| Author |
Message |
    
Marc Bromfeld
Citizen
Username: Time4change
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 1:26 am: | 
|
Time for a Change!
As I read through the pages of emails and topics, I find a common thread between the downtown development sites (SOPAC, supermarket, Beifus, Vose, etc). I think it is fair to say that not much gets accomplished, however a ton is said about what will be accomplished in the near future. I have been a SO resident for 3 years and I am comfortable stating that there has been no significant progress made in the downtown area in 3 YEARS!
One other thorn keeps sticking out to me......I am quite amazed at the CFO/Treasurer (Mr. Gross) situation. I have been in business for quite some time and manage close to a $40MM annual budget for my assigned portfolio. If I offered someone the deal as it has been explained and as I understand it; I would be fired on the spot.
What seems necessary here is change in leadership.
Not sure what the alternative (leadership) is, but I do know the ONLY way to change the leadership is to get out and VOTE!
We need a strong candidate(s) with a plan to get things done. Things can get done in the real world.
I understand that these (Village President and Trustees) are non salaried positions, however the key to being a good leader is knowing what you are good at and resourcing the best possible individuals to assist you in getting the job done. No shame in resourcing, in fact it is the proper way to conduct business.
That said, looking at the current state of affairs in SO, it is most definatly time for a change.
PLEASE VOTE on election day.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1716
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Talk-it-up: The planning board is part of S. Orange. Sal Renda and Elley Foye are both village employees. Bill Calabrese and Art Taylor are on the planning board too.
I have been told more than once that the soil was legally transferred (it was discussed at a planning and zoning meeting). Sayed will not be allowed to build on contaminated soil(if it is, and as of now, I do not know that for a fact) or without proper permits.
I am not really sure what response you expect other than for it to be discussed by the Planning Board and for the proper departments to follow up. The planning board meetings are open to the public. They have people on that board who have expertise including Janine Bauer.
We cannot force the property owner to make a public statement and I doubt that he will be giving anyone a public response.
As I stated previously, when I am given an update I will try to post. |
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 898
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
The current status of the property is that Sayad was asked to have a test done on the soil which is now on his property. His lawyer said last week that rather than take up the planning board's time, he would put off any discussion of Sayad's revised plan until a soil test was conducted and results furnished to the Planning Board. I think they were talking about having the results by the March meeting. That's where it stands as of last week's Planning Board meeting. |
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 899
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
By way of repeating some of what was said above, it appears that, based on the soil sample furnished by Sayad which was taken from SOPAC, there are excess levels of pesticides. The problem is that there is no written documentation showing the fill used on Sayad's property was taken from SOPAC.
If the test of Sayad's soil shows in fact there are excess levels of pesticides, the problem is not insurmountable, but must be addressed. The remedies are obtaining a waiver from DEP, capping it or removing the contaminated soil and replacing it with clean fill. |
Pizzaz
Citizen
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 1501
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Doublea, Sayed in public was asked where he got the soil, his attorney further substantiated why they went to SOPAC for the study. It's clearly on record as to the source.
Sayed's problem will be the cost of remediation. Who is responsible?
I'd say the outcome is perhaps 80/20, or tenured(tendered  ) vs. non tenured. |
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 900
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
The Planning Board said it couldn't rely on verbal statements. Everbody knows it came from SOPAC, but the rules are that there must be some documentation. At least that was what the Planning Board said.
And to further clarify what happened, Sayad's attorney relied on a test made at the SOPAC. He turned it over to a friend of his who is an enviromnetal lawyer who furnished a letter which was furnished to the Planning Board. Sayad's lawyer said to the Planning Board something like "As you can see, I've had the report reviewed by an enviromental lawyer and he says everything is alright."
It was at this point that Janine Bauer said she was also an enviromental lawyer and everything was not alright. She pointed out that even in the report prepared by the soil consultants, they made reference to the excess amounts of pesticides.
Sayad did say he filled the site because he was being told by the Village to clean it up. His argument was that he was doing only what the Village was telling him to do. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1717
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
The whole episode reinforces the need to make sure that when planning board members are appointed that they have some qualifications for being on there as well as having a balance of people from different areas of expertise and not to let the appointments be purely political.
Sayed was told to clean up the site because he never started construction on the plans he had approved. The village never told him to fill the site with soil from SOPAC. A pretty weak argument on his part.
doublea: Thanks for your follow-ups and clarifications. |
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 901
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Thanks Mark. I absolutely agree with what you say about how members should be selected for the Planning Board. This really is a board which requires expertise. I have elsewhere expressed my complete admiration for Janine Bauer - she's exceptional. We are also fortunate to have several other members on the board who possess a lot of expertise. |
Pizzaz
Citizen
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 1503
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Clarity, please. How could Sayed possibly remove truck loads of dirt off the SOPAC site without approval? |
talk-it-up
Citizen
Username: Talkitup
Post Number: 101
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:29 pm: |
|
Mrosner states:
The planning board is part of S. Orange. Sal Renda and Elley Foye are both village employees. Bill Calabrese and Art Taylor are on the planning board too.
I have been told more than once that the soil was legally transferred (it was discussed at a planning and zoning meeting). Sayed will not be allowed to build on contaminated soil(if it is, and as of now, I do not know that for a fact) or without proper permits.
I am not really sure what response you expect other than for it to be discussed by the Planning Board and for the proper departments to follow up. The planning board meetings are open to the public. They have people on that board who have expertise including Janine Bauer.
Mrosner:
The whole episode reinforces the need to make sure that when planning board members are appointed that they have some qualifications for being on there as well as having a balance of people from different areas of expertise and not to let the appointments be purely political.
Sayed was told to clean up the site because he never started construction on the plans he had approved. The village never told him to fill the site with soil from SOPAC. A pretty weak argument on his part.
and thank you Doublea for explaining much of the situation. I have seen the last three meetings. You seem to have been able to get more audio. The more recent meeting was really bad on my tele.
Even if the Village did say "clean up the site" I think it would have been along the lines of fencing, barricades, garbage, etc. It was never stated that the site should be filled with whatever.
It appears that the first application from Sayed had a basement and the re-do of the proposed development had no basement. It seemed that sometime in the fall/winter the site was "filled". It was implied that it came from the SOPAC site, although I never heard what party or person directed, agreed, or authorized this transfer of soil and debris. It also was not clear if it was before or after the SOPAC site started having its own problems.
I stand corrected by Marc in that, yes, the Planning Board is part of SO, but I think I was referring more to the paid government of SO. In other words, the Planning Board is presented applications. They are reviewed and referred by Village employees prior to the Planning Board review. The Planning Board also does not go around investigating sites for maintenance and compliance,although they may notice certain things. The Planning Board and the Village relies on the Department of Code Enforcement or Engineering. They should be tracking activity. It is my understanding that there should have been a soil permit applied for since fill was not part of the original application as it was explained (when I could hear it) All of this appears to have started when that was revealed.
Now, you indicate you were told it was legal? In what way? There was documentation that was stated as required for a soil permit and it was said that it was not ever done. There was no request presented to the Planning Board. It appears that the hole was just filled. Then they indicated that to "correct" the situation test the soil on the site now. And then that was not done.
Also, it appears confusing when in one paragraph you say there are many people with expertise on the Board and in the next you say this is why there should be people with expertise on the Board?
How would any of this discussion have to do with this question of Planning Board expertise creating the situation? In fact, it appears to be Planning Board expertise that questioned the activity. |
Sitoyan
Citizen
Username: Sitoyan
Post Number: 38
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:37 pm: |
|
Boy! You really talk-it-up! |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1718
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 10:00 am: |
|
talk-it-up: There are paid village employees on the planning board too. It is the proper board to question what has been going on at a construction site.
I was pointing out the planning board has experts and we should always be careful to make sure the village president appoints appropiate people to the planning board. I am glad that we have appropiate people on that board at this time.
Code enforcement and the village engineer are expected to track activity. They follow-up and they are expected to give reports to the village administrator. The VA gives updates to the village president who sits on the planning board (as does one trustee). The village engineer is on the planning board. He is expected to keep the planning board informed of any relevant information (and that includes what he is told by code enforcement or the VA). The planning board follows-up with the Sayed because he has an application in the works.
If Sayed wants to go ahead with his plans, he will have to make sure he has all his permits (including whatever environmentals must be taken care regarding the soil) in place.
|
talk-it-up
Citizen
Username: Talkitup
Post Number: 102
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Some good points.
I was not aware that the Village Engineer is on the Planning Board.
Was it the Village Engineer that reported to the Planning Board that the soil was put in the basement of the building without a soil permit?
It is still my understanding that the original application was approved with the cellar, and nothing has been built, and then Sayed went back to the board with a new application that now includes no cellar in the final building. The application, it seems was not approved when the cellar was filled in with what appears to be the soil from the SOPAC construction site.
It seems you make a good point, the engineer or someone should have informed the members of the Planning Board or the Village Administrator (was he already aware since he is part of SOPAC?)
Who "told" you it was legal, is that documented? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1719
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 11:44 am: |
|
Talk-it-up: The village administrator had told me it was done legally (at a planning and zoning meeting in open session).
I do not know who told the planning board members about the soil - it could have been the engineer, the administrator or the village president (or I guess from some other source too).
I will say communication is cruical. In this case, those who want to be informed on an issue have to make the effort (either going to the meetings or asking the questions) whereas many would like to see it more pro-active on the part of the village. It all depends on the level of information a person wants. Some are satisfied with a minimum level and others want every detail.
The village administrator put together a public information plan and has had at least one public meeting to review the plan. There is going to be another one (check the calendar on the village website) if you want to attend. This has been an issue for many municipalities.
|
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 904
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Just to give credit where credit is due, it was Daniel Skrobe on the Planning Board who pointed out at the January meeting that no soil disturbance permit had been obtained. Sayad had come in with his revised plans and Dan called attention to this deficiency. He is another member who deserves a lot of credit. |
talk-it-up
Citizen
Username: Talkitup
Post Number: 103
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
I think some of us try to catch up by watching some of the meetings on the tele. Board of Trustees, Planning Board, Board of Ed. the tele is very useful because it is impossible to go to everything and the paper gives very little information.
Following the process and items that surface during meetings is very important, and I think many residents should take more advantage. It is, however, very difficult sometimes to hear. The last meeting was not just a matter of people not speaking into mics but something with audio
anyway -
how can the Planning and Zoning Meeting approve something that is supposed to be an application to the Planning Board? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1721
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
The Planning and Zoning committee can not and did not approve anything. We sometimes do discuss issues that sometimes are also discussed by the planning board (or for that matter, the Board of Adjustment too). There is some overlap and sometimes the BOT has to vote after the planning board has approved a site plan. After discussion, I update the full BOT (if any action is required) at the conference agenda meeting (second Monday of each month at 7:30pm).
I do not know what was wrong with the audio last week. I do know that when people speak they have to remember to use the mic or speak louder (and clearer).
|
talk-it-up
Citizen
Username: Talkitup
Post Number: 104
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
"The village administrator had told me it was done legally (at a planning and zoning meeting in open session)." mrosner
"The Planning and Zoning committee can not and did not approve anything. We sometimes do discuss issues that sometimes are also discussed by the planning board (or for that matter, the Board of Adjustment too)." mrosner
I guess I misunderstood what you were saying -
You sit (and the Village Administrator?) sit on a planning and zoning committee and that committee had discussions? Is that where the Sayed / SOPAC thing was decided or should I say discussed? I don't get it?
I thought the planning board hears applications on soil disturbance permits? Did the planning and zoning committee decide about the SOPAC soil removal? or something? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1722
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
Each trustee chairs one committee and sits on three committees. The six committees each make a report to the village at the conference agenda on the second monday of each month.
The planning and zoning committee meets with the village administrator, the village engineer, code enforcement, the tax assesor, the village clerk and anyone who wants to attend.
Sometimes I get updates on issues, but we do not hold hearings. Sayed has never been to a planning and zoning committee meeting (well, at least since I have been on the BOT).
The meetings are more to see if we need to take action (ordinances, resolutions, etc) and to answer questions that trustees or residents might have.
The planning board is a seperate entity where applications are heard. For the most part there is no interaction between the planning and zoning committee and the planning board but sometimes the committee discusses an issue before them (or the board of adjustment).
In the case of the SOIL, I asked because I had heard the rumors and I wanted an answer. By the way, my concern with the question was directed to be sure that everything in regards to SOPAC was done legally. After the soil left SOPAC, I would not know if Sayed did what he was supposed to do (or for that matter the company that took the soil off the SOPAC property). Based on what we have doublea stated happenned at the planning board hearing, Sayed did not do everything correctly. |
talk-it-up
Citizen
Username: Talkitup
Post Number: 106
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
mrosner:
The village administrator had told me it was done legally (at a planning and zoning meeting in open session).
I do not know who told the planning board members about the soil - it could have been the engineer, the administrator or the village president (or I guess from some other source too).
Sorry, I took this a different way - I thought you were saying "the administrator indicated it was done legally at a Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting" (as in the committee approving or reviewing something), but I guess you meant the village administrator told you at a Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting (as in reported to the committee) that the activity was done legally.
Anyway, from what you are writing it appears the activity of removing the SOPAC soil was being reported on and that the receiving of the soil by Sayed is the question. I think someone still should have had a handle on this. I also think the "bad" soil being removed from SOPAC probably needed to be tracked as to the proper method of disposing. Wouldn't the DEP have had something to do with that? Also wouldn't the village administrator and engineer been tracking that? Does Code Enforcement report to the engineer or to the administrator? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page