NARROWSBURG, NY — A hearing on June 12 brought out around 100 people, most of them in support of Bar Veloce, a wine-and-cheese franchise with its latest location in Narrowsburg.  Tempers ran high at times during the hour-and-a-half hearing, with opposing lawyers interjecting their opinion in raised interrupting voices.

The owners of the Narrowsburg Union, a neighboring business center, challenged a building permit issued for Bar Veloce to install several bathrooms on its premises. Their challenge is the latest of several the owners, Kathy and Brendan Weiden, have initiated against Bar Veloce, owned by Frederick Twomey, in the past two years.

The zoning board of appeals (ZBA) heard the challenge and did not rule on its merits. It dismissed the case for lack of standing: the owners of the Narrowsburg Union had not proved, in the ZBA’s view, that the building permit damaged them in any way. 

The local residents and business owners who spoke at the public hearing had more to say about the merits of the case—or the lack thereof. 

“I’m hoping that you guys can do the right thing,” Charles Wilkin, co-owner of Two Queens Coffee, told the ZBA. “You see that this is purely harassment. This is what they’re doing. And it’s totally not OK. And it needs to stop.”

Richard Crandall, former Tusten Town Supervisor, speaking at a Monday, June 12 meeting of the Tusten Zoning Board of Appeals.

Charles Woods, architect for Bar Veloce, speaking at a Monday, June 12 meeting of the Tusten Zoning Board of Appeals.

Joseph Curreri, former member of the Tusten planning board, speaking at a Monday, June 12 meeting of the Tusten Zoning Board of Appeals.

The letter and the spirit

The owners of the Narrowsburg Union, Kathy and Brendan Weiden, presented their challenge as an attempt to ensure law and order were preserved in the Town of Tusten. 

The information the Weidens gathered showed that Tusten failed to uphold its zoning laws equally, said Kathy Weiden. “We believe we speak for all of you when we ask this question: Is the town committed to the rule of law for everyone?”

Those in the audience had a different question on their minds.

“The question I think most of us have here is 'Why is this continuing?'” asked Joan Santo, owner of Narrowsburg Proper and Proper to Go. 

Santo portrayed the Weidens’ efforts as “harassment,” harming business in Narrowsburg over minutia. “You cannot keep going after somebody for every little thing. It’s getting to the point that [we’re asking] who’s going to be next?”

Those who spoke, by and large, did not dispute the facts of the case, but asked whether the microscope the Weidens brought to Bar Veloce helped or harmed businesses in the town. 

“There’s the spirit of the law and there’s the letter of the law, and it is up to you as board members to be the mitigators between the spirit and the letter,” said Richard Crandall, a former supervisor (among other roles) of the Town of Tusten. 

Ben Gailey, lawyer for the Narrowsburg Union, presenting at a Monday, June 12 meeting of the Tusten Zoning Board of Appeals.

Michael Davidoff, lawyer for Bar Veloce, presenting at a Monday, June 12 meeting of the Tusten Zoning Board of Appeals.

The merits of the case

Elements of the Weidens’ challenge came up in the public hearing, with people weighing in for and against certain particulars. 

Planning board member Joseph Curreri supported the challenge. 

“I was on the planning board; I know what was approved… the roof was never approved, and now I hear they’re going for a permit for bathrooms,” said Curreri. “One of the bathrooms is on the roof… a lot of stuff was changed from what we approved.”

Bar Veloce went to the planning board in September of 2021, seeking to get retroactive approval for a rooftop deck it built without permission. The planning board required plans for the roof be stamped by an engineer, and received plans stamped by an architect, said Curreri. The planning board told Bar Veloce to come back with plans in October, but it did not do so. 

Charles Woods, the architect for Bar Veloce, assured the ZBA that the business did have engineers’ plans for the roof. 

In any case, it didn’t matter, said the Bar Veloce representatives present. They knew they needed to go before the planning board for rooftop approval, but at present, they weren’t using the roof; the building’s certificate of occupancy only covered the first floor. 

Woods himself addressed another point the Weidens had brought up. 

The Weidens pointed out to the ZBA discrepancies in the listed names of Woods’ business names, address and signatures, claiming that the discrepancies violated state law and made the plans for the building improper. 

Woods himself explained the discrepancies as accidental. In one case, the post office relabeled the numbers on the street while leaving his mail unchanged; in another, he had listed Karl Wasner as a junior partner (legal in Pennsylvania, not in New York), but a phone call from the state’s investigator cleared things up. 

“I’ve been starting to feel like I don’t exist,” said Woods. “This keeps coming up; that this isn’t my office; this isn’t my signature—I am a registered architect in New York.”

Around a hundred people attended a Monday, June 12 meeting of the Tusten Zoning Board of Appeals, hearing an appeal against a Bar Veloce building …

The ZBA’s decision

The zoning board of appeals heard opposing arguments about the basis of the Narrowsburg Union’s challenge. 

Ben Gailey, lawyer for the Narrowsburg Union, argued that the challenge rightly went beyond the toilets that the building permit covered. 

“There are at least 10 reasons that we say that the issuance of that building permit is unlawful,” said Gailey; because the town code required that a building be in conformance with all relevant codes and laws to be issued a building permit, any of the 10 alleged violations could have stopped the building permit from being issued. 

While the ZBA did not address the merits of the case at its June 12 meeting, it did push back on that interpretation of town codes the previous month; click here to read coverage of that meeting. 

Michael Davidoff, lawyer for Bar Veloce, called the challenge an attempt to question the building’s special use permit, well after such a challenge could be issued. 

“Back in 2020, the planning board issued the special use permit after hearing all of the issues,” said Davidoff. “That’s when these issues were given the day of light. That’s when they had the right to argue before the planning board.”

The Narrowsburg Union has maintained throughout its challenges that what Bar Veloce built does not match its planning board approvals. 

The ZBA did not address the substance of the case in its response. Reading from a resolution drafted before the meeting began, town attorney Ken Kline stated that the Narrowsburg Union needed to have proven itself harmed by the issuance of the building permit, and it had not done so. 

If the Narrowsburg Union chooses to challenge the decision, it will need to file an Article 78 challenge against the ZBA. Bar Veloce has previously filed an Article 78 challenge against the ZBA when the ZBA agreed to hear a challenge from the Narrowsburg Union; the judge in that appeal agreed with Bar Veloce and prevented the ZBA from hearing Narrowsburg Union’s case.