Entries by . (2098)

Saturday
Feb252012

Editorial - Hi-Ho-Hi-Ho - To The Messenger Tax Dollars Go!

Hi-Ho-Hi-Ho – to the Messenger tax dollars go!

If you haven’t heard about it, or seen it on the town’s streaming video, or read about it yet, at the Thursday, Feb.23rd Smithtown Town Board meeting, in a split decision; three for, (Wehrheim, Creighton, Malloy) and two against, (Vecchio, Mc Carthy), the Board voted to give the town’s legal notices to the Smithtown Messenger.

What?… That’s correct, The Smithtown Messenger.

Now why should it make a difference to you?  Apparently, the Smithtown News did not publish the councilmen’s names or photo’s enough and the boys got angry and took their marbles away.  The problem is the marbles are our dollars, and not theirs.  And the bigger problem is, where and how was this discussed.  Since suspending Town Board public work sessions over a year ago, taxpayers don’t get to see any of the decision making process, and there is never an explanation.

The ads come from $$$ tax dollars … taxpayer dollars to the tune of $30,000, will go to the paper that will side with the new supermajority of Wehrheim, Creighton and Malloy.   This is not a new problem…The Smithtown News has been a good friend to Supervisor Vecchio.

So here is a question for Councilmen Wehrheim, Creighton and Malloy…  How do you spend our taxpayer dollars?  What consideration was given to the number of subscribers a newspaper has?  Perhaps you negotiated a new lower fee for the legal ads?  That’s what fiscal conservatives should do.  Inquiring minds want to know…  So I’m sure you can supply the public with the competitive bids you solicited.  Please tell us what deal you negotiated for the taxpayers… five, ten or fifteen percent less?

If recent history is any indication, as in the appointment of our new part time Town Attorney, at $125,000 annual salary, a 10.7 percent boost over the previous full time attorney’s salary, taxpayers will be paying more money for less. 

I for one can wait to see all the wonderful articles and photos of Councilmen Wehrheim, Creighton, and Malloy, in the Smithtown Messenger.

Hi - Ho

Pat

 

 

Saturday
Feb252012

Town Hears Proposal for Commack Hess Station

Proposed site of Hess Gas Station and Convenience StoreGas chain meets with Zoning Board and community to make their case

By Chad Kushins

This week’s Public Hearing portion of the Smithtown Town Board meeting was, by all accounts, a not-to-be-missed affair, as over two dozen separate residents took the podium for a marathon “public comments” section – running over two and a half hours long – with each voicing their respective concerns over a controversial commercial zoning change on the agenda. 

February 23rd’s meeting at the Eugene Cannataro Senior Citizens Center saw local residents and elected officials alike gather to discuss a proposed Hess gas station, set for construction at one of Commack’s busiest intersections.  Hess, one of the largest gas and filling station chains in the US, had been seeking such a construction for years, making Thursday’s meeting of the Town Board just the latest in its attempts to continue the controversial proposed project.

According to Hess’ attorney, Sayville-based Eugene DeNicola, the proposed station would sit at the at the corner of Jericho Turnpike and Harned Road in Commack – a high-volume intersection commonly prone to traffic and accidents.  The proposed “Hess Express” gas station is set to replace the abandoned Shell station – which has lay dormant for years.  In order to complete the project, according to a corporate model that includes a convenience store, Hess would have to obtain a zoning change from the Town of Smithtown.

Although Hess was denied their initial plans two years ago, the “eyesore” status of the currently vacant Shell structure may have warmed some town leaders and community members to the possibility of a zone change.  However, concerns about the construction still exist, with most residents and officials being less worried about safety issues (with the boarded up building) and more concerned with how it would affect existing traffic patterns at the site.   The current pattern has vehicles entering the intersection from two directions each on Jericho Turnpike and Harned Road, as well as an exit ramp from the northbound lanes of the Sunken Meadow Parkway.

“The DOT [New York State Department of Transportation] recommended that the curb-cut be reduced in size,” said President of RMS Engineering Christopher Robinson, who is overseeing the project, “and we are in full agreement.”

Hess’ initial plans for the construction originally met with opposition from both Smithtown’s Planning Department and its separate Planning Board.  However, with slight changes and adjustments incorporated into the plans, the Planning Board is now currently endorsing its construction – in the event that the zoning changes are approved.  The Planning Department remains opposed.  The site’s current zoning would allow for the gas station itself, but does not include a convenience store – the single issue that Hess is seeking to override. 

Other groups have come out in opposition to the move, including the Long Island Gasoline Retailers Association and the Commack Community Association.  At the Thursday night meeting, 28 residents came forward during the “public comments” session to vent their concerns and opinions. 

“We are opposed to a station here,” said Commack resident and member of the Commack Community Association, Jeannette DiSalvito.  “Commack needs another convenience store like a hole in the head.”

“It’s not about the competition,” said Rudy Massa, the owner of the Gasoline Heaven station at 2088 Jericho Turnpike for more than 40 years.  “The reason that any gas retailer wants to expand to this size, of course, is that they want to maximize profit.  [But] the key factor here is safety … It’s a five-corner intersection and is a nightmare.  I have grandchildren that are of driving age and we’re all on this road everyday.  It could be very dangerous.”

At the Town Board meeting, Massa presented a petition with more than 1,800 signatures from the community opposing the Hess Express to the Town Board, hoping to demonstrate the overwhelming number of residents against the Hess construction.  Massa had been joined by a number of retailers in Commack in writing and circulating the petition, especially after customers would come into his station and express their own worries about Hess’ plans.  “Originally, the Town Board said to us that, because of safety concerns, [the construction] wasn’t going forward.  Now, a few years later, it’s back on the docket … I’ve had tremendous feedback from customers, expressing their concerns.”

Former New York Mets shortstop and Long Island Ducks co-owner Bud Harrelson also spoke of his concerns, claiming as a resident of Smithtown that the construction could pose serious safety issues.  “I’ve been here for 42 years and it is a dangerous and confusing cluster in that area,” said Harrelson.  “I’ve said it before – I really don’t think that a gas station is operable for this property.”

“I’ve heard the analysis of the traffic people saying 27 accidents is ‘minimal,’” said Commack resident Daniel O’Brien.  “Well, my son had an accident at that intersection when the Shell gas station was there – and the vehicle was totaled.  And if you think about making a left turn on Indian Head Road onto Jericho Turnpike, and you think about someone looking down at their gas gage and thinking, ‘Oops, I need gas,’ and he turns into that new station – that’s an accident looking to happen.”

Although Assemblyman Michael J. Fitzpatrick was unable to attend the meeting, he sent a personal letter to be read, siding with angry residents and voicing his own opposition to the Hess proposal.  “Please deny [the proposal] for reasons of safety,” Fitzpatrick’s statement to the Town Board read, citing the difference in size and style of the old Shell station his reason for concern.  Fitzpatrick’s letter was presented by Chief of Staff Kathleen Albrecht, who also took with podium to stress her own personal worries regarding the proposal.   “The reason that I wanted to get involved,” Fitzpatrick told Smithtown Matters, is that this is really a zoning issue.  You can’t use business competition as a relevant issue in this.  The problem, really, is that Route 25 is a state road and we’ve had six separate recent deaths along it … Because this is a five-corner intersection, safety is a major concern.”

Fitzpatrick continued, “Is [the Shell station] an eyesore?  Yes – that’s unanimous.  But that doesn’t mean that you can make a bad planning decision.”

Amid the overwhelming opposition, the owner of the property, Jacob Fayland, was also in attendance, defending his actions to work with Hess.  “When I bought this property, I was assured when I bought it – I went to the Building Department – that, yes, a gas station was there and I could restore it again,” said Fayland.  “That’s why, in 2004, I bought this property.  Since then, [with] three projects … nothing’s moved.  Even my mortgage states that I am allowed to put a gas station there.”

In response to Fayland’s statement, Supervisor Patrick Vecchio clarified that the debate in question was not in regards to a gas station’s actual construction but, rather, the zoning changes needed to accommodate a large-scale station including a convenience store.  “I just want to correct the record that the Building Department did not lead you astray,” remarked Vecchio, later adding, “[Hess’ representatives] will not impress me to change my vote or support my effort.  I have heard nothing hear to change my mind.  I will still hold that I will not support this application.”

As last night’s meeting was a Public Hearing, no vote on the matter was taken.  According to the town, an official vote on the Hess proposal can be expected on a future agenda in the coming months.

Additionally, plans to hear the Santilli Commercial Developers’ plans for a sports complex in Kings Park – originally scheduled for last night’s agenda – have been postponed.  Representatives of the mine’s owner, Santilli Commercial Developers, said they need more time to notify neighbors of the hearing.  They are expected to make their presentation in March.  

Friday
Feb242012

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

 

 

Monday
Feb202012

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

Monday
Feb202012

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 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”.

Read the full Report