Good Evening, Mr. Supervisor and Town Board Members

(Richard Macellaro read this statement before the Town Board on Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012)

My name is Richard S. Macellaro and I have been a resident of Kings Park for a little more than 20 years. I am here this evening to discuss the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Investigation, released on February 7th, by the Suffolk County District Attorney Tom Spota. The report describes the improper and unethical actions by Members of the Smithtown Town Government regarding the demolished former Nassau Suffolk Lumberyard (Commercial Parcel A) on Main Street. The unlawful demolition did not adhere to accepted protocol for the asbestos removal and therefore endangered the health of Smithtown residents. The Town Government is sworn to protect the health and welfare of its citizens!

As editorialized in the Smithtown News, “according to the (Grand Jury) report (Town Officials) offered a tax incentive package to Developer A if he hurried the demolition prior to the March 1, 2009 tax-status date. The removal of the buildings would have lowered the assessment on the land by $40,000, but since only woodsheds and a storage building were finally demolished, the assessment reduction was a tenth of that amount, $4,000.”  Given the current and past financial crisis, elected officials must attempt to insure that corporations and individuals pay their fair share of taxes.  The Grand Jury Report further determined, “The unlawful demolition secured an immediate financial advantage for Developer A, to the disadvantage of the Town and others. “The Town Government should not conspire to reduce tax levies for businesses and friends, at the expense of its citizens! Testimony in the Grand Jury Report says that Employee A’s intentions were to have something to use for his re-election campaign… a clear abuse of political power for personal profit.

The Town Government was more concerned about politics than governance. In Newsday’s February 7th edition, an article entitled, “Grand Jury: No Criminality in Smithtown Case,” reports no one will be charged.  While paying fines, issuing “a host of summonses,” circumventing Town Codes, political expedience and the “ utter disregard for residents health and safety,” may not constitute “no finding of criminal activity,” however, therein lies the problem. Town Ethics Code Deficiencies still exist as stated in the Grand Jury Report. The people of Smithtown have a right to know which town officials knew what and when, and failed to speak out.

Finally, the Grand Jury Report recommends, the following actions:  “in order to protect the laws of, and required of the Town of Smithtown and the best interests of it citizens.”

 The Town of Smithtown must:

—Amend the Code of Ethics to mandate that any public servant who has personal

  knowledge concerning an activity known to be in violation of Town Code, has an

  affirmative obligation to immediately report that violation to the appropriate Town

  Department.

—Adopt a statue that authorizes the removal of any public servant who engages in

  misconduct, malfeasance or nonfeasance in public office, consistent with the provisions

  of New York State Public Officers Law Section 36.“

—Amend its fine schedule established in the Smithtown Town Code for violations.

—Amend and enhance its fine schedule with respect to demolition or construction that

  occurs in the Town without a Town Building Department permit.

—Enact Legislation which allows for the appointment of an independent Board of Site

   Plan Review.

I hope that the Town Council Supervisor and its Members will consider the Grand Jury’s

recommends and take the necessary time and course of action to examine and investigate

this seemingly growing out of control situation, by requiring the Smithtown Ethics Board

to commence an investigation, and to publicly announce so, no later than March 6th,

2012.

Thank you.

Richard Macellaro

Town Board Considering Grand Jury Report Recommendations

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:

Click here for Article

Town Board Considering Grand Jury Report Recommendations

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:

• Smithtown must enact legislation establishing an independent Board of Site Plan Review to ensure “that the legal mandates of site plan review are enforced.” Currently, Town Board members serve in this capacity.
• Smithtown must amend the town code requiring property owners adjacent to a construction or demolition project be notified to allow them to be heard.
• Smithtown must amend the town’s Code of Ethics to mandate any public servant with personal knowledge of the violation of town code “has an affirmative obligation” to report it to the appropriate town department.
• Smithtown must adopt a statute authorizing the removal of any public servant “who engages in misconduct” consistent with the provisions of New York State’s Public Officers Law.        

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 23^rd,” 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”.

Read the full Report

Sports Complex on Old Northport Rd. - Good Idea? Maybe

Developer’s continued efforts towards for-profit sports complex

By Chad Kushins

Photo - Smithtown Planning DepartmentKings Park residents and elected officials alike are gearing up for an upcoming meeting of the Smithtown Town Board; the topic of interest is the status of a proposed deluxe sports complex to be located on Old Northport Road.  Although plans for the prospective construction have been in the works for years, it was only at last week’s Kings Park Civic Association meeting that the developer and property owner, Santilli Commercial Developers, publicly released their full proposal. 

It was at the Kings Park Civic Association meeting on February 9^th that Santilli’s attorney, Leonard Shore of Commack, spoke of the developer’s full vision for the construction.  According to Shore, Santilli’s proposal would call for the construction of five Olympic size playing fields with four designated for soccer, two mini-ball diamonds, and a 16,000 square-foot building for other sports purposes, including indoor batting and golf cages.  Only a few blocks away is a golf driving range and the Superior Ice Rink. Like those businesses, the Santilli complex would be a for-profit business, not a community facility.

As the property is currently zoned exclusively for industrial use, Santilli Commercial Developers is seeking a special-use permit, which is needed to move forward on the sports complex plans.  “They need to seek what is called a ‘special-use permit’,” said Smithtown Planning Department Director Frank DeRubeis.  “This means that a developer has outright uses in a given zone, but also certain things are permitted for additional uses.  But that comes with additional codes and restrictions.”

According to DeRubeis, a special-use permit is commonplace for commercial properties such as roller rinks, ice rinks, and similar sports facilities, for what is deemed ‘Commercial Public Recreation Use’.  “Lots of things are zoned for this,” said DeRubeis, “but in this case, they [Santilli] want a lot of outdoor facilities, which would need such a permit.  But before it can be approved, it needs to be considered by the Town Board.” 

The plan calls for 226 parking spots and a recharge basin – all of which have given local officials and residents cause for skepticism and concern, and not without reason.  The 44.5 acre site, located at 350 Old Northport Road at the intersection with Indian head Road, comes with a checkered past.  In 2008, the company was forced to pay a $275,000 fine for over-excavating on the property and in 2010, was fined an additional $200,000 for dumping illegal solid waste on the same lot. 

According to DeRubeis, Santilli’s plans for two large recharge basins, is something usually found near large areas containing impermeable surfaces, like parking lots, and is not something typically needed for constructions such as a sports complex.  DeRubeis plans to recommend to the Town Board that an Environmental Impact Study be done on the plan.

With residents aware of the company’s history in the area, Santilli’s sports complex plans could face opposition.  According to the Kings Park Civic Association, allowing for the construction of soccer and other outdoor activity fields would yield massive amounts of fertilizer, insecticides, and other toxic chemical treatments that could, potentially, effect the town drinking water.  A closer examination of Santilli’s proposal also raised awareness to its lack of public restrooms, a necessity for such a massive complex and its potential number of visitors. 

“We’re following everything that is going on with the special-use permit,” said Kings Park Civic Association President Sean Lehmann, who listed a few of the organization’s chief concerns.  “Santilli is claiming that he needs more clean-fill – concrete, rocks, and soil – for the construction, but is being monitored by the DEC [New York State Department of Environmental Conservation], which would hold him to only reaching 114 feet above sea level.  It’s another thing for us to watch.”

Lehmann continued, “Right now [Santilli] doesn’t have detailed plans for us to see, which is, probably, the largest concern among residents.  It’s tough not to have concrete plans to go over … The Civic Association had a meeting and we are actually concerned whether or not the construction is really going to happen, if it’s going to move forward.  In general, we would welcome sports playing fields in the community, but we want assurance that it would really move forward.”

He added, “We share the main concerns that the Town’s Planning Department has already expressed.”

Raising further concern is the property’s current status as a legal landfill under the DEC, the state agency that officially supervises any major construction.  According to their own mandates, any construction debris – including brick, concrete, soil, and rock – must be inspected and tested prior to building.  In the case of the Santilli property, such testing and “regrading” could take over a year. 

Santilli Commercial Developers’ request for a special-use permit was initially expected to be addressed at the February 23^rd meeting of the Smithtown Town Board, scheduled for 7:00pm at the Eugene A. Cannataro Senior Citizen Center on Middle Country Road.  As of this writing, however, the attorneys representing Santilli have made a formal request for an adjournment – aiming for March 22^nd.  

Smithtown Man Arrested In Used Car Scam

Suffolk County Police today arrested a Smithtown man for taking money to sell a used car, but never delivering the vehicle.  

Emmanuel Amaral, 42, collected $2,000 cash and a check for $2,800 for the purchase of a 2006 Ford Van. However he never delivered the vehicle, or returned payment to the victim.  

Amaral claims he sells vehicles and operates out of Jake’s Towing and Recovery, located at 4 Yerk Ave., Ronkonkoma. He has been charged numerous times for similar incidents in the recent past.  

Amaral was arrested at his house in Smithtown , at 9 a.m. He was charged with Grand Larceny 3rd Degree. He will be held overnight at the Fourth Precinct, and is scheduled to be arraigned at First District Court in Central Islip on February 16.  

Fourth Squad detectives believe there maybe more incidents involving Amaral that have gone unreported. Detectives are asking anyone with information about this incident to contact the Fourth Squad at 631-854-8452 or call anonymously to Crime Stoppers at 1-800-220-TIPS. All calls will remain confidential.  

The investigation is continuing.   A criminal charge is an accusation.

A defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.