Full Disclosure...

is in order regarding an article in today's Observer Dispatch, New Hartford school district looks to purchase properties.

According to the article in the OD, Laura Ruberto is the vice president of Ashford-Clinton Corp.

However, what the article didn't say is that Attorney Linda Romano and her husband Russell Petralia are owners of Ashford-Clinton Corp.

What makes this so interesting is that Ms. Romano, as a representative of Bond, Schoenick and King has been, and still is, bond counsel for New Hartford Central School.

In May 2009, we FOILed ALL agreements for legal representation for the New Hartford Central School District. Among the agreements we received was a letter from Ms. Romano to then Superintendent of Business Affairs, Robert Nole detailing the agreement between Bond, Schoenick & King & New Hartford Central School for bond counsel services for the A+ project bonding.

More recently, minutes of the July 13, 2011 NHCS Board Organizational Meeting, list Bond, Schoeneck & King [Ms. Romano] as a law firm currently retained by the school.

Documents found on the web regarding Ashford-Clinton Corp. list Ms. Romano as Vice President, Laura Ruberto as Senior Management and Russell Petralia as CEO/President.

Additionally, it has been our experience that if we submit a FOIL request to Oneida County Industrial Development, we receive an email from Ms. Romano identifying herself as legal counsel for OCIDA with a copy to Laura Ruberto. If we send an email to Ms. Romano as President of the New Hartford Public Library, we also receive an email from Ms. Romano with a copy to Laura Ruberto. Obviously, Ms. Ruberto and Ms. Romano are connected. At any rate, in both cases, emails are sent from Ms. Romano with a signature line of:

Regarding the properties to be purchased by New Hartford Central School...according to records available online from the town assessor's office, the property on George Avenue is vacant property [280 ft. by 100 ft.] assessed for $14,900 with a market value of $18,395. It was purchased by the Ashford-Clinton Corp. in a non-arm's length sale for $14,000 on June 24, 2009.

The property at 29 Oxford Road is assessed $119,600 with a market value of $147,654. On December 22, 2010. Ashford-Clinton Corp. paid $193,064 to purchase the property from Autumn Enterprises, LLC.

So total paid by Ashford-Clinton Corp. [Linda Romano] the two properties...$207,064. The article in the Observer Dispatch said:

The cost of purchasing the properties is not to exceed $270,000, including purchase price and estimated acquisition costs such as legal fees and site-work expenses...

This is not the first time that Ms. Romano has purchased property only to turn around and sell it to the school. In July 2005, Ashford-Clinton [Ms. Romano] bought property [60 ft. by 133 ft. with a house that was eventually demolished] on Daly Place for $57,835. Six (6) months later, in January 2006, Ms. Romano sold the property to New Hartford Central School for $76,130.

According to the Observer Dispatch article, the purchase of the two properties will be on the May 15th ballot along with the budget vote.

Establish a Police Commission...

OR NOT!

At the March 14, 2012, a hot topic of discussion was once again whether or not to bring back the New Hartford Police Commission that was disbanded in 2010.

We already blogged about the fact that the composition of the previous police commission was not legal because five (5) members were appointed; NYS Town Law limits a police commission to one (1) or three (3) members. More than three (3) members requires a local law.

[See You Don't Have to be a Philadelphia lawyer...]

Here is the video of the discussion at the March 14, 2012 town board meeting...

Click on the arrow in the red box to start the video; then by clicking on the button at the far right bottom, you will be able to control the volume.

Using 1991-92 information when 2008 information is available??

At the July 11, 2007 town board meeting [during the Earle Reed administration], Resolution 158 of 2007 was unanimously adopted by the town board.

Simply put, the resolution stated:

...Town intends to carry out an Evaluation of Commercial Drive GEIS Study in the Town of New Hartford and has requested the Consultant peter j. smith to furnish professional services in connection therewith;

For the review of the study, the Consultant propose the following:

• Review existing study

• Assess impacts identified
• Assess mitigation measures proposed


• Assess effectiveness of Fees in Lieu of Mitigation since implementation
  
  
• Propose new and revised Fees In Lieu schedule

For this study, the town approved paying peter j. smith up to $30,000.

The report was prepared; however, it was never presented at a town board meeting after it was finished in July 2008. We obtained the report through the FOIL process.

For Larry Adler's justification of his rezoning request, he used information from the 1991-92 Generic Environmental Impact Statement [GEIS] for the Seneca Turnpike/Commercial Drive/Middlesettlement Road Area. That GEIS refers to a soon to be updated master plan. However, that master plan was updated again in 2007.

The 2007 Master Plan/Comprehensive Plan Update recommends that the plan be again updated in five (5) years...that would be this year, 2012.

The report commissioned by the town board in July 2007 [finished in July 2008] would clearly contain more relevant information since it was released as the first business park project [The Hartford] and the infrastructure for the park were nearing completion...in 1991, the plans for the business park were very different and years away from fruition.

Larry's selected pages from the 1991-92 GEIS are here.

However, we want to concentrate on excerpts from the July 2008 FGEIS:

The purpose of preparing an update to the 1991 FGEIS is to review the anticipated impacts from proposed projects that have since been developed in the Seneca Turnpike/Commercial Drive/Middle Settlement Road Study Area.

Cumulative impacts primarily consist of those upon the infrastructure, including the existing transportation network and sanitary/stormwater sewer capacity. Some of the identified transportation impacts have since been remedied as spelled out in the Update and summarized in this Summary, however implementation of additional traffic improvements and specific capital improvements related to stormwater and sanitary sewer have yet to be done and as such, impacts to these elements are being experienced today within the Study Area and areas situated nearby.

Further the 2008 FGEIS identified the types of businesses to be located in the New Hartford Business Park as business vs. commercial/retail which, according to the report, is located along Seneca Turnpike, Commercial Drive, Clinton Street and Middlesettlement Road.

On page 6 of the report we find "Proposed Land Uses in 1991 and Today (2008)".

In 1991, Route 5A and Seneca Turnpike from Route 12 to Route 5A was already developed for commercial use. General concepts were developed to support a proposed land use plan which served as the basis for the environmental review under SEQRA.

The General Concepts included:

• Maintain the integrity of existing neighborhoods
  
• Focus high activity commercial uses in the Seneca Turnpike and Commercial Drive corridors near Sangertown Square
  
• Stabilize the transitional residential/commercial uses along Seneca Turnpike west of Par Technology
  
• Encourage low density residential uses north of Seneca Turnpike and west of Woods Road
  
• Provide a low density planned business zone along Woods Road; include broad site design controls for sensitive development of this area
  
• Formally designate open space areas, including the wetland and waterway network, to maintain environmental quality and provide visual relief.
  
• Support continued agricultural use of existing orchards and use agricultural zoning and related measures to support its economic viability.
• These concepts support the fact that the business park was intended to be business not commercial/retail.
  

The July 2008 report continues on page 9 with:

2.1 Impacts from Development that Occurred 1992 to Today (2008)

The review of the FGEIS and Findings Statement in comparison to the development that has since occurred and the manner in which it has been allowed to develop was the crux of the Update to the FGEIS. It was determined that development did indeed occur within the Study Area with little to no regard for its collective impact to the existing infrastructure and as such, impacts to stormwater management from increased runoff due to development that covers permeable surfaces, has become a major issue within the Town. [emphasis added] Equally concerning is the impact development has on the management of sanitary sewers. New Hartford has a combined stormwater/sanitary sewer system and as such, when stormwater overcomes pumping capacity at existing stations, the pretreatment facilities that handle sanitary sewer wastes become inundated with the combined storm and sewer flow. As a result of an increase in stormwater runoff, raw sewage discharges into the Mohawk River untreated.

The report contains much more information...you can read the entire report here.

To be continued...

PAR for the course...

in the town of New Hartford.

Did anyone on the Planning Board or Town Board really read this letter of support for Larry Adler's zone amendment request from Ron Casciano, VP, CFO & Treasurer of PAR Technology. More importantly, did Mr. Casciano really know what it says and the impacts of his support for Mr. Adler's proposal?

We quote:

PAR understands the permitted uses written in the Planned Development Mixed Use [PDMU] Zone and we support the proposal. Adding light manufacturing to the permitted uses would be a potential improvement to the PDMU Zone, although at this time the prospects for additional manufacturing are not on the horizon. Nonetheless, PAR supports the zone change.

Wait a minute, Mr. Casciano, either PAR doesn't understand zoning; Mr. Casciano didn't write the letter; or we are misunderstanding Mr. Casciano's statement.

To the best of our knowledge, the town is not trying to improve the PDMU zone by ADDING current Planned Development Park [PDP] Zone permitted uses to the current uses permitted in the PDMU zone; they are REPLACING the current permitted uses in the business park with the current permitted uses in the PDMU.

If we are accurately reading Mr. Adler's colored map of the parcels he proposes to change from PDP to PDMU, that would put PAR's current facility in the new PDMU and the property they own within the business park would likewise be in the new PDMU zone.

According to the town's zoning code, light manufacturing is not a permitted use in PDMU.

Therefore, according to Town of New Hartford Zone Code, Article XI. Non-Conforming Uses, Structures, and Buildings, there are procedures that would need to be followed to expand or alter the current PAR structures once the zoning is changed to Planned Development Mixed Use [PDMU].

Further the vacant land owned by PAR within the business park would not be able to be used for light manufacturing without a use variance which is the most difficult variance to get particularly when you are on record cheering for the zone change in the first place.



Earlier this week, we were provided with more documents that were presented at the Planning Board meeting on March 12, 2012 to include the responses from each of the agencies [MVWA, D.E.C., Oneida County Planning, etc]. We are making them available for your review.

By the way, we were also provided a response from the Town of Whitestown Supervisor, Charles Gibbs, who wrote a letter against the zone change.

Strikeslip wrote a blog on the rezoning of the business park, Regional Obligations in New Hartford...

To be continued...

Larry Adler's Zone Map Amendment request...

The videos for the Public Hearing and the town board discussion/vote after the Public Hearing are now online.

You will find the Public Hearing here.

At the bottom of the video is a link to the Board Discussion or you can follow this link to go directly to the town board discussion.

The town clerk provided us with a copy of the handouts that Larry Adler refused to provide at the Planning Board meeting on Monday evening. Those documents are here!

We have decided to save our comments for awhile. In the meantime, we welcome any comments you may have, either for or against.

Last night's town board meeting...

didn't end until after 12 midnight.

The agenda was packed to include discussion of appointment of a police commission, re-instating the trash program, going back to twice a month meetings and 2012 salaries for town employees to name a few.

Our videotape is about 5 hours long...too long for most people to want to watch all at once [although at times it was entertaining].

Over the next few days we will be posting the video in segments starting tomorrow with the Public Hearing for Larry Adler's zone amendment change request. We are hopeful that tomorrow the town clerk will also be providing us with the documents that Mr. Adler did not want to share at the Planning Board meeting on Monday along with other documents that we FOILed regarding Mr. Adler's plans.

Stay tuned...

Planning Board Meeting...

The video showing the portion of the Monday, March 12, 2012 Planning Board meeting regarding Larry Adler's zone amendment request is now on our website.

The Public Hearing is tonight starting at 7:00 p.m. The town board agenda is now online!

There's usually two sides to every story...

but Mr. Adler didn't want to make documents supporting his side of the story available to residents so they could have it to review prior to the Public Hearing on Wednesday.

Upon his arrival at tonight's Planning Board meeting where his rezoning request was to be reviewed, Mr. Adler passed out documents to include letters, colored maps of the area to be rezoned and his responses to recommendations from DEC, Oneida County Planning, Mohawk Valley Authority, Dept. of Transportation, etc.

Copies were given to the entire Planning Board; to each of the people present at the meeting that signed petitions in favor of Mr. Adler; and to Town Attorney Cully...Highway Superintendent Rick Sherman was also given copies of documents.

Ms. Lawrence noticed that Mr. Adler had extra copies so she presented her press pass for identification and asked Mr. Adler if he would share copies of what he had handed out earlier.

Mr. Adler denied the request saying that he didn't know who Ms. Lawrence was [we find that hard to believe...she was in the back videotaping throughout the entire meeting...kind of gives away who she is...not many other people videotape meetings and Mr. Adler is no stranger to this blog.].

Mr. Adler also said he had no way of knowing if the press pass was legitimate. [Sorry Sheriff Maciol, guess Mr. Adler isn't impressed by your signature or the NYS Sheriff's Association seal that is affixed to the card.]

Ms. Lawrence then asked Town Attorney Cully for copies [that was right after Attorney Cully asked Ms. Lawrence when her video would be available online because the town might need to review it for clarification when writing the Planning Board minutes].

Town Attorney Cully said...sure, Ms. Lawrence could have the documents if she sent in a FOIL request first. Imagine...give me, but FOIL YOU!

The public hearing is Wednesday, March 14, 2012! We would be lucky if the town clerk even responded to us by Wednesday telling us the day we might expect to receive the documents.

What possible reason could there be to deny access to supporting documentation presented by Mr. Adler at tonight's meeting? We will leave the answer to that question up to our readers.

Mr. Adler's attorney said the documents would be on the website [we presume the town website], but she couldn't confirm when they would be there.

Anyway, since we only have one side of the story, that is the one we will present to you. Jerome Donovan was kind enough to give us his thoughts and response to each of the questions that have to be answered by the Planning Board as they develop their recommendation to the town board.

Jerome Donovan's observations on pertinent zone change criteria.

Jerome Donovan's responses in answer to the questions the Planning Board must answer in their recommendation to the Town Board.

The meeting was videotaped and will be online tomorrow.

Misinformation...

According to the editorial in today's Observer Dispatch, Government's savings must be passed to people:

In the town of New Hartford, the $1.01 per $1,000 of assessed valuation tax rate is 6 percent tax less than last year.

ARE YOU KIDDING?

The 2012 town tax rate is $2.90 per thousand...NOT $1.01 per thousand. As a matter of fact, the 2011 town tax rate was also $2.90 per thousand; there was no decrease in the tax rate in the 2012 Town of New Hartford budget.

Good grief,the last time the Town of New Hartford tax rate was $1.01 was probably sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s.

And let's not forget the fact that the Police Fund still owes money to other funds as detailed in the State Comptroller's report of the town for the 2008-09 years. The Comptroller's report also mentioned that $1.5 million is owed to the sewer fund; a fund that only people with sewers pay. Tyksinski is evasive when questioned by Councilman Backman as to when these funds are scheduled to be repaid.

According to the State Comptroller, the Board can authorize interfund borrowings between funds; however, these loans must be paid back by the end of the year and with interest if the loan is between funds with different tax bases as is the case with the Police Fund and Sewer Fund. It's 2012 people; these repayments are long overdue.

Where or from whom did the Observer Dispatch Editorial Board get $1.01 as a tax rate in New Hartford?

Give the town board kudos for reducing the tax rate? Horsefeathers! They didn't reduce the rate; they maintained the rate. It's easy to maintain a rate that was increased 46% a couple of years ago particularly if you borrow between funds and don't pay it back.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

In other news, the Town of New Hartford Planning Board will meet tomorrow, Monday, March 12, 2012 starting at 5:30 p.m. in the Library. On the agenda will be the discussion of Larry Adler's request to rezone the business park. Agenda now online!

This meeting is open to the public; however, the public is only allowed to listen. The time to speak is at the Public Hearing that is to be held on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at the start of the town board meeting.

We will post an agenda for the Wednesday Town Board Meeting and Public Hearing as soon as it becomes available.

Agenda is now online!

Preferential Treatment or Inadequate Internal Controls?

In the Town of New Hartford, a person can submit an incomplete zone map amendment request, not pay the filing fee until over a week later and no one says a word or even is aware of these oversights???

The town clerk was quoted in the Observer Dispatch article New Hartford Business Park rezoning still in limbo as saying this has never happened before. Hmm...

Town Code is very clear:

...it shall be the duty of the Town Board to act upon such petition for amendment within 90 days of the time such petition is filed by the petitioners with the Town Clerk. Said petition shall be accompanied by the applicable fee in accordance with the fee schedule established and annually reviewed by the Town Board.

So who accepted his zoning request and application without the required fee?

The town attorney made it clear at the January 11, 2012 town board meeting that the application needed modifications...Yet, upon the advice of the town attorney, the town board adopted a resolution to accept it at their January 11, 2012 meeting...and the clock started ticking.

Why did the town attorney recommend board approval of the application knowing that it was incomplete and there are time limits for action to be taken before it is deemed to be an automatic approval?

Those modifications apparently delayed the town clerk in forwarding the completed application to the Planning Board. The application review was on the January 30, 2012 Planning Board meeting agenda, but just before the start of the meeting, at the request of Elis DeLia, Planning Board Chairman, discussion was postponed because he felt that the board members were not given enough time to review it.

************************

This whole project has been filled with missteps from day one.

Looking back in our files we recall a January 2008 press release announcing the plans for the business park:

"New Hartford Business Park collaboration retains jobs and stimulates future economic growth."

The vision for a New Hartford Business Park dates back almost l5 years. Thanks to a team effort by the Town of New Hartford, Oneida County, New Hartford Central School District, Mohawk Valley EDGE, Oneida County Industrial Development Agency and the Cameron Group, LLC that vision is turning into a reality with the development of the New Hartford Business Park.

...This public-private partnership represents a unique effort to retain jobs and stimulate economic growth in the Township and County.

Now, 4 years later, now that the town [i.e., the town taxpayers] has incurred debt for infrastructure to support Mr. Adler's private project, Mr. Adler wants to change his plans for the property that he owns because according to the town attorney, it has become difficult for Mr. Adler to market the site as a business park in this economy.

Is it the job of town taxpayers to see that Mr. Adler's private project succeeds? Apparently some think it is. For some reason, some of the town "leaders" are jumping through hoops to accommodate Mr. Adler. WHY?

We compared Mr. Adler's Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) that was submitted in 2005 to the one he submitted on January 11, 2012.

In particular, in 2005, Mr. Adler stated that the intended use [as a business park] is consistent with the recommended uses in local land use plans. He also stated that the predominant soil type is 15% well drained, 15% moderately drained and 70% poorly drained.

The EAF that he just filed with his zone amendment application says that his new plans for the site are also consistent with uses in the local land use plans, in particular, the 2007 Comprehensive Plan; however, this time he states that the soil type is 50% moderately well drained and 50% poorly drained.

We find it amazing that, according to Mr. Adler, the soil quality has improved since 2005 and also that both a business park and a retail/commercial use are consistent with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan when in fact, the Comprehensive Plan specifically refers to this area as a business park. According to the Comprehensive Plan, retail/commercial development is located on Commercial Drive, along Seneca Turnpike and the also the acreage owned by Lowes.

Eve Holberg of peter j smith & associates presented a report on the Comprehensive Plan Update to the town board in November 2006. Ms. Holberg told those in attendance that once the plan is adopted by the town board it become the town's "bible" regarding how future development will proceed.

Accordingly, the town's code specifically says:

Conformance with Town Comprehensive Plan.

In all cases where the Town Board shall approve an amendment to the Zoning Map, said Board shall find, for reasons fully set in its resolution, such amendment to be in conformity with the Town Comprehensive Plan.

The business park has been in the town plans for some time now; only difference is that it started out as a town owned industrial park and evolved into a privately owned park.

Here is a pdf of the 52 pages documenting Mr. Adler's zone amendment request.

A public hearing will be held at the March 14, 2012 town board meeting.

To be continued...