2 1/2 months every year paying the costs that LIPA incurs to pay school districts, towns, counties and other taxing districts, Kessel said. Some of the $278 million in property taxes and PILOTs that LIPA claims it pays is actually paid by KeySpan, which LIPA employs to run the electrical system on Long Island. But LIPA reimburses KeySpan for the cost of its property tax bills. Kessel’s demand for a tax freeze comes as oil prices – the other rising cost outside the control of the power authority – continue to climb.