Cyril’s Court Decision; Site Plan on Agenda

Cyril’s Fish House, the ever popular and ever controversial roadside bar on Napeague, is back in the news. According to New York State’s electronic court tracking system, on Monday, Acting Supreme Court Justice Joseph Farneti dismissed a countersuit  by the restaurant’s lawyers, Jordan & LeVerrier, against the town, which sought damages in connection with an ongoing lawsuit the town has brought against Cyril’s.

Comments from Jordan & LeVerrier and the firm representing the town, Sokoloff Stern, were not forthcoming because they had not received the written decision by press time. Joseph Prokop, who had originally handled the town’s lawsuit, also would not comment yesterday.

The countersuit was filed in reaction to the town’s suit, filed in 2013, that would require Cyril’s to either return to a smaller-size business, which the town says existed when Cyril Fitzsimons took over the site in about 1984, or shut down. Cyril’s has been operating this summer because it has appealed the State Liquor Authority’s revocation of its liquor license.

Meanwhile, the Cyril’s ownership group was before the East Hampton Town Planning Board on Aug. 19 for another round. It was last before the board in December. An approved site plan would allow the owners to apply for a certificate of occupancy, which, if granted, would finally legalize the establishment under town zoning and apparently end the lawsuit.

The controversy about Cyril’s centers around what was there when Cyril Fitzsimons took over the site in the mid-1980s, and what has been added since. Besides the case in state court, the town is  litigating similar charges at the local court level.

In 2009, the town’s chief building inspector prepared a list of all items he believed had been added, such as trailers and a dumpster. When the owners of the property, Michael Dioguardi and his family, and Mr. Fitzsimons were last before the board, they were told by the board that they needed to complete their site plan application. Eric Schantz of the town’s Planning Department said in a memo prepared Aug. 7 that the applicants had done what the board asked only in part.

 There are still many structures listed in the building inspector’s determination for which setback information has not been provided. Mr. Schantz deemed the latest effort incomplete.

Deborah Choron of Jordan & LeVerrier argued that Mr. Schantz was wrong. “There are certain structures listed in that memo that aren’t in existence,” she said. She told the board that the owners and the town’s Planning Department had had extensive meetings. “To my eye, the site plan is complete,” Ms. Choron said.

Marguerite Wolffsohn, the town’s planning director, defended Mr. Schantz’s work, telling board members that vital setback information was missing.  Mr. Schantz was out with an illness that evening.

“The planning board depends on the Planning Department to analyze these applications,” Kathleen Cuningham, a board member, told Ms. Choron. “If the Planning Department tells us certain setbacks are not depicted, we have to rely on that. We need you all to get in the same room. The building inspector’s concerns are quite lengthy,” she said, concluding, “The proximity to wetlands is our biggest issue.”

In the end, the board encouraged the applicants and their surveyor, David L. Saskas, to get together with the Planning and Building Departments and, as Ian Calder-Piedmonte, a board member described it, “Iron this out.”

Another site plan the board discussed that night was that of Frans Preidel. Mr. Preidel owns property on the dunes seaward of Sloppy Tuna, an establishment with which he has had frequent dustups.

 “This is just a shed for toys: paddleboards, surfboards, stuff like that,” he told the board. The problem is that the shed is not tall enough to hold his surfboards. He would like to more than double the shed, from 67 to 145 square feet. In return, he will remove some old decking and an outdoor shower.

The problem that the proposal presents to the Planning Department, according to Mr. Schantz’s memo, is the property’s “extremely close proximity to a primary dune” and that it is “situated seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line.” On the other hand, the memo continues, if there was a net decrease in lot coverage, than the planning and zoning boards should at least consider the proposal.

Nancy Keeshan questioned the need for the expansion, with Ms. Cunningham agreeing.

However, both Mr. Preidel and Ms. Keeshan examined the idea of simply increasing the shed’s height. There already is a board-approved 10-foot-high stockade fence on the property to screen off activity at the bar next door. It was an idea that Reed Jones, the board’s chairman, said he could support.