Posted by: Dawn Powell | June 9, 2017

July 13 at the Ambulance Corps

Straightforward.

http://www.putnamvalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Recreation_Center_Ballot.pdf

 

Posted by: Dawn Powell | June 21, 2017

Town & County Math

I have heard some people saying that it is so good that the superstation is back on the tax rolls.  Bob-O’s wall cost about $300k.  The DEC removed the tanks and remediated.  I don’t know what that cost the taxpayers.  When the county foreclosed, the tax bill was close to $300k.  And the property was taken by the county in 2013.  How long would it take for this property to make up the lost taxes?

 

Property History
2 Peekskill Hollow Road, Putnam Valley, NY
Sold at $206,000 on 5/2/17
Reduced to $250,000 on 12/24/13
Listed at $305,000 on 6/14/13

Posted by: Dawn Powell | June 20, 2017

July 13 vote absentee

There is an application for an absentee ballot on the home page of the town website.

http://www.putnamvalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Application_for_Absentee_Ballot.pdf

Absentee ballots may be picked up in person from the Town Clerk with proper identification.

 

Posted by: Dawn Powell | June 13, 2017

Sheriff Don Smith/Former DA Adam Levy

DEFAMATION SUIT – Comment from Whistling Willie

Don’t know where else to post this. Was not allowed to do so on FB Putnam Valley Political Debate page.
Ex-DA Adam Levy’s defamation lawsuit against PC Sheriff Donald Smith has been settled for $150k, with Smith paying $25k and PC taxpayers paying $125k (this latter payment has been approved by the PC Legislature). Smith has issued an apology to Levy, which is posted on the PC Sheriff’s website. Smith has dropped his counter-defamation lawsuit against Levy.
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/putnam/2017/06/13/adam-levy-defamation-suit-vs-sheriff/392132001/
Alexander Hossu’s $45 million lawsuit against PC is still pending. This dollar amount greatly exceeds the insurance carried by PC.
Whistling Willie

Posted by: Dawn Powell | June 12, 2017

Required Referendum

This was way back in April.  It doesn’t matter anymore since the community earned their right to vote.  What does matter is that SamO doesn’t seem to understand that it was his obligation to give this to us.  When Pam asked the question at the public hearing, he did this same dissembling.  The law says the Town Board has to do this.  Is it that SamO doesn’t understand????  See what I mean!

 

Hi Patty,

You are right.  A referendum can be held.  Under Town Law S81 you need to simply petition the Board for the referendum.  It is not automatic.  “Permanent financing of the cost of any park or recreational improvement that may be approved by the Town Board as provided herein shall be submitted for the approval of the electors at a referendum to be held pursuant to the procedures of Town Law § 81”.   This particular Town Law specifies that a referendum can be held if petitioned.

Sam Oliverio
Supervisor –Town of Putnam Valley
845-526-2121

 

Posted by: Dawn Powell | June 12, 2017

Zoning Code

Apropos of the Peekskill Hollow Road barn, and Maple Leaf, the Town Board has scheduled their vote on the miserable zoning code for Wednesday night.  The vote on the environmental review, such as it is, is scheduled first.  You really should read the environmental assessment form for this one.  I promise, it is not too taxing.

http://www.putnamvalley.com/documents/1719_001.pdf

Thorough isn’t it.

The last time this was scheduled, they were going to change something or other because of public comment.  Did they change it?  What change was that?  Are they allowed to change a law after a public hearing, and not tell anyone about the change, or did they just not change it?

After the $3.8 million public hearing, and with no agenda posted for the work session, I asked Sherry if there was an agenda.  She said that the public hearing was it.  Then SamO said he was having a meeting.  Don’t even bother to tell the Town Clerk. I haven’t watched, so I have no idea what they did.  What was it Priscilla was saying that the citizens have to keep up on this stuff?  SamO makes it very difficult.

####

 

I was glad to see the silt fencing at Oregon Corners.

 

Posted by: Dawn Powell | June 10, 2017

$3.8 million for a pick up game

of basketball????  I am really missing something here.

 

Posted by: Dawn Powell | June 9, 2017

$3.8 million bond public hearing

the long winded version –

I am glad that Priscilla has access to the town board. She should take a step back and look at how it is for the rest of us in the town. It isn’t the fault of residents that they were uniformed about the Recreation Center. Some of us voiced concerns when all of this started last year, but to no avail. When a Town Board discusses a major project only in meetings when there is no comment allowed, they are doing something wrong. It is ridiculous for SamO to pretend that planning board and zoning board hearings count as town public hearings or that there were any informational meetings before the residents earned a referendum that should have been provided. I am glad that Priscilla likes paying taxes. She can pay mine too since it is so much fun. Now that’s an idea I can get behind. Let’s send our tax bills to Priscilla!
Ridiculous too that Jackie thinks that town taxes don’t matter because of school taxes. In the districts, school taxes are less than 75% of our taxes bill. Town and district taxes have gone up much faster.
I think it was a good public hearing, even though a public hearing is supposed to be held before the town board makes a decision. While they may listen to Priscilla, they are not listening to the rest of us.
I think that the current bond for the town park is $1.25 million. That will be paid off in 2018. This proposed bond is $3.8 million. That is a significant increase in debt for the taxpayers, and it is long term debt. For many of us, it will never end. And for those whose wish list includes a pool, this 20-30 year debt makes it impossible.
Last year, this was supposed to cost $1.25 million. Now it is $4 million???? Sam says that there was no significant objection until Patty, but don’t you remember when we were all complaining about the cost of this and SamO said it was not going to cost any tax dollars, and he challenged anybody to show anything different? You see Priscilla, we were listening, and SamO was not. He was basing his remark on their proposed replacement of the existing bond with a new bond. Even though that is tax dollars, his point was that they were going to replace the existing bond. Now it is 3 times that, and serious tax dollars.
It is frustrating that SamO does not answer the questions or comments that are posed but makes them into something else. Pam brought up the referendum, and the fact that the Town Board is empowered by both local law and state law to set up a referendum. Or rather, the Town Board is required by local law to set up a referendum, and empowered to do that by state law. Pam wanted to know why she had to go door to door getting signatures, and why it is costing money to hold it, when the Town Board should have done it right. Mr. O never answers those questions. He morphs it into something else, and makes the comment he wants to make. Pam was clear. I thought it was good comment.
On the local law, I did appreciate Phil Keating’s honesty. He knows what the local law is now. He didn’t before. Moving forward, at least, things should be different.
SamO insists that more people want a recreation center than want a pool. I met a lot of people who want neither, lots who want a pool, and a few who want this center. Yoga classes, open gym, and ceramics class have been mentioned. I made the point that yoga classes should be in the dance or judo studios. $4 million seems a bit steep for a gym. Those ceramics attendees are a dedicated bunch. I think there is another way to accommodate them. I don’t think it is fair, or neighborly, to ask your neighbors to pay $4 million to accommodate that.
And for music, let’s go to Tompkins Corners Community Center.
There really is a lot in this town, more than most of us can take advantage of.
Phil Keating made it clear that there will be fees for use of the facility. We will pay to build it and pay to use it. Frank was clear that this is not a place for kids to hang out, that there will be organized sports and activities.
The $23 per person cost was thrown around a lot only to pay the bond, but the exhaustive research that Dan Vera and Patty Villanova did calls that into question, and at this point, they don’t have solid numbers for the building, for the equipment, for the programs. And it won’t be paid per person. It will be on your assessment, a higher number than that added to your tax bill, and higher still if your house is above the median home value. Expect a hit that can never go down after they start this. Someone said taxes never go down, but I think they could if government was effective, and they didn’t become so enthralled with spending our money.
Frank said that they would save the rent that they pay to the schools. We won’t. It comes from us whether the town takes it or the school takes it. Frank also said that he doesn’t support moving the day camp to the town park. His reasons were solid and a lot of people were concerned about it.
Patty V. was concerned that there were no bids on any of the aspects of the project that were already started. The Attorney to the Town got very angry and stated that there were bids from the architects. I remembered 3 proposals in agenda documents, but since everyone Patty talked to has said that there were no bids, it may be that there was no formal bidding process.
Mr. O thinks it is compelling that all town board members are in favor of it. It is not. This is an entrenched board, with only incumbents announced as candidates. Not really an elected board, so much as a politically selected board. When people say we should build this because they trust these people who were elected, I would say that this is our town government, not the town board’s, and we should take it back. The petitioners have made a good first step.
This bond should be defeated merely because (well, not so mere) it has not proceeded in a legitimate manner. A better late than never public hearing does not cut it when it comes to public financing. It should also be defeated because we can’t afford it, and because it does not meet the needs of the community.

Posted by: Dawn Powell | June 9, 2017

Peekskill Hollow Road barn

The county planner agrees with Omle’s comments, that the county law applies only to the road????

Why would the legislature approve a law that has no meaning?  Legislator Bill Gouldman is looking into it.

The 239M referral that sent the historic barn demolition to the county planner –

General Municipal

§ 239-m. Referral of certain proposed city, town and village planning
and zoning actions to the county planning agency or regional planning
council; report thereon; final action. 1. Definitions. As used herein:
(a) The term “proposed” as used in subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of
paragraph (b) of subdivision three of this section shall be deemed to
include only those recreation areas, parkways, thruways, expressways,
roads or highways which are shown on a county comprehensive plan adopted
pursuant to section two hundred thirty-nine-d of this article or adopted
on an official map pursuant to section two hundred thirty-nine-e of this
article.
(b) The term “referring body” shall mean the city, town or village
body responsible for final action on proposed actions subject to this
section.
(c) The term “full statement of such proposed action” shall mean all
materials required by and submitted to the referring body as an
application on a proposed action, including a completed environmental
assessment form and all other materials required by such referring body
in order to make its determination of significance pursuant to the state
environmental quality review act under article eight of the
environmental conservation law and its implementing regulations. When
the proposed action referred is the adoption or amendment of a zoning
ordinance or local law, “full statement of such proposed action” shall
also include the complete text of the proposed ordinance or local law as
well as all existing provisions to be affected thereby, if any, if not
already in the possession of the county planning agency or regional
planning council. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this
paragraph, any referring body may agree with the county planning agency
or regional planning council as to what shall constitute a “full
statement” for any or all of those proposed actions which said referring
body is authorized to act upon.
(d) The term “receipt” shall mean delivery of a full statement of such
proposed action, as defined in this section, in accordance with the
rules and regulations of the county planning agency or regional planning
council with respect to person, place and period of time for submission.
In no event shall such rule or regulation define delivery so as to
require in hand delivery or delivery more than twelve calendar days
prior to the county planning agency’s or regional planning council’s
meeting date. In the absence of any such rules or regulations, “receipt”
shall mean delivery in hand or by mail to the clerk of the county
planning agency or regional planning council. Where delivery is made in
hand, the date of receipt shall be the date of delivery. Where delivery
is made by mail, the date as postmarked shall be the date of delivery.
The provisions of this section shall not preclude the rules and
regulations of the county planning agency or regional planning council
from providing that the delivery may be a period greater than twelve
days provided the referring body and the county planning agency or
regional planning council agree in writing to such longer period.
2. Referral of proposed planning and zoning actions. In any city, town
or village which is located in a county which has a county planning
agency, or, in the absence of a county planning agency, which is located
within the jurisdiction of a regional planning council duly created
pursuant to the provisions of law, each referring body shall, before
taking final action on proposed actions included in subdivision three of
this section, refer the same to such county planning agency or regional
planning council.
3. Proposed actions subject to referral. (a) The following proposed
actions shall be subject to the referral requirements of this section,

if they apply to real property set forth in paragraph (b) of this
subdivision:
(i) adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan pursuant to section
two hundred seventy-two-a of the town law, section 7-722 of the village
law or section twenty-eight-a of the general city law;
(ii) adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance or local law;
(iii) issuance of special use permits;
(iv) approval of site plans;
(v) granting of use or area variances;
(vi) other authorizations which a referring body may issue under the
provisions of any zoning ordinance or local law.
(b) The proposed actions set forth in paragraph (a) of this
subdivision shall be subject to the referral requirements of this
section if they apply to real property within five hundred feet of the
following:
(i) the boundary of any city, village or town; or
(ii) the boundary of any existing or proposed county or state park or
any other recreation area; or
(iii) the right-of-way of any existing or proposed county or state
parkway, thruway, expressway, road or highway; or
(iv) the existing or proposed right-of-way of any stream or drainage
channel owned by the county or for which the county has established
channel lines; or
(v) the existing or proposed boundary of any county or state owned
land on which a public building or institution is situated; or
(vi) the boundary of a farm operation located in an agricultural
district, as defined by article twenty-five-AA of the agriculture and
markets law, except this subparagraph shall not apply to the granting of
area variances.
(c) The county planning agency or regional planning council may enter
into an agreement with the referring body or other duly authorized body
of a city, town or village to provide that certain proposed actions set
forth in this subdivision are of local, rather than inter-community or
county-wide concern, and are not subject to referral under this section.
4. County planning agency or regional planning council review of
proposed actions; recommendation, report. (a) The county planning
agency or regional planning council shall review any proposed action
referred for inter-community or county-wide considerations, including
but not limited to those considerations identified in section two
hundred thirty-nine-l of this article. Such county planning agency or
regional planning council shall recommend approval, modification, or
disapproval, of the proposed action, or report that the proposed action
has no significant county-wide or inter-community impact.
(b) Such county planning agency or regional planning council, or an
authorized agent of said agency or council, shall have thirty days after
receipt of a full statement of such proposed action, or such longer
period as may have been agreed upon by the county planning agency or
regional planning council and the referring body, to report its
recommendations to the referring body, accompanied by a statement of the
reasons for such recommendations. If such county planning agency or
regional planning council fails to report within such period, the
referring body may take final action on the proposed action without such
report. However, any county planning agency or regional planning
council report received after thirty days or such longer period as may
have been agreed upon, but two or more days prior to final action by the
referring body, shall be subject to the provisions of subdivision five
of this section.

5. Extraordinary vote upon recommendation of modification or
disapproval. If such county planning agency or regional planning council
recommends modification or disapproval of a proposed action, the
referring body shall not act contrary to such recommendation except by a
vote of a majority plus one of all the members thereof.
6. Report of final action. Within thirty days after final action, the
referring body shall file a report of the final action it has taken with
the county planning agency or regional planning council. A referring
body which acts contrary to a recommendation of modification or
disapproval of a proposed action shall set forth the reasons for the
contrary action in such report.

 

 

 

Posted by: Dawn Powell | June 6, 2017

Notice of adoption of bond

http://www.putnamvalley.com/documents/2015_001.pdf

 

in April before setting a public hearing.

Older Posts »

Categories