Chequit’s buyer

To the Editor:

While we are somewhat flattered to have the old news that the Chequit may be sold trump something really important such as the news that Amanda Clark was in close contention for her second appearance in the Olympics and, as events have evolved, our heartfelt congratulations and pride in the fact that she will again be representing the United States in London this summer, we feel that a reply to Mr. Russo’s letter is in order.

We agree that there are no guarantees about the true intentions and character of any potential buyers of any property offered for sale. In the case of commercial property, careful scrutiny of not only the buyer’s financial ability but also their track record in other areas in which they operate, serves to give sellers and others with concerns some level of comfort.

In the case of the potential sale of the Chequit, where permission has been sought to construct a small pool, the town has the ability through the ZBA to weigh the pros and cons of the request through presentations at meetings, comments from residents and, in this case, input from two acoustic experts, one retained by the potential buyer and the other engaged by the Property Owners Corporation. The plan for the potential buyers and POC to have their own acoustic experts was, incidentally, far from being adversarial, was actually collaborative.

Should the board, after digesting all of this information, grant the permission sought, they can do so with any number of qualifications to insure that the addition poses no negative impact on the surrounding properties. For the record, most of the people who took the time to attend the two meetings that were held, in addition to the ZBA meetings, examine the plan, walk the property, meet the perspective buyers, check them out and ask questions, came away with a positive view of the project. The majority of the close neighbors are on record as in support.

Having said all of this, I understand that change, any change, can provoke fear. The old adage about the devil that you know is preferable to the one that you don’t is generally true. However, everything must change. How to accomplish the change so that it has a positive impact is the trick. Change to an “institution” such as the Chequit, which is so central to the close (proximity wise) Heights community, naturally raises concern.

It is no secret that the Inn has been for sale for some time. We have had the opportunity to become familiar with a number of possible buyers, some whom we in fact discouraged because we did not believe them suitable. I wonder if Mr. Russo, when he was acting as a broker for the Chequit, vetted his perspective buyers to be certain that there was not a “Snookie” among them. While we would never “abandon” the property, as suggested by Mr. Russo’s wife, Deborah Grayson, in the paper’s lead article, the fact remains that we have a desire to sell the property.

In our opinion, the Cape Advisors group is the best match for shepherding the Chequit into the next generation, by far. They have experience in the operation of small boutique hotels; they operate in Cape May, a seasonal community with many similarities to Shelter Island, and they have an understanding of, and an affinity for historic Victorian structures. As importantly, they have the wherewithal to upgrade the property so that it is even more of an asset to the surrounding community. It is our hope and, I believe that of many of the nearby neighbors, that they do in fact become the Inn’s next stewards.

Just one other comment. In the editorial the ZBA is criticized for wanting to explore the possibility of creating a hotel zone. The editor muses about the shocked reaction of a neighbor upon finding out that the hotel that they live next to has been designated as such by a zoning change. Conversely, imagine the reaction of the owner of a hotel that has existed for 50 years or more to learn that the Island’s new zoning law has designated their property as non-conforming (even though it abutted a newly created business district) and then, as years passed, witnessed ever greater restrictions on their property through numerous changes in the zoning code as it relates to non-conforming businesses.

Let’s face it, when zoning was established, how some of it was done was politically driven and certainly not perfect. Creating laws to further denude the rights of non-conforming businesses is not right. Nor is the basic tenent of zoning law, that all non-conforming business should fade away and become conforming. That would affect 30 percent or more of businesses on Shelter Island. I commend the ZBA and the town committee headed by councilwoman Chris Lewis, for having the fortitude to explore reasonable ways of dealing with the “elephant in the room.”

It is my hope that a common ground can be found that equitably protects both the rights of non-conforming business properties as well as those of their neighbors.

JAMES EKLUND, Shelter Island

Proposition One

To the Editor:

As they say during the NFL instant replay, “After further review….”

On Election Night, ballot referendum Proposition One’s machine count was 666 voters said “No” and 459 voted “Yes,” with a 48-percent turnout.  There was a 54-percent turnout for supervisor on Election Day. That meant 6 percent did not turn over the ballot on Election Day to vote on Proposition One [to reduce the council term from four to two years].

It’s the details that can do the damage. However, the vote for Proposition One was closer than expected. Had 103 voters voted “Yes” instead of “No,” Proposition One would have lead going into the absentee count. (Gosh darn! I probably should have done an extra two weeks of advertising!) Translation: Proposition One would have won, especially when you consider there were 263 absentee ballots yet to be counted.

Oh boy! We could get into hanging chads. Many people said Proposition One would not get more than 150 votes and definitely not more than 200. When the smoke settled, Proposition One wound up with 591 votes “Yes” (42.58 percent), 797 voting “No” (57.42 percent). However, Proposition One prevailed in the absentee ballot count by one vote, 132 to 131 or 50.1 percent “Yes” against 49.9 percent “No,” obviously not enough to put it over the top when combined with the machine count. Maybe we could do this the way they do the school budget — if it does not pass, put it back on the ballot again and again until it does pass.

All comments are welcome at [email protected]

I would like to thank all who helped in this campaign. Your support was much appreciated. See you around town.

RICHARD KELLY

President, Coalition for Sustainable Fish and Wildlife Habitat, Shelter Island

Gitlin’s bulkhead

To the Editor:

I would like to enhance my comments about the Gitlin repair application. After contact with a Town Board member, it appears two issues are at work. First, the toxicity of the CCA wood sheeting, and second, its structural strength. The toxicity of CCA has been addressed in neighboring towns with its ban as a material in bulkheads and docks. In those towns, bulkheads are constructed using vinyl sheets in various profiles, brand names and “green heart” lumber, a product of the rain forests of Central and South America used for piling and wales. A quick search of CCA lumber and it is easy to asses their reasoning. The material is hazardous in its use and disposal.

The councilman’s additional comment to me was the “consideration of the neighbors.” I interpret that to be the disruption the building of a bulkhead creates along the adjoining property, if not for the toxins, but the tie-in and the excavation. As to the structural integrity of CCA lumber in its 2-inch thickness with a nominal 1.5 inch, it is seen throughout the Island, along with some 3-inch material, nominal 2.5 inches. Its longevity can be calculated but empirical data shows it aging fairly well. Comparing it to the more recent vinyl, contractors seemed pleased living without CCA. After 10 years of field installation, vinyl has gained status of being the standard. Its longevity yet to be proved, but highly anticipated! As an aside, Ram Island’s Second Causeway was stabilized with stone and a vinyl bulkhead and steel cap. The steel cap is showing vigorous signs of decay.

Shelter Island town has taken no action to dictate material in bulkheading or docks. The code allows for CCA sheets and plywood, creosote and creosote paint. The repair of a structure in place and kind has advantages to mixing materials and techniques.

If the town wishes to dictate to Mr. Gitlin the material to be used in his repair, or to assume the scope of what is necessary beyond what is on the application, it should be left to a licensed engineer to make this determination and not the town attorney or a councilman not bearing such a distinction. It should be noted that the town has taken a position not to specify ground tackle for the reason of liability.

It may be the Town Board wishes to save Mr. Gitlin from his own desire to do the job as cheaply as possible. Such “saving” needs to be in the town code.

BERT WAIFE, Shelter Island

Be balanced

To the Editor:

I am probably one of the few who did not think the Paw Print cartoon by Peter Waldner was very funny, depicting most of the Republican candidates in a negative light. I should not be surprised by Mr. Waldner, who I think is a long ways left of center.

I hope that between now and next November to be fair and balanced like Fox News, Mr. Waldner will have some cartoons showing the president in a negative light. There is plenty out there.

JEFF SIMES , Margate, Florida

Unreasonable noise

To the Editor:

One of the greatest selling points for buying a house on Shelter Island is this town’s unique noise code. Many of us moved here to get away from the craziness of the city.

Chapter 92 of the town code states: “Unreasonable noise prohibited.” Unreasonable noise is described as “Any noise of a type or volume which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensibilities.”

Some residents are concerned about seaplane noise and the potential noise from a new pool at the Chequit. It seems to me that this town code is straightforward and clear. The noise code should guide the ZBA and Town Board in their decision making, without looking for loopholes to defeat it. However, I was once told by the Town Board, that the noise code did not apply to “recreational” noise. What? There is nothing in the code that speaks to how or where noise or unreasonable noise is generated. Noise is certainly in the ear of the beholder. But with the board’s own definition, I assume that the noise code would also not apply to the recreational use of a pool or a seaplane that brings people here to recreate.

I’m sure that politicians, lawyers and “experts” can spin our noise code and make it a moot point. As a somewhat reasonable person of normal sensibilities, I truly hope that common sense will prevail. The law and the spirit of this code must be recognized, applied and enforced equally for all.

VINCENT NOVAK, Shelter Island