Woodside council dodges Little Store-Peterson feud Woodside council dodges Little Store-Peterson feud (November 03, 2004)

By Andrea Gemmet
Almanac Staff Writer

There's a-fussin' and a-feudin' in Woodside.

The long-running dispute between the historic Little Store restaurant -- property owners Marcel and Kay Mouney and Dick and Lynn Eastley, who run the restaurant -- and its abutting-property owner, Steve Peterson, landed on the Woodside Town Council last week.

Livening up the evening's testimony were accusations of mail fraud, witness coercion, insurance scams, and a brief window into the multiple legal actions going on involving the Little Store, Mr. Peterson, their attorneys, and various third parties, including the town of Woodside.

The Eastleys charged that Mr. Peterson applied for a permit in 1995 under false pretenses. The permit enabled him to rebuild a 20-foot by 20-foot outbuilding that was destroyed by a fallen oak tree in 1993 -- a building that the Eastleys claim didn't actually exist.

Council members at the October 26 meeting spent two hours listening to dueling testimony from attorneys for both parties, received reams of documents, and squinted at blurry aerial photographs of the Peterson property on Woodside Road in an attempt to discover what, if any, kind of structure had existed on the property prior to 1993. Ultimately, the council chose to wash its collective hands of the entire matter.

"I don't know what everyone's problems are, and I really don't care," said Councilman Joe Putnam. "As for the threshold for fraud, there's no way I'm taking on that responsibility."

The council voted 5-2, with Dave Tanner and Carroll Ann Hodges opposed, to deny the Eastleys' appeal of Planning Director Hope Sullivan's finding that Mr. Peterson's building permit was not falsely applied for or improperly issued.

Mr. Tanner and Ms. Hodges both said that they did not believe the previous structure -- a shed, barn or dilapidated lean-to, depending on whom you ask -- was as large as its replacement.

The staff report detailed the planning department's due diligence before issuing the permit to rebuild, but it also gave insight into the ongoing feuding between the Little Store and Mr. Peterson.

For example, there's documentation of Mr. Peterson's allegedly false accusations of a rodent infestation on his property that he believed originated at the Little Store. After county inspectors gave the restaurant a clean bill of health, the Little Store asked town officials to search for rats on Mr. Peterson's property, and notified his tenants and neighbors of his reported infestation.

If the council had determined that the building permit had been issued under false pretenses, town staff would have been obliged to initiate code-enforcement proceedings against Mr. Peterson that would likely have resulted in the structure being torn down.

The owners of a building that is destroyed in a natural disaster, even if it doesn't conform to Woodside's building regulations, are allowed to rebuild to the same size within the same building footprint. The shed -- or barn -- was non-conforming, according to planning staff.

The Eastleys maintained that no such structure existed on the property, which had a couple of tumble-down lean-tos, at most.

"We're here on a fact-finding mission," said Ethan Miller, the Eastleys' attorney. "We'd like to ensure that the laws and rules of the town are applied equally."

Mr. Eastley said he learned of the permit, and its possible irregularities, only when the building was actually under construction in 2003.

Mr. Peterson's attorney countered that the Eastleys and Mouneys simply "have an ax to grind."

"There's been a long history between these two neighbors, and I think tonight is further harassment and intimidation by the neighbors of Mr. Peterson," said the attorney, Kirsten Powell.

Despite the reams of documents associated with the dispute, council members determined that there was no smoking gun. The fuzzy aerial photos were inconclusive, they said.

"If this is a fraud by Mr. Peterson, it's a pretty elaborate one," said Mayor Paul Goeld. "I don't have enough evidence to say we should overturn our planning director's decision."

Councilman Pete Sinclair said he firmly believed that then-planning director David Rizk and his staff had been more than thorough in their fact-checking before issuing the permit to rebuild in 1995, and reissuing it in 1997.

"I worked with David Rizk. One of the biggest issues people had with him is that he didn't bend. He was like a fundamentalist when it came to rules," Mr. Sinclair said.

There may be another reason Woodside officials were loath to get involved in the Little Store-Peterson dispute -- the town of Woodside is currently being sued by Mr. Peterson over the Little Store's hours of operation.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.