North Haven: Neighbor Complains Of Clearing

Richard Minsky, a resident of Short Beach Road, urged the North Haven Village Board in a letter read at a board meeting on Oct. 7 to "condemn and demolish" his neighbor's house, calling it a "turquoise monstrosity."

But the owner of the house, Angus Bruce, calls the color a "seabreeze green" and insists, correctly, that the village has no legal purview over the hue of paint he chooses.

The Village Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation does, however, review and approve all village building plans before a building permit is issued.

In Mr. Bruce's case, the plan listed the exterior color as gray, and it is that, as well as alleged violations of the Village Code, that Mr. Minsky has been complaining about for almost a year.

Trees Threatened

Mr. Minsky, in several letters sent to Al Daniels, North Haven's building inspector, and to the Village Board over the past year, has alleged that clearing on the Bruce property exceeds the maximum allowed by law, and was done too close to the property line.

"I had to stand there in front of the bulldozer so they wouldn't cut down our trees," Mr. Minsky said, adding that his 30-foot wisteria was destroyed when a fence which exceeds height and setback requirements was built.

Mr. Minsky complained that bamboo was planted to revegetate a border area and threatens a 100-year-old chestnut tree on his property. Though the Village Code does not outlaw bamboo, it does say that areas should be revegetated "in kind," preferably with native plants.

"We moved into this community because of its rural nature," Mr. Minsky explained last week. "We felt we were protected by the Village Code."

Welcome Gesture

Mr. Minsky, who said he purchased and planted a tree on the Bruces' property as a gesture of welcome to the community, feels "deceived." The Bruces' house is for sale, he claimed, and was built with a quick turnover in mind.

Mr. Daniels, who investigated Mr. Minsky's initial complaints, refused to issue a certificate of occupancy for the property because of the alleged violations, though Mr. Bruce and his wife, Lauralee, reside in the house they built there.

Lauralee Bruce, who said the couple is in litigation regarding the property, referred all inquiries to their attorney, Dennis Downes of Sag Harbor, who did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Violations still exist, said Mr. Minsky at a Village Board meeting on Monday. He cited a shed and a stockade fence that are, he said, too close to the property line.

Neighbors Met

He registered his support for the proposed addition of a code enforcement officer to the village payroll so that matters like this could be investigated and acted upon more quickly.

In a written report to the board, Mr. Daniels said that he met with Mrs. Bruce on Oct. 24 to discuss the "unauthorized clearing and revegetation, and the shed location."

"She assured me she would expeditiously rectify these matters so that they comply with the Village Code," he wrote.

"I notified the board seven months ago. . . ." said Mr. Minsky on Monday. "This is a law . . . I don't see why a summons wasn't issued. Why should anybody else in the village follow the code?" he asked.

Village officials are redrafting portions of the Village Code that they've called "unenforceable," particularly clearing regulations. Board members discussed the continuing problem of excessive property clearing on North Haven Point lots as well as illegal clearing of adjacent village property and the dilemma of how to seek redress on Monday.

"It's like Swiss cheese," said Mayor Robert Ratcliffe of the law. "If you go to court, you'll get thrown out."

"Isn't there a fine for violating Village Codes?" Mr. Minsky asked.

Withholding all building permits and certificates of occupancy for North Haven Point properties may be a temporary solution, the board proposed.

Proposed Laws

Meanwhile, officials will urge the village attorney, Anthony Tohill, to review the proposed tighter laws.

Also at Monday's meeting, the board adopted revised guidelines for public comment, making the rules more stringent than those adopted in September and moving the 15-minute public comment period to the start of the meeting.

Speakers "shall not be loud, boisterous, or unpleasant either to other audience members or to the board," and may speak no longer than three minutes.

"Those unable to address the board in a civil manner will be denied the opportunity to speak and may be removed from the meeting," the guidelines state.