Court reverses contempt of court decision

By TOM KANE

NARROWSBURG — Supreme Court Judge Anthony Kane this past week reversed his decision which held the Tusten Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and Code Enforcement Officer Stephen Stuart in contempt of court.

Also in the first decision, the court directed the ZBA and Stuart to issue a building permit for homeowner Frank Owens. The second decision reverses that also.

“Owens must now seek a building permit,” Stuart said. Owens, however, said he is not clear on whether he is required to ask the town for a building permit or not.

In 1998, Owens sought a variance to put an extension on his home along Route 97 south of Narrowsburg because the house was too close to Route 97. The variance was granted. But, when in 2000 he wanted to go ahead with the construction, Stuart ruled that Owens could not because the time period for the variance expired.

It was at this point that Owens went to the courts and Kane supported his claim. However, this second decision, which came as a result of the town’s appeal, ruled in favor of Stuart and the ZBA. While Owens was granted the variance he has to reapply to get a building permit, Stuart said.

Before the permit can be granted, however, the court directed that Owens and the town must resolve three other items related to the case.

“The three items are: whether Owens property is in a flood plain, whether his contractor has workmen’s compensation and whether there is a plan to address adequate windows and doors for the new extension,” Stuart said.

Owens says he has proof from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that his property is not in the flood plane.

On the other two items, Owens said, “These are non-issues. They know that I don’t require workman’s compensation since I have hired only one worker. The law does not require insurance for a sole provider.”

Stuart points to a clause in Kane’s decision to prove his position. “The court further grants petitioner (Owens) 30 days within which to move on the remaining [three] issues which served as the basis for denying petitioner’s application for a building permit,” Kane said in the court decision.

“That makes it pretty clear that he has to solve these three items with us before a permit can be granted,” Stuart said.