Icahn Told To Remove His Patio

Carl Icahn has threatened to cut down part of a 75-year-old privet hedge he shares with his neighbor be cause of the neighbor's opposition to a concrete patio on Mr. Icahn's property. Nonetheless, as of Friday, the former airline chief has three months to remove the patio, built on a dune in front of his Nichols Lane house.

Just as the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals was about to hand down its unanimous decision on Friday, Mr. Icahn's attorney, Mi chael Walsh of Water Mill, requested a rehearing.

He argued, for one thing, that the neighbor, Nathan Halpern, did not ask the Z.B.A. to rescind the patio's building permit until after the governing statute of limitations had run out. He also claimed that Mr. Halpern's reading of coastal erosion regulations was "wrong."

The lawyer said Tuesday that he planned to file a formal request for a rehearing "very soon."

Neighbor's Argument

The Z.B.A. vote followed a hearing last month in which, for more than an hour and with the assistance of nearly 40 maps and letters, Mr. Halpern made his case.

He argued that construction on a primary dune requires a State Coastal Erosion Hazard Act permit, which he claimed Mr. Icahn did not obtain. The patio, which is situated five feet from Mr. Halpern's property line, also violates the village's 30-foot side-yard setback, the neighbor said.

Thomas Osborne of the East Hampton firm of Osborne & McGowan, who was Mr. Icahn's attorney at the time, did not speak in rebuttal. The Z.B.A. then closed the hearing.

On Friday, Mr. Icahn was represented by Mr. Walsh, who jumped up just before board members voted, stating that he had "filed two new documents" on Oct. 23 relating to the case, and asking the board to reopen the hearing.

Lawyers' Debate

"This is not the place or time to reopen," countered Mr. Halpern's lawyer, William Esseks of the Water Mill firm of Esseks, Hefter & Angel, adding that he had "accommodated" Mr. Icahn by agreeing to postpone to September an original August hearing date.

'I think there are some major problems with the way this thing was handled.'

Michael Walsh

Carl Icahn's Attorney

Mr. Walsh continued to talk, as Mr. Esseks continued to argue, both their voices rising. "He can't do an end run around me and this board," said Mr. Esseks. "If he wants to go to court and force it open, let him do that."

"The hearing should be reopen ed," repeated Mr. Walsh. "I'm asking for a two-week adjournment."

"Mr. Icahn's attorney said he had no thing to say [in September]," count er ed Mr. Esseks. "A new attorney doesn't alter that fact. The question is," he asked the board, "do you feel the building permit is valid, or, as Mr. Hal pern holds, based on false in for ma tion, or lack of judgment, perhaps?"

Telephone, Too

With that, James Amaden, a Z.B.A. member, said, "I think we should vote to have the deck removed. I think the building inspector was in error in granting verbal and written permission."

The board then directed that Mr. Icahn remove the patio and "restore the dune to its original condition."

Joan Denny, another member, said the "telephone and electric appurtenances" at the site should come out too, and sand and dune grass should be replaced.

"I think there are some major problems with the way this thing was handled," Mr. Walsh said Tuesday. "Un der any scenario, the appeal was untimely."

Gould Street Garage

In other matters, the board agreed that Anne Williams could extend by two feet a never-built addition to her Woods Lane house. The plan was originally approved in January 1993.

The board declined to allow Stev en Brown of Gould Street to continue his project to divide his 178.5-square-foot garage. A year ago, Mr. Gould asked permission to create a stor age area in the garage, but did not ask to install plumbing or additional elec tric wiring.

Since then, according to Mr. Am a den, "he proceeded without authori za tion. A plumber has been working there."

Mr. Brown said he was "not aware" he needed a special plan for the plumbing. A year ago, he said, he owned the property with a partner, an arrangement that no longer exists.

The board suggested he reapply, indicating his full plans for the building.