What Does It All Mean?

I agreed to a conditional adjournment with Jeanneatte Koster (the Yorktown attorney) yesterday.  Initially I had opposed such a move.  My reasoning was that since the Zoning Board had deviated so radically from their normal procedure when certifying variance approvals, why would I agree to give them more time to respond to my petition.  Whereas a normal zoning variance gets recorded with the town clerk 30 days or more past the zoning board publicly votes on an application, the variances for FBC were recorded in 4 days (12/8/11-12/12/11).  Some of the variances they voted on last November still haven't even been certified!  Because there was no other application which the ZBA certified that quickly in all of 2011 (nothing even came close), it put me at a great disadvantage.  Anyhoo, out of the kindness of my heart, I've pushed out the return date to 3/6/2012.  If the ZBA weren't totally unaccountable for their actions (Jeannette has to defend them), I wouldn't have budged.

Note the only italicized words in her letter are "pro se."  That's code to the judge that she thinks I'm cray-cray

But wait, there's more.  Al Capellini, esq, on behalf of FBC, has filed a motion to intervene.  He is sad he wasn't invited to the party and wants to get served too.  He notes in his letter to the Honorable Judge Barbara Zambelli that he has directed the town to it is his understanding that..." Yorktown will move to dismiss my suit on grounds that I didn't serve the applicant, FBC.  In the same breath, he files a formal reply to my petition in Westchester County supreme court.

What does it all mean?

It means that Al Capellini will now get to serve as de facto council for Yorktown (read: I'm going to get tag-teamed by two attorneys now).  This, of course, presumes the judge doesn't throw me out of court for not serving the landowner (I checked my magic 8 ball and the outlook is good that I won't).

It's important to understand that I'm challenging the ZBA's, not FBC's, decision making process and the action of approving MAJOR zoning variances; I did not challenge 3 of the original five variances because they were reasonable.  I'm claiming that their action of approving the variances was  arbitrary and will be detrimental to our small residential community.  I've made the facts of this controversial public application and my article 78 petition so widely available to the public, he's already finished his reply to paperwork he's not yet been served. Ha!
What does it all mean?