Smithtown Officials Consider Grand Jury “Suggestions”
Recent report could yield changes to town codes and practices
By Chad Kushins
Following a comprehensive and critical report by a Suffolk County Grand Jury, members of the Smithtown Town Board have begun considering changes to codes and practices regarding ethics, and demolition and construction protocol. The 42-page report had been critical of certain members of the Town Board and their handling of the 2009 demolition of a defunct lumberyard on Smithtown’s Main Street. The report ended with 17 “suggestions” the town should enact to avoid violations of its Town Code in future construction dealings.
Although there were no indictments the report pulled no punches in criticizing how certain town officials participated in unlawful activities and violated Town Code in the lumber yard demolition at 102 West Main Street in 2009. Some of the 17 “suggestions” made by the Grand Jury include:
Calling on town officials to refrain from interceding in commercial projects “in a manner that undermines the town code”, the Grand Jury recommended the town obtain an “independent review” by the state of the Office of Town Assessor to insure all properties are assessed “on a uniform and equitable basis” and that Smithtown “audit the practices and procedures administered by the town Assessor “particularly…the assessment of commercial properties”.
Town Councilman Edward Wehrheim,(has identified himself as Town Employee E) indicated to Smithtown Matters, that numerous suggestions from the report should be drafted into law, although, he feels that appointing a Board of Site Plan Review could face the problem of having to pay additional employees selected for such positions.
“We have not discussed [the report’s suggestions] as a full Town Board as of yet,” said Councilman Edward Wehrheim. “Individually, of course we’ve talked about which of the report’s suggestions are the most logical and the easiest, while some would be more difficult.” More than two members of the Town Board conducting such a discussion would yield an open-to-the-public meeting, of which one can be expected in the coming months.
According to Wehrheim, upon last week’s release of the Grand Jury’s report, members of the Town Board quickly contacted the Town Attorney, asking that the Grand Jury’s list of suggestions be officially considered and considered for feasible entries into the Town Code. “After that,” continued Wehrheim, “the full Board will convene and discuss which of the Jury’s ideas we can do, and which – as a governing body – we can’t.”
Wehrheim added, “Some are easier than others, while ones such as the Board not being able to work with a prospective developer, may be more difficult. But many of them seemed logical.”
Smithtown Town Planning Director Frank DeRubeis agreed, saying, “Many of the Grand Jury’s suggestions are feasible, in that they primarily have to do with what we deem ‘policy decisions’ by the Town Board … I think that it’s safe to say that the Town Board is cogniscent of the changes that could be made for further protection in the future and is willing to make certain adjustments, but that’s about all that would be needed.” DeRubeis added, “I wouldn’t expect a full overhaul.”
The Grand Jury’s suggestions have prompted opinions from both current and former officials alike. Former Smithtown Councilwoman Jane Conway commented that the findings were important to local law, specifically the concept of a stand-alone Board of Site Plan Review. “I think it’s a great idea,” said Conway. “Such an independent board would take pressures off of the Town Board and go somewhere towards an architectural standard in town … The town is going downhill in appearance and an independent board for site planning would help in aiding that.”
Conway added, “Plus, an independent board would ease some political issues, since it would be a separate entity. It’s easily accomplished and a step in the right direction … I was just disappointed that [the Grand Jury] only came up with ‘suggestions’, which are unenforceable.”
But the release of the Grand Jury’s report has quickly spread and there are various opinions over which of the stated 17 “suggestions” could be considered not only the most logical, but the most crucial. “I think the most important thing would be a statute stating that any elected official who commits real wrong-doing is held accountable,” said Smithtown Democratic Committee Chairman Ed Maher. “As far as the Town Code is concerned right now, there is no recourse for this, and it’s kind of self-explanatory … If the Town isn’t going to adopt all of the suggestions from the report at once, than this one is the one that should be addressed.”
Representatives from the Smithtown Republican Committee declined to comment.
According to the Grand Jury, the end result of the unlawful demolition “constituted an utter disregard for the well-being of local citizens”. According to the testimony of an unnamed New York State employee, the Department of Labor inspected the parcel of land following the demolition and, after testing those samples, found asbestos to be present. Because of the significant health issues attributed to airborne asbestos there are strict rules regarding the removal of asbestos, yet the unlawful demolition did not adhere to accepted protocol for its removal – another key factor in the Grand Jury’s list of recommended amendments to the Town Board’s overall practices.
The Grand Jury report did not identify town officials or the land developer; instead, letters were used to identify each of the parties involved. According to the report, the developer of the property, identified as “Developer A,” was pressured into demolishing the property by “Town Employee A”, and at one point received a handwritten, unsolicited tax map chart from a town official, identified in the report as “Town Employee C,” which showed a tax reduction of more than $40,000 if the land were vacant.
The report indicated that after being notified of the potential $40,000 tax reduction if the demolition was done before the March assessment deadline, the developer began the demolition and was issued a Stop Work Order. Soon after the issuance of the stop work order, in a phone conversation, “Town Official A” pressured Developer A to continue the demolition. Additionally, Developer A was fined $3,500. The report indicated that Town Employee “C” reconsidered the $40,000 reduction after the District Attorney’s office started its investigation. The property taxes were reduced by $4,000.
“We have a lot of important topics coming up for the next Town Board meeting on February 23rd,” said Wehrheim, “but we can expect to discuss what suggestions could be adopted in the very near future.”
Supervisor Vecchio’s office did not return our phone calls. Councilman Wehrheim, has publicly identified himself as being “Town Employee E” in the report. Smithtown Matters Founder and Editor former Councilwoman Pat Biancaniello has acknowledged being “Town Employee H”.